Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which Allied power did Nazi Germany have a better chance against solo?

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

  • Which Allied power did Nazi Germany have a better chance against solo?

    Which Allied power did Nazi Germany have a better chance against solo?

    Britain/US or the USSR?

    The USSR may or may not have Lend Lease.

    Who has a better chance of defeating or stalemating Nazi Germany if Germany's entire resources were devoted to fighting them and them alone? The US and Britain or the USSR?
    28
    USSR with or without lend lease
    53.57%
    15
    US/Britain
    21.43%
    6
    Germany has an equal chance of defeating/stalemating against either Allied power
    25.00%
    7

  • #2
    I voted "equal chance".

    My preferred answer would have been " none of the above".

    Regards
    Scott Fraser
    Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

    A contentedly cantankerous old fart

    Comment


    • #3
      My option wasn't on the question list:

      The question should have been, was the intervention of the US a game changer - my answer is most certainly, yes.

      The USSR without aid would have lost the major military campaigns against the Axis.

      In the case of the UK, without aid it would have bravely withered on the vine.

      Comment


      • #4
        None of the above. The Germans would have lost one-on-one against any of the major Allied powers: her economy would have imploded if she was not beaten in the field first. Hitler lost the war on September 1, 1939.

        Comment


        • #5
          Moved to Alternate Timelines
          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cmyers1980 View Post
            Which Allied power did Nazi Germany have a better chance against solo?

            Britain/US or the USSR?

            The USSR may or may not have Lend Lease.

            Who has a better chance of defeating or stalemating Nazi Germany if Germany's entire resources were devoted to fighting them and them alone? The US and Britain or the USSR?
            The point is that never Germany's entire resources could be devoted to fight one of the 3 Allied Powers .

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              None of the above. The Germans would have lost one-on-one against any of the major Allied powers: her economy would have imploded if she was not beaten in the field first. Hitler lost the war on September 1, 1939.
              It is interesting that you mentioned the economy. I listened to a programme some years back in which a top German economist and businessman during the 1930s commented that the Third Reich economy was seriously overheating and that it was a case of seriously throttling back or going to war in the hope of reaping the economic spoils of winning that war. The problem being that those assets from the fortune of winning usually in fairly short time start to depleat. Hitler was a radical gambler - so guess what.

              Comment


              • #8
                While I think the odds are against Germany in any case, Germany has a much better chance against the USSR alone than against a British / US alliance.
                First, Germany is a land power as is the USSR. The US is both a land and sea power, and Britain is a sea power.
                That makes the US / Britain almost undefeatable by Germany simply because the Germans can't get at their opponents on their home turf. The US in that mix has the capacity to match or exceed Germany on land too.

                In the USSR - Germany match up they are both land powers so Germany could potentially defeat the USSR in a campaign by overrunning the country.
                Given the original campaign and then adding about 40% more German ground strength and doubling their air power I'd say that Germany stands a pretty good chance of fighting the USSR to a standstill at a minimum.

                Comment


                • #9
                  T.A.G. - I appear to have a Gremlin playing tricks on my PC - it is particularly active during my attempts at communicating with you - I'll have to get my IT professional friend to investigate.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    While I think the odds are against Germany in any case, Germany has a much better chance against the USSR alone than against a British / US alliance.
                    First, Germany is a land power as is the USSR. The US is both a land and sea power, and Britain is a sea power.
                    That makes the US / Britain almost undefeatable by Germany simply because the Germans can't get at their opponents on their home turf. The US in that mix has the capacity to match or exceed Germany on land too.

                    In the USSR - Germany match up they are both land powers so Germany could potentially defeat the USSR in a campaign by overrunning the country.
                    Given the original campaign and then adding about 40% more German ground strength and doubling their air power I'd say that Germany stands a pretty good chance of fighting the USSR to a standstill at a minimum.
                    I don't know about that. German losses in the initial drive from the border to Moscow alone were staggering. By winter 1941 they had pretty much shot their bolt as far as taking out the Soviet Union was concerned. They might have been able to conduct regional actions (Stalingrad), but in hindsight after Moscow it was all denouement: having failed to knock out the USSR, Germany committed itself to a war of attrition against the second greatest industrial power on Earth. Even if Moscow fell (it was a big city, and like London might have "swallowed an army"), the Soviets still had plenty of territory to retreat to.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                      The point is that never Germany's entire resources could be devoted to fight one of the 3 Allied Powers .
                      That is hardly the point.

                      Germany gave all three a tough go when they were fighting as allies.

                      As pointed out Russia was the only land power that was the same as Germany. Neither was that much of a sea power but here the edge is Germany. In AH to many things can be tossed about to come to some half ass conclusion.

                      The UK/CW didn't have the man power or production on it's own. The US had the man power and production but where could they use it without the UK help?
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        BtB, where do you get the data claiming that USSR was the 2nd largest industrial power?
                        Sats from Combined Fleet.com shows it 3rd behind the US and Germany.
                        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                          BtB, where do you get the data claiming that USSR was the 2nd largest industrial power?
                          Mark Harrison's "The Economics of World War II: An Overview"

                          http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...erview1998.pdf

                          Tables 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8. Although the USSR's GDP was roughly the same (and during the middle of the war less) than that of Germany and her occupied territories, the USSR's military production and the size of the force it was able to maintain outstripped those of Germany in nearly every category, with Soviet production being surpassed only by the United States. Furthermore, the USSR only devoted a maximum of 61% of her GNP to the war effort, while Germany was throwing in over 70%. In view of these facts, the combined strength of the whole German war effort, even for a solo war against the Soviet Union, was unsustainable to bring about a favorable conclusion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                            BtB, where do you get the data claiming that USSR was the 2nd largest industrial power?
                            Sats from Combined Fleet.com shows it 3rd behind the US and Germany.
                            That's referencing Paul Kennedy's analysis of the Great Powers circa 1937. A lot changed between then and 1941, especially in the USSR (third 5-year plan).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                              I don't know about that. German losses in the initial drive from the border to Moscow alone were staggering. By winter 1941 they had pretty much shot their bolt as far as taking out the Soviet Union was concerned. They might have been able to conduct regional actions (Stalingrad), but in hindsight after Moscow it was all denouement: having failed to knock out the USSR, Germany committed itself to a war of attrition against the second greatest industrial power on Earth. Even if Moscow fell (it was a big city, and like London might have "swallowed an army"), the Soviets still had plenty of territory to retreat to.
                              Just removing the North African front and the equipment that went there in 1942 gives the Germans for their Southern offensive sufficient replacements to bring all of AGS up to full strength, enough trucks that they don't have to strip AGN and AGC to support AGS and won't have to pull tactical trucks to haul supplies.

                              Just having all AGS panzer divisions at 2 or 3 full strength battalions instead 1 1/2 to 2 is another big advantage.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X