Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Allied Victory Still Possible?

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

  • An Allied Victory Still Possible?

    Not really a what if, more like a could have, which is why i've placed the thread here.

    On the following premise that Japan did not attack the USA and had devoted her strength in the Chinese campaign, and that the USA had remained 'effectively' neutral because of this.

    Could or would the Commonwealth together with the USSR have still defeated Germany?

    Define how you see WW2 developing from 1942 onwards without the involvement of either the USA or Japan?

    Depending on the answers you gave above, define how you see the post war world developing for the rest of the century?

    Regards

    Gaz

  • #2
    If the US had not shipped all of those trucks, jeeps, locomotives, and food to the USSR during the time of its greatest crisis, the outcome may have been drastically different.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gorque View Post
      If the US had not shipped all of those trucks, jeeps, locomotives, and food to the USSR during the time of its greatest crisis, the outcome may have been drastically different.
      Note that in the above premise, this would still be possible... 'effectively neutral'.

      Gaz

      Comment


      • #4
        Without the Far East war, or even the need to worry about its security, the British/Commonwealth would be able to commit itself to the European War. The extra manpower and materiel would probably be committed to a Mediterranean strategy, knocking out Italy slightly earlier than historically. The biggest difference would be in the air war. The RAF would not have sought to engage in a daylight bombing campaign thus skewing Luftwaffe production priorities from where they were historically UNLESS the Soviets started acquiring large numbers of B-17s to mount their own large scale raids - feasible although I'm not sure how it would fit with Soviet strategic thinking.

        Victory would still be probable - the ground war would be costlier and the post-war political map of Europe would be very different.
        Signing out.

        Comment


        • #5
          Without the American assistance England would be finished and that's because the key to Britain's survival was not the heroism of RAF pilots but the convoy routes in the Atlantic. Without American Lend-lease destroyers and corvettes, without the American merchants and raw materials England could no longer produce weapons. Doenitz' U-boats would have won everything. In fact, he came very close to winning even in the face of the American assistance.

          You see, WWII in the west really was won in the Atlantic except historians tend to dismiss it because the chivalrous fighting in the Battle of Britain is a lot more sexy than sitting on a merchant ship puking your guts out...
          Last edited by MonsterZero; 12 Oct 08, 05:17.

          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
          --Frederick II, King of Prussia

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MonsterZero View Post
            Without the American assistance England would be finished and that's because the key to Britain's survival was not the heroism of RAF pilots but the convoy routes in the Atlantic.
            You're comparing apples to oranges here. The Battle of the Atlantic did not get going until after the Battle of Britain. By not losing the BoB, the RAF kept Britain in the war. However, you are correct, winning the Battle of the Atlantic was key.

            Without American Lend-lease destroyers and corvettes, without the American merchants and raw materials England could no longer produce weapons. Doenitz' U-boats would have won everything. In fact, he came very close to winning even in the face of the American assistance.
            From reading earlier posts it looks like lend-lease is still possible, but actual military involvement is not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by michammer View Post
              You're comparing apples to oranges here. The Battle of the Atlantic did not get going until after the Battle of Britain. By not losing the BoB, the RAF kept Britain in the war. However, you are correct, winning the Battle of the Atlantic was key.



              From reading earlier posts it looks like lend-lease is still possible, but actual military involvement is not.
              You are dead right in the latter Mich...

              The premise includes FDR doing everything he can to help us apart from an all out declaration of war on Germany.

              Gaz

              Comment


              • #8
                prehaps in this scenario, the invbasion through Italy now becomes the only option for the commenwealth to take the fight to the european mainland. The british basically owned the med during the fighting there without any outside assistance, once the Afika Corp are defeated, of course, then certainly a invasion through the soft underbelly of europe beckons...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                  Not really a what if, more like a could have, which is why i've placed the thread here. ...
                  Semantics don't change the fact that it's a "What if ..." and has been discussed here: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=65848

                  You phrase your "What if" question a bit better and have nicely defined the parameters for discussoin.
                  Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                    Not really a what if, more like a could have, which is why i've placed the thread here.

                    On the following premise that Japan did not attack the USA and had devoted her strength in the Chinese campaign, and that the USA had remained 'effectively' neutral because of this.

                    Could or would the Commonwealth together with the USSR have still defeated Germany?

                    Define how you see WW2 developing from 1942 onwards without the involvement of either the USA or Japan?

                    Depending on the answers you gave above, define how you see the post war world developing for the rest of the century?

                    Regards

                    Gaz
                    NO!
                    Sail on Britannia.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sawman0311 View Post
                      NO!
                      Please explain.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thread moved to 'Alternate Timelines', with a two week re-direct.
                        "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


                        • #13
                          With no Japan, life is sweet, the winter in russia will still be as deadly to the germans, and a huge amount of our assets are freed up along with room to manuaver.

                          I feel, and not with any sense of arrogance, that germany couldnt beat either the russians or us, with no channel or winter id revise that statement, but as it is we would both stand long and hard.

                          Germany would be like George Foreman against Ali, they would punch and punch and punch, while we rested on the ropes, then pop, there tank runs empty be it there best pilots and soldiers are dead, and we fight german boys, or hitler gets knocked off by his own, Africa would be taken anyway, as would the axis navies be whipped into nothingness, italy would lose interest over time i feel, the thousand bomber raids would take place still, the russians would not run out of men, and monty would find a way, finish.
                          Sealion would have failed..............runs,

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If no Japan or USA in WW2, If America remained 100% neutral. The difference would be; the war would last longer, there would be more death, and Europe would be devastated more so; Germany probably never would have been occupied, however the Allies would have caused the German people over time to overthrow Hitler, one way or another, by assassination or a coup. I believe the war in Russia would have become a ongoing war, with the front slowly diminishing, there would have been no massive pushes forward or backward on the Eastern Front. Italy would have eventually lost its overseas colonies, The Allies probably wouldn't have been able to mount a long campaign onto European soil without American Manpower so thus no invasion of Italy was foreseeable. Also certainly no invasion of France by 44'. However after time if the Allies concentrated on Air Power and just reduced Germany to ruins and in combination Italy being blockaded at sea by the Allies, I believe a Conditional surrender by Germany or a forced Peace treaty would be in order. I believe after time without America or Japan being involved in WW2. The Allies would eventually win. Russia on the other hand would have crumbled sooner, not saying they would have been annexed but it would have been a hard, long fight with Germany without any end in sight.
                            If you sacrifice freedom to obtain some security, you deserve neither and will gain none.

                            There never was a good war or a bad peace.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What would matter most is the RN sinking everything the axis has that floats, and cutting off scandinavia, we got control of Norways merchant fleet when they fell (huge) which plus our own and those freed from other captured nations, made us certain of obtaining supplies, if not from the US, then elsewhere, how much and how reliable is open to debate, but since the US was helping pretty much straight away, and the U-boats had sank ships and killed americans before the japs did, i reckon america would still fill boats, for one price or another.

                              Or if not Canada, south america and the colonies.

                              I feel we could have launched an invasion, albeit later than 44, the empire and commonwealth wasnt short of men, but getting them in the right place is the challenge, the US beaches would have to be taken by others, indians, freed australians via no jap threat, or more brits.
                              Sealion would have failed..............runs,

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X