re: Would the Allies have won WWII without America getting involved?

quote:

---

Had Japan focused on the USSR instead of the US, I think the Axis may have pulled it off.

---

How many Japanese do you think there were? They're great on the water/near the water - they would have gone, at most, 200 miles inside the USSR.

The Russians had nothing but time and bodies. Once Hitler got bogged down in Russia it was over. The scope of the problem was enormous for Germany - an analogue is the U.S. Civil War - the Confederates looked unstoppable for 2 years. The Germans looked unstoppable for 2 years. The Japanese looked unstoppable (once they engaged the U.S.) for about 6 months.

Why? They were on a war footing first, they were motivated, martial cultures completely ready to fight on day one. But, they took on their industrial and numerical superiors. Stalin, for all of his deserved reputation as a thug, was an extremely savvy and adroit strategic thinker. Once he made the decision to trade space for time, while he relocated his industrial capacity to the relative security of the Ural Mountains, he had made the strategic move that would win the war in the East. He only had to hold his major population centers and strategic road networks - he didn't have to defend every square inch of land - Russia had plenty of land. They pursued a scorched Earth program to lengthen the German supply lines.

By the time the tide had turned at Stalingrad, the Russians were cranking out about 1000 T-34s per month - the Germans had a fine tank, the Panther (Panzer Mk VI), but they could only make about 60 of those per month, and even fewer Tigers. 16 to 1.

And we haven't even gotten to the manpower advantage - over 3 to 1.

quote:

---

an analogue is the U.S. Civil War - the Confederates looked unstoppable for 2 years. The Germans looked unstoppable for 2 years.

---

One side rounded up black people and the other one rounded up Jews.

You have to wonder if the Germans could have held off the russians if the US wasn't putting troops not he ground in the west.

I think they would at least have and a stalemate with Russia.

quote:

---

Take away American supplies, thd Soviets crumble and Germsny wins. Simply put, without American supplies the Red Arny would have been barefoot and starving and virtually devoid of any motor transport.

---

While I don't fully agree, there is a lot of support for this argument. We provided trucks and food, a whole host of things that helped keep the USSR in the fight before we ever formally entered the war - ditto for the U.K.

No. The British Empire would have gone bankrupt and been forced to accept a negotiated peace. The war between Germany, and its allies, against the Soviet Union would have been quite prolonged. The Germans would have had more men and material at their disposal, and the Soviets would not have had the logistical network that American lend lease supplies afforded them. I am not certain that this combination would have been decisive as the Germans also had two major flaws to their war effort, but I think the Soviets would have sought a negotiated peace. The bigger question is would Hitler have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender?

The first was Nazi policies with respect to the populations of occupied territories. Treating the local inhabitants as untermensch required significant resources to control the population. A more liberal approach, and the Germans would have found a more cooperative population. There were more than enough people who would have gladly welcomed the Germans as liberators, but the Germans behaved as conquerors in accordance with Nazi ideology. The second was Hitler's role in German military operations. His ideas were occasionally brilliant, but they were more often disastrous for the German military. He had some of the best military minds of the generation available, but he did not allow them to use their talents.

The outcome of the war between Germany and the Soviet Union would have been influenced by the terms of any peace between the Germans and the British. The Germans would most likely have gotten concessions that opened the oil fields of the Middle East to them via the Suez Canal and Italian ports. This would have altered the conditions that influenced German strategic planning in 1942 that led to the disaster at Stalingrad. Who knows what would have happened without that defeat for the Germans.

Another thing to consider is it was American supplies of things like boots, spam, and Stutabaker trucks that allowed the soviets to focus their production on things like Tanks and sub machine guns. Take away the American supplies and you'd also take away a big chunk of soviet made weapons as well.

quote:

---

Not to mention locomotives, clothing, ammo of all kinds and even Sherman tanks. The Russians downplay all of this. Their supply system, like the Germans, was very short of motorized vehicles.

---

Not to steer this too far afield, but the purpose of these threads is to build evidence we need a Military/History board, right?

Anyway, Darth and Wolfhound probably know this but do some of you other guys know why the U.S. was so far ahead of most countries from a motorization standpoint?

The U.S. Army Reserve. Why? After WWI when we had the formal set up - similar to what we have today - with reservists (and guardsmen, for that matter) - showing up for duty (we call it "Battle Assembly" - the Guard typically calls is "Drill") at irregular intervals posed some problems. Even with the growth of combat vehicles - the embryonic tank, most armies still relied largely on horses as prime movers for personnel and commodities from railhead to assembly areas (and often, beyond).

Well - horses have to be fed, watered and groomed all the time. In theory, trucks and cars only need fuel and maintenance when they're actually used - on a per hour or per mile basis.

Plus we had Detroit, which was all too happy to have a huge new rich fleet customer. Boom. The more you know.

Russia would have been able to take over Germany without us. We just sped up this process with DDay opening up a two front war and supplying the allies for years. Germans were spread too thin. Now Japan, who knows. That would have been interesting.

Hell, the Germans sort of run the EU now.

quote:

---

Britain would have held it's own. Germany didn't have the navy to mount a land invasion of Britain.

---

Probably not. They had the submarine force to surround and isolate the island had they committed the proper resources. Without the U. S. getting involved, the difference in German resources would have been astronomical. They wouldn't have needed a ground invasion...just cut the island's supply lines and leave them to wither.