Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

unconditional surrender

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • unconditional surrender

    i am curious as to how many people here believe that the u.k. & u.s.s.r. could have enforced the terms of unconditional surrender on germany w/o american intervention?? personally i am under the belief that there is NO POSSIBILITY of ivan or tommy smashing into the heart of the german reich w/o uncle sam!!! please post your thoughts. remember that after the war albert speare (excuse spelling) said that the greatest calamity to befall germany was not the retreats in russia but rather the american strategic bombing offensive. also goering stated that w/o the u.s. air force not one enemy soldier would have touched german soil. speare also brought up the interesting point about 20,000 artillery pieces pointed in the air at u.s. planes & how the war could have been changed if instead they were being pointed at russain tanks.

  • #2
    Brit-USSR unconditional surrender

    It is POSSIBLE, though it probably would not have occurred any earlier than mid-late 1946.

    Assuming that the US would have continued Lend-Lease to both the Brits and USSR, both would be able to continue to prosecute the war. A D-Day would probably have occurred at the Pas-de-Calais, since the Brits generally go by the books, and therefore almost certainly would not have considered Normandy. The landing possibly still occurred during Summer 1944, but more likely in Spring 1945, and at great cost, owing to German foreknowledge of the landing site. Allow 9-12 months to pacify France before the drive east. Would the Battle of the Bulge still occur? Would Monty be allowed to attempt Market Garden? The Russians probably take Berlin before the Brits arrive, but much of the German Armed Forces will have headed west, to fight or surrender. What would have been the fate of Germany with only three allies administering it? The Russians get a larger zone, and still "colonize" Eastern Europe, the Iron Curtain just extends farther.
    Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
    (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

    Comment


    • #3
      That is if the Brits actually make it INTO France from Calaise. MOst of the tank and ifantry units were situated there, and Hitler excpected the attack there so would have given it the best men (SS and Panzer-Grenadiers). A beacg assault is tough to pull off even when against conscripted infantry (Normandy), but a beach assault against Waffen-SS Panzers? It would have been a bloodbath, even with the Allied air-superiority.

      And Germany vs Russia with Germany not fighting a two-front war? I doubt Germany would win, but would have lot more manpower and production output to help the armies out, so either more men to lose or more men to halt the Russian counter-offensives. Maybe even a truce along pre-war borders, although Stalin and Hitler both had enough ego to equal the rest of the human population combined, so it would not be likely. I guess either Russia would complete the task alone (And REALLY weak) or would reach an agreement with Germany.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Brit-USSR unconditional surrender

        Originally posted by hogdriver
        It is POSSIBLE, though it probably would not have occurred any earlier than mid-late 1946.

        Assuming that the US would have continued Lend-Lease to both the Brits and USSR, both would be able to continue to prosecute the war. A D-Day would probably have occurred at the Pas-de-Calais, since the Brits generally go by the books, and therefore almost certainly would not have considered Normandy. The landing possibly still occurred during Summer 1944, but more likely in Spring 1945, and at great cost, owing to German foreknowledge of the landing site. Allow 9-12 months to pacify France before the drive east. Would the Battle of the Bulge still occur? Would Monty be allowed to attempt Market Garden? The Russians probably take Berlin before the Brits arrive, but much of the German Armed Forces will have headed east, to fight or surrender. What would have been the fate of Germany with only three allies administering it? The Russians get a larger zone, and still "colonize" Eastern Europe, the Iron Curtain just extends farther.
        I think there is a serious false presumption here.

        I'll start off by saying that it was MAYBE possible for the Soviets and the Brits to have held out and won without US manpower; possible but highly unlikely.

        The British would have been very unlikely to have attempted an invasion of France without US troops taking part. The US, by 1945, was providing up to 2/3 of all Allied strength on the Western Front. The British would have committed their forces to the peripheral campaigns i.e. Africa, Italy... with the strong possibility of a move against Norway; although a large portion of the available forces would have been required for homeland defence.
        At the various conferences held by the "Big Three" during the war, there runs an undercurrent of British hesitation in committing to an attack on mainland Europe in favor of a Mediterranean strategy. Churchill's "soft underbelly".
        Even in the days approaching 6 June, 1944, Churchill and Brooke voiced serious doubts about the possibilities of success in their diaries.

        The British COULD POSSIBLY have landed on the coast of France; probably in '45, but I doubt that they would have gotten very far from the beaches.
        The only slim hope for an Allied success, given this scenario, would be the Soviet Union.
        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

        Comment


        • #5
          So let's assume Torch never occurred then with the US participation. Would the British and Free French had invaded?Would the German AK have faired better against the 8th Army? The control of the Med and of North Africa was crucial to the Sicily invasion and Italy. Would the British have invaded France? I say no. Look at the logistics it took for Gold, Juno, Sword, Utah and Omaha beaches. The stiff resistance at Omaha. If they would have invaded at the Pas de calais as some suggests, where the Germans were expecting the attack, I seriously believe it would have been another Dieppe. Would Germany have had the resources and production to produce tanks, infantry and aircrafts? Not sure if they could have followed the Soviets toe to toe, but the war would have dragged on. And let's not forget, the Germans had jet aircrafts by the end, had Tiger II's and working on the Maus. And finally, they did have an advanced program of heavy water, so the delaying of the end of the war might just have allowed the Germans to develop the A bomb. If they did, 5, 10 or 20,000 tanks would have made no difference. My opinion.
          http://canadiangenealogyandresearch.ca

          Soviet and Canadian medal collector!

          Comment


          • #6
            By D-Day the Russians had already won the war the only question was when it would end. The British would never have tried a cross channel invasion if the U.S. had not been involved since it was only us that wanted it. Churchill always wanted to pursue the British traditional strategy of attacking the periphery. I once heard that Churchill’s plan was to cut the Germans off from their oil and the Russian’s off from the German’s.
            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: unconditional surrender

              Originally posted by danke
              i am curious as to how many people here believe that the u.k. & u.s.s.r. could have enforced the terms of unconditional surrender on germany w/o american intervention?? personally i am under the belief that there is NO POSSIBILITY of ivan or tommy smashing into the heart of the german reich w/o uncle sam!!! please post your thoughts. remember that after the war albert speare (excuse spelling) said that the greatest calamity to befall germany was not the retreats in russia but rather the american strategic bombing offensive. also goering stated that w/o the u.s. air force not one enemy soldier would have touched german soil. speare also brought up the interesting point about 20,000 artillery pieces pointed in the air at u.s. planes & how the war could have been changed if instead they were being pointed at russain tanks.
              Without US liberty ships, UK would have been starved out. Without US M3 Lee tanks, UK would have run out of tanks in N. Africa vs Rommel. Would have gotten ugly after that.

              Without US trucks, tanks, and food, USSR would have bled to death. Would have gotten even uglier than it really was.

              Without US bombers, German industrial capacity would have continued unabated.

              Don't know if it would have been enough, but sure would have made things interesting!
              Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
              Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


              "Never pet a burning dog."

              RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
              http://www.mormon.org
              http://www.sca.org
              http://www.scv.org/
              http://www.scouting.org/

              Comment


              • #8
                I think the Russians would of been screwed if the campaigns in Africa paid off for Germany and the Brits were to weak to do anything.
                PvtJohnson

                Hold your ground men, hold your ground!

                Don't be a fool, wrap your tool.

                If your not mad enough to bare nuckel box, your not mad at all.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So many assumptions. Without Lend-Lease there is no defeat of Germany for many years, if at all. The Russians wouldn't have the logistics to mount a serious counter-offensive in the East, the British would struggle to survive at all. With L-L, the Soviets would still find it hard going since without a real threat of invasion from the West, the Germans can keep the cream of the Army permanently in the East. As has already been said, the British would not, and probably could not, mount an invasion into France so North Africa, the Med and Italy is probably where the main focus of attention would be. Maybe backed by large scale raids into Norway. In the end I think the Soviets would have overcome the Nazis and it is entirely possible that France and Italy would have gone Communist (remember Italy nearly did historically anyway with the CIA rather notoriously 'assisting' the anti-Communist campaign).

                  So in answer to the question posed, had the US maintained 'Lend-Lease' the Soviets could have imposed unconditional surrender on Germany. I doubt the British could have influenced them one way or the other.
                  Signing out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    As many others here, I think the question boils down to the question of could the Russians have beat the Germans alone. If the vantage point would be before the war started, then given the huge numbers advantage of Russia I would say sure. However after the catastrophic failures by Russians during Barbarossa it is questionable whether they might have held out without US aid. By D-Day the end result of the war was a certainty and the only remaining issues to be determined were when the war ends and who will remain behind the iron curtain.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      With L-L only, Germany stills falls to the Soviet Union while the UK et al kick them out of the Med, keep them busy indirectly in France (and the West) and move up through Italy... Soviets take Berlin in '46 and then establish the Iron Curtain at the Rhine to the Adriatic while a combined Franco-Anglo force cleans out France and the low countries.
                      If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What assumption do we make in the Pacific? If the US and Great Britain are at war with Japan and Germany fails to declare war on the US, the US would concentrate on defeating Japan. I think you would have wound up with a negotiated peace on both fronts. The nightmare scenario would be a Soviet Europe. The USSR probably would have eventually overwhelmed the Nazis and possibly occupied France and the rest of continental Europe.

                        As far as North Africa - I think the British would have defeated the Nazis there without us. They may have tried to invade Italy with Commonwealth forces, but I think that would have been a stalemate, at least until the Soviets started to threaten Germany.

                        The US and Great Britain may have wound up in a Hot War against the USSR in the late '40s.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tigersqn
                          I think there is a serious false presumption here.

                          I'll start off by saying that it was MAYBE possible for the Soviets and the Brits to have held out and won without US manpower; possible but highly unlikely.
                          Have to emphatically disagree. Though the human cost would have been extreme, they would have prevailed over a nation that was being robbed of the regions from which the bulk of its vital resources came, that was teetering on the edge of starvation, that had a absolutely demoralized populace and an officer corps that no longer felt any loyalty to the Nazi regime. In a similar vein, the Russians could have fought all they way to Berlin without a Western Front, but at a horrifying human cost (albeit one Stalin would gladly have paid).

                          The British would have been very unlikely to have attempted an invasion of France without US troops taking part. The US, by 1945, was providing up to 2/3 of all Allied strength on the Western Front. The British would have committed their forces to the peripheral campaigns i.e. Africa, Italy... with the strong possibility of a move against Norway; although a large portion of the available forces would have been required for homeland defence.
                          Perhaps not. Rather, they would probably have dispatched a veritable torrent of commando teams to work with the Maquis to paralyze the Nazi logistical system and to snipe at the soldiers. As affairs degenerated at home, entire units may well have left for home, under orders or not. It would be simply a question of whether the officers and soldiers felt French territory was worth dying for anymore.

                          At the various conferences held by the "Big Three" during the war, there runs an undercurrent of British hesitation in committing to an attack on mainland Europe in favor of a Mediterranean strategy. Churchill's "soft underbelly".
                          Even in the days approaching 6 June, 1944, Churchill and Brooke voiced serious doubts about the possibilities of success in their diaries.
                          For whatever reason, Churchill did indeed chafe at the thought of a landing in France. In rather a sick joke, the 'soft underbelly' withstood the hammer blows of the Allies quite well. Despite his usually stubborn determination to strike the Nazis when and where possible, I have seen no effort to explain his strange reluctance to land in France.

                          The British COULD POSSIBLY have landed on the coast of France; probably in '45, but I doubt that they would have gotten very far from the beaches.
                          The only slim hope for an Allied success, given this scenario, would be the Soviet Union.
                          One way or another, the Nazis were doomed to fall - the only aspect subject to debate is the cost, both for the Germans and for the Allies.
                          Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
                          (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            To me, American intervention includes Lendlease. The British would not have survived without it. Without the British there to worry about, all resources would have been against the USSR. The USSR then would not have had the time recover from the initial onslaught, without Lendlease.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by danke
                              i am curious as to how many people here believe that the u.k. & u.s.s.r. could have enforced the terms of unconditional surrender on germany w/o american intervention??
                              Since Unconditional Surrender was a policy originated by Roosevelt, the question of Russia and the U.K. enforcing the policy without the U.S. is moot.
                              "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X