Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the Western Allies defeated the German's without the Soviets

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

  • Could the Western Allies defeated the German's without the Soviets

    My answer is yes. Let's for some reason say that Barbarossa does not happen. Then what?. The Axis still have to garrison huge forces in the east to stop Stalin from getting greedy. North Africa was completely a Western Victory. Italy was too. The German's cant apply their full force and the Allies the Luftwaffe. The commerical agreement with the Soviets was hurting the Germans and by 1942 they were most likely unable to continue it. Japan is never going to truly win and by 1946 millions if not tens of millions were going to die to starvation alone from the blockade and strategic bombings that the Allies were doing .Germany never defeated the American's except at Kasserine Pass. Strategic Bombing did serious damage to the German economy and the German's would have to either expand or die. I will go further on this topic later. So guy's what do you think. Can the Allies defeat the Axis without the Soviets.Yes the Allies are going to take alot more casualties but in the end they still win (Because they did those Soviets just ran at tanks )

  • #2
    It's not going to work.

    a) WW2 would've been much longer without Soviet involvement - and there's nothing to stop Stalin from striking west as Europe goes up in flames.

    b) Germany attacked the S.U. in 1941, but one or the other was going to strike sooner or later - just because they had carved Poland up between them, didn't make them friends. Hitler and Stalin despised each other personally and politically, and one or the other was going to make a move, Hitler just went first.
    Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

    Comment


    • #3
      Two-thirds of German casualties in WWII were inflicted by the Soviets. Add in the commitment of comparable resources to the Eastern front. For my money, that answers the question with a "No".

      Comment


      • #4
        Again in this scenario 1/2 of the German Army is going to be in the East. Hitler is stupid but isnt that stupid. The entire Whermacht is not going to just go just to Western Europe

        Comment


        • #5
          I suppose by out producing planes an bombing them into oblivion an in time the Nazi state would have imploded

          Originally posted by Lionhearti View Post
          Germany never defeated the American's except at Kasserine Pass.
          That was a crippled Germany who had lost millions of soldiers an thousands of tanks fighting on multiple fronts they had nothing an still manage to be a major pain in the ass
          You better drop your flag an withdraw.

          Comment


          • #6
            With the Americans involved, yes. If Hitler didn't get soft on the British Empire, which he did because he respected the BE as a political power, then things merely would have been uglier for Western Allies instead of the Soviet Union as far as devastation and casualties go.

            Provided Germany devoted all of its power and resources to conquer the British Isles, and succeeded, The British would have merely went over to Canada to continue the war effort and America would have eventually been compelled to lend its support directly as well.

            Casualties would been devastating for the Western Allies and Germany and the Soviets would have eventually started taking weakly defended German territories, having Germany been fully focused on the Western Allies.

            If the Soviets in theory didn't interrupt in the conflict (highly unlikely!), I think that the Allies would have eventually gained the upper hand. With America's industrial power and the pockets of territory of the British Empire lending its support from around the globe we would have seen the Western Allies out producing men and equipment than that of Germany. Also, it would have helped if the Western Allies learned a bit of the German war strategy and tactics and fully grasped the causes of their defeats in France and how to counter it.

            Comment


            • #7
              NO germany nazi ally of the USSR would have invaded the united states through alaska usa is envahisl'ensemble of four months in the United Kingdom alone would have continued to fight!

              Comment


              • #8
                Hitler hoped to make peace with Great Britain after the fall of France. He wanted peace with the BE so he could fulfill what he called his life's aim and conquer his lebensraum in the East.
                Will no one tell me what she sings?--
                Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
                For old, unhappy, far-off things,
                And battles long ago:
                -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lionhearti View Post
                  My answer is yes. Let's for some reason say that Barbarossa does not happen. Then what?. The Axis still have to garrison huge forces in the east to stop Stalin from getting greedy. North Africa was completely a Western Victory. Italy was too. The German's cant apply their full force and the Allies the Luftwaffe. The commerical agreement with the Soviets was hurting the Germans and by 1942 they were most likely unable to continue it. Japan is never going to truly win and by 1946 millions if not tens of millions were going to die to starvation alone from the blockade and strategic bombings that the Allies were doing .Germany never defeated the American's except at Kasserine Pass. Strategic Bombing did serious damage to the German economy and the German's would have to either expand or die. I will go further on this topic later. So guy's what do you think. Can the Allies defeat the Axis without the Soviets.Yes the Allies are going to take alot more casualties but in the end they still win (Because they did those Soviets just ran at tanks )
                  Oddly enough, Britain could have defeated Germany alone due to their respective economies.
                  Actually Germany would have defeated itself due to its economy, and that is before Soviet and USA involvement. Iirc, Tooze estimates 1947.

                  Strategic bombing did shorten the war, but a smarter campaign could have ended it even earlier. With no Eastern Front, D-Day becomes next to impossible, not without the US suffering WW1 casaulties at least. Therefore smarter bombing would be needed.

                  In the end, if Britain can persuade the US not to invade, the bomb will become available, and the war will end no later than August 1945, worst case scenario just about.
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No, the UK needed all the Allies it could find. The Civilian Government had already decided to avoid casualties as much as possible. That meant other countries would need to supply the Infantry needed.

                    Pruitt
                    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In all of WWII, the US only mobilized some 90 plus Infantry, Armored and Marine Divisions to fight both in the Pacific and the ETO. Original pre-war plans called for over 200 US Divisions to be formed. In short, the full weight of America's manpower was never fully tapped and utilized. Instead, the US relied on its Allies to make up the shortfall in manpower numbers. In addition, a large number of US strategic and tactical air forces were created to fight in all the theatres of war. Lastly, the largest merchant marine fleet and "Blue Water" Navy was built, the likes of which the world had never before seen. By the end of WWII, the US Navy had more ships in commission than all of its allies and enemies combined.

                      In my own family's experience. I had two grandfathers who had strategic deferments because of their value to the war effort, but I'm sure that had push come to shove, they too would have been called up for service.
                      "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        Oddly enough, Britain could have defeated Germany alone due to their respective economies.
                        Actually Germany would have defeated itself due to its economy, and that is before Soviet and USA involvement. Iirc, Tooze estimates 1947.

                        Strategic bombing did shorten the war, but a smarter campaign could have ended it even earlier. With no Eastern Front, D-Day becomes next to impossible, not without the US suffering WW1 casaulties at least. Therefore smarter bombing would be needed.

                        In the end, if Britain can persuade the US not to invade, the bomb will become available, and the war will end no later than August 1945, worst case scenario just about.
                        Nick, you're forgetting that Britain was also bankrupted before US entry into the war.
                        Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                        Prayers.

                        BoRG

                        http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          John,

                          If you combine independent Regiments, Brigades and Battalions of Infantry, Armor, Tank Destroyer and Engineers, you would get an equivalent of about 20 more divisions. They did disband the 2nd Cavalry and one other division, so the total ended up 88 divisions.

                          Both the Royal Navy and US Navy had much larger fleets than they probably needed. The Strategic Air Forces of both countries and the US B-29 program siphoned away manpower that their Ground Forces needed. The Allied contingents all hit a glass ceiling on manpower reserves. India and Africa could have been further tapped, but both regions had serious limitations. You can teach an Indian Peasant to drive a truck, but he will still think if a Bullock Cart can make it through, so will a truck!

                          Even with the Romanians changing sides, the Red Army was facing manpower problems. The space they covered on the Eastern Front kept getting larger and most of the males of military age had been called up. That is why they armed Concentration Camp inmates and sent them after the Germans. The Polish Army they set up also helped. I also think they armed the Czech and Slovak POW's.

                          I think the victory was a close enough thing s it was. Why make it easy for the Germans?

                          Pruitt
                          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Added to the above, if the US mobilses 200 divisions the manpower can only come from industry and production will be seriously effected. US production was what it was because a lot of the male manpower stayed to work in the various factories, on the farms and shipyards.

                            More importantly, democracies do not like blood baths. France Britain and the United States were not going to commit themselves to a land war where they faced casualty roles in the millions. The US public was shocked enough by battles such as Tarawa and Saipan. A steady diet of that would have been politically impossible.

                            The air war would have drastically changed as well. The Germans could raise a smaller army for the defence of Europe, deploy it in depth and redirect more resources into a strong air force with more focus on R&D and keeping up with allied advances. Stalin would likely not attack a Germany that has not already been heavily engaged on the ground and drained of reserves. At best the Allies could hope to isolate Europe by sea while the air forces slowly and painfully attrition the LW to death and made the dropping of atomic bombs on Germany possible.
                            The Purist

                            Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Salinator View Post
                              Nick, you're forgetting that Britain was also bankrupted before US entry into the war.
                              And yet we survive .
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X