Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is something I've been thinking about lately. The Soviets defeated the Nazis at Kursk in mid-'43. The Germans had been in retreat from then on. The US daylight strategic bombing and operation Point Blank (and "big week") had largely broken the Luftwaffe. British night bombing did some damage on facilities as well. It would seem as if the Germans were "defeated" by that time, it was just a matter of time to finish them off and until they recognized it.
So, was the D-Day invasion and the Western Front even necessary? Could the US and Great Britain have stayed off the continent and let the Soviets defeat Germany on their own, in conjunction with our arial and naval support? Was it necessary to sacrifice the American and British lives?
2nd question. Had that occurred, and had the Soviets been the ones to "liberate" Europe alone...what would have been the aftermath? Would the "Iron Curtain" have been at the coast? Would the USSR have been more powerful, or would they have fallen sooner in trying to subdue the conquered nations?
The likely outcome without invasion and pressure from the west would have been something between an armistice, negotiated peace or even "permanent war" a la Korea. Germany was too powerful for the Soviets to do more than push back to their own territory (well, and all that they had conquered west of Poland).
It took both to crush the regime. And the western allies never could have done it alone, either.
The likely outcome without invasion and pressure from the west would have been something between an armistice, negotiated peace or even "permanent war" a la Korea. Germany was too powerful for the Soviets to do more than push back to their own territory (well, and all that they had conquered west of Poland).
It took both to crush the regime. And the western allies never could have done it alone, either.
I doubt a negotiated peace was likely without a coup on the German side. The Soviets weren't likely to give up unless they had the Nazis under their heels after what was done to them. OTOH they didn't want to bleed themselves dry for the benefit of the West, so a non-Nazi proposal for a negotiated peace with some concessions might be possible.
In the absence of a truce I think the Red Army was fully capable of taking Berlin, assuming they received the same level of material support from the West. The forces the Nazis used to fight the Western allies could delay defeat by a couple of years at most, but not turn the tide. Remember in 42-43 the Red Army faced the Wehrmacht without a significant second front and they've only gotten stronger since.
Well, if you throw in enough Ifs you can plausibly claim anything.
I read the question as "What if the western allies basically never showed up for the heavy fighting." And then, some kind of stalemate, maybe over most of a decade, would seem the most likely outcome.
If the west did everything except send significant amounts of ground forces... your scenario is as likely as any other.
This is something I've been thinking about lately. The Soviets defeated the Nazis at Kursk in mid-'43. The Germans had been in retreat from then on. The US daylight strategic bombing and operation Point Blank (and "big week") had largely broken the Luftwaffe. British night bombing did some damage on facilities as well. It would seem as if the Germans were "defeated" by that time, it was just a matter of time to finish them off and until they recognized it.
So, was the D-Day invasion and the Western Front even necessary? Could the US and Great Britain have stayed off the continent and let the Soviets defeat Germany on their own, in conjunction with our arial and naval support? Was it necessary to sacrifice the American and British lives?
2nd question. Had that occurred, and had the Soviets been the ones to "liberate" Europe alone...what would have been the aftermath? Would the "Iron Curtain" have been at the coast? Would the USSR have been more powerful, or would they have fallen sooner in trying to subdue the conquered nations?
The Soviet's were the ones asking for a second front, it was just as much a political necessity as a military one as besides the Soviets wanting that front opened, we also had allies requesting liberation of there countries (France, Netherlands, etc). Not all decisions are strictly limited to military need - So yes it was necessary.
Of course by that time we had already gained a foothold in Italy and landing were made on Southern France. And also of course we had our naval and air force offenses so it's not always a matter of fighting a land-based front.
Could USSR defeated Germany (combined of course with our offenses by airforce and sea, our equipment assistance, and the front in Italy)? Yes probably, but I would not even want to venture a guess in the added cost in lives and destruction, extension of the holocaust, and extension in years of the war. Iron Curtain is only one component. Like many of these historic 'what if' questions, you are asking the wrong questions.
So, was the D-Day invasion and the Western Front even necessary? Could the US and Great Britain have stayed off the continent and let the Soviets defeat Germany on their own, in conjunction with our arial and naval support? Was it necessary to sacrifice the American and British lives?
Yup.
Our purpose in that war was to save the world from tyranny and oppression.
For some strange reason you don't seem to include the Soviet Union among those oppressors and tyrants.
This is the key to your confusion.
Where do you get the silly notion that WWII was only against Germany, Japan, and Italy?
When the Soviet Union (an oppressive tyranny) was attacked by Germany (an even worse oppressive tyranny), the enemy of our enemy was our friend. It was necessary to defeat the worst of them. If the other tyranny wanted to help defeat Germany, that was a good thing.
But to think that an oppressive tyranny would remain our friend after the worst tyranny was gone, is ludicrous.
Did you think that being attacked by a worse tyranny than themselves, made their tyranny and oppression somehow "OK"?
We formed a military alliance with the USSR for the purpose of defeating an even worse tyranny. Once Nazi Germany was gone, we went right back to opposing the government of the Soviet Union and the oppression it had imposed on their people - none of which had stopped.
You need this explained to you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
