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.
Without American arms help- Stalin would have had a tougher time. If anything the eastern front might have remained stagnant for some time- with neither side able to gain the initiative.
like WWI?
Quote:
Germany, was bled dry by Operation Barbarossa especially after its summer successes, in late 1941-early 1942.
Barbarossa probably would not have been neccesary since Italy would not have been invaded by the Allies without American support and troops.
Great debate on both sides. Would USSR have been able to get their own independent manufacturing going in time to use it before they used up their manpower advantage? Would Hitler have made additional tactical blunders to aid the allies? Would German ingenuity have given them an edge i.e. jet aircraft? If no bombing campaigns interupt German production, their weaponary advantage (tanks, field artillery) comes into play.
Speaking of Barbarossa, the Italians were so ineffective, maybe the Allies do launch an Italian campaign that allows USSR to make gains on the eastern front.
AND, if the war lasts long enough and Germany developed an effective long range bomber, would he have been dumb enough to bomb US and bring US into war later?
What about the British media campaign to build US sentiment towards joining the war? Would we have entered later even without a Pearl Harbor?
I think US involvement was inevitable. Not question of if, but when. Now the question of when can still drive a fascinating thread.
Well the Russians were much better led in WW II than they were in the Great War. And there was a racial desperation to the Russian cause absent in the Great War.
The Russians had very effective weapons in WW II and were masters of artillery, only the Americans were better gunners.
Well the Russians were much better led in WW II than they were in the Great War. And there was a racial desperation to the Russian cause absent in the Great War.
The Russians had very effective weapons in WW II and were masters of artillery, only the Americans were better gunners.
Pretty much true although Stalin had executed some fine officers before and that was detrimental.
The Russians fought like warriors and nobody can take that away from them. Still, in moments of honesty, I doubt they would want to contemplate fighting the Germans without the other Allies also fighting them. Just as I do not like to think about a quiet Eastern Front with all those extra Wehrmacht and SS divisions coming at us.
Germany had pretty much won the war when they stopped bomb british airfields. After that britain was pretty much fiinished without american supplies. Germany could have held frances for decdes without threat of invasion.Even after the americans entering the british air tactic of night time bombing was achieving little but they couldn't afford the loses.You have to look at the number of tanks,planes and other equipment plus the all important fuel to fuel war in war time production to see what won the wars in both theaters.
Germany had pretty much won the war when they stopped bomb british airfields. After that britain was pretty much fiinished without american supplies. Germany could have held frances for decdes without threat of invasion.Even after the americans entering the british air tactic of night time bombing was achieving little but they couldn't afford the loses.You have to look at the number of tanks,planes and other equipment plus the all important fuel to fuel war in war time production to see what won the wars in both theaters.
Yes:
Remember too taking out petroleum infrastructure (especially refineries) along with railroad switching yards was instrumental in crippling Germany. One can have tanks and airplanes (with pilots) out the Wazoo but all of the above would be useless if immobile.
We shipped them vast numbers of Dodge trucks, and they used them to deliver supplies.
Frankly, had we not helped Russia-and the Nazis been more logical-Stalin would have probably ended up in the Urals, then the commies would have turned on each other and destroyed themselves in purges.
But we saved the Reds, and they were SOOO grateful!
With the defeat of Russia in the East and its descent into revolution and later civil war, the Germans would have had their hands free to either finish the Allies off in the West or at least force a compromise peace that left Germany the hegemonic power in Europe. so yes, they would of lost.
Goddam, is nobody jump in on my side, even as a pure exercise in argument? I need help here.
I get more help defending Bragg.
Actually, I agree with just about all of your points. Clearly, by December of 1941, Germany was not going to defeat Britain. The Brits were at least holding their own in North Africa (and maybe a little more), the RAF was a match for the Luftwaffe and certainly controlled the skies over Britain, and the Royal Navy made an invasion of Britain impossible. They were starting to get pretty good at ASW by this time and Ultra was clearly a tremendous advantage.
With respect to the Russians, time was clearly on their side. They developed a pretty good tank and were able to produce it in massive numbers and their huge manpower resources would have eventually taken it's toll on the Germans without our involvement. The Battle of Kursk, which effectively ended any chance of German victory (although some might argue Stalingrad did that) was accomplished without signficant use of American equipment.
Whether or not the Brits and the Russians could have defeated the Germans is probably open to debate. Clearly the Germans, by December of 1941, weren't going to defeat them.
Sooner or later, a proud Briton will come along and side with you whilst praising Monty, the RAF and the King. They are taught that things were well under control when the US entered the war.
Actually the Brits had much to be proud of before the United States entered the war. They had stopped the 'invincible' German military machine, handed the Luftwaffe its first defeat, and still controlled the seas. Most of that was accomplished while fighting the Germans and the Italians on their own.
Your disparagement of them notwithstanding, they have nothing to apologize for and in fact were in no danger of defeat by the Germans in December of 1941, as had been a real possibility in the summer of 1940. The fact that they were not is due almost totally to their own efforts.
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.
would allies lose ww1 without aid of america
