Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Would the Allies have lost WW2 if...

chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:48:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

Hard to say, and I don't think there is any plausible scenario we can paint where they wouldn't become involved. Russia being engaged with Germany also freed Japan to attack the United States, which means that an uninvolved USSR means a more involved USA in the European theater.

Hitler also had no plausible way to invade the British Isles, not to mention his navy and Luftwaffe were getting absolutely hammered.

I believe it would have protracted the war, but the Germans would have lost with the introduction of the Atomic Bomb.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:49:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.

Do you honestly think the USA would have allowed Great Britain to fall?
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:05:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:49:20 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.

Do you honestly think the USA would have allowed Great Britain to fall?

The USA had started to give aid to the British from early in the war, that is true. However I do not believe they had significant military strength prior to mobilization in 1942 so the question is whether they could prevent GB failing. The Battle of Britain in 1940 was a close run thing. If Germany committed more resources to the battle what would the outcome be? If Britain was out what happens in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, India etc? How could D-Day be launched without a base in GB? Who would get the British Empire and all her forces? Could China be supplied to keep them in the war if India belongs to Japan? How well would USA forces do without British intelligence?
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:13:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:48:41 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

Hard to say, and I don't think there is any plausible scenario we can paint where they wouldn't become involved. Russia being engaged with Germany also freed Japan to attack the United States, which means that an uninvolved USSR means a more involved USA in the European theater.

Hitler also had no plausible way to invade the British Isles, not to mention his navy and Luftwaffe were getting absolutely hammered.

I believe it would have protracted the war, but the Germans would have lost with the introduction of the Atomic Bomb.

I agree... seeing that the ideological war against judeo bolshevism and expansion eastward was hitlers main impetus for his aggression, I really see no way that Russia would not be involved. Even the invasion of Poland involved Russian acquisition of territory. I see no way Italy would have made the aggressive moves they made without Russian attention being focused on Germany. To eliminate russia from the picture is to ignore Hilters whole world view.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 10:10:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

There are so many ifs when it comes to WW2 that more than once I've seen it referred to as the "what if" war. What if the Japanese hadn't surprised the US at Pearl Harbor? What if the US Navy had lost at Midway? What if Hitler hadn't been dumb enough to get his best army trapped in Stalingrad?

There is really no telling what would've happened if Russia hadn't become involved in WW2. The Battle for Britain had already played itself out, showing that Germany couldn't invade England. England still had the world's greatest navy at the time, and a lot of colonies and allies. It would have certainly caused the war to last longer - probably a lot longer - but in the end I don't think there would have ever been any "thousand-year-reich."
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:10:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:05:36 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:49:20 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.

Do you honestly think the USA would have allowed Great Britain to fall?

The USA had started to give aid to the British from early in the war, that is true. However I do not believe they had significant military strength prior to mobilization in 1942 so the question is whether they could prevent GB failing. The Battle of Britain in 1940 was a close run thing. If Germany committed more resources to the battle what would the outcome be? If Britain was out what happens in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, India etc? How could D-Day be launched without a base in GB? Who would get the British Empire and all her forces? Could China be supplied to keep them in the war if India belongs to Japan? How well would USA forces do without British intelligence?

As a matter of fact, I think Germany had committed ALL of her resources available already in the Battle of Britain. The rest of her assets are ground forces divisions which couldn't be committed to aerial and naval engagement by anyway.

Let's say if the British had failed by some means (most likely a starvation from submarine warfare). History has proven that Germany had no strength to conquer Egypt, leave alone India. The US involvement in the Africa Campaign is minimum and I don't think the outcome will change otherwise with or without your support or the British mainland, most of the troops come from India anyway so even if the Royal Navy is defeated in the Atlantic, I think there will be minimum effect on the middle-east theatre.

Japan on the other hands, has even more limited resources than Germany and it is a well established fact that the IJN and IJA have far too few of a forces to conquer India. Their strategy was to further humiliate the British Empire in hope that the native Indian would overthrow its British rulers and knocked India out of the war. In a sense, they have succeed but the India independent arrived far too late to affect the outcome of the War. Although arguably, without US involvement, the Japanese would "stay in South East Asia for another hundred years". China might have been split and not wholesomely conquered by Maoist communist.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 8:46:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:10:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
....................

The USA had started to give aid to the British from early in the war, that is true. However I do not believe they had significant military strength prior to mobilization in 1942 so the question is whether they could prevent GB failing. The Battle of Britain in 1940 was a close run thing. If Germany committed more resources to the battle what would the outcome be? If Britain was out what happens in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, India etc? How could D-Day be launched without a base in GB? Who would get the British Empire and all her forces? Could China be supplied to keep them in the war if India belongs to Japan? How well would USA forces do without British intelligence?

As a matter of fact, I think Germany had committed ALL of her resources available already in the Battle of Britain. The rest of her assets are ground forces divisions which couldn't be committed to aerial and naval engagement by anyway.

In September 1940 Hitler abandoned any attempt at invading Britain. This is recorded in messages sent by the Fuehrer. So production resources focused on the preparation for Barbarossa and was diverted from aircraft production, so I disagree that the axis put all its resources into the Battle of Britain. Anyway if we assume Britain surrenders the big question is under what terms does the surrender occur? Hitler would want all of the resources of the British empire and her armed forces. There would of course be resistance to just handing this over but seeing as the Nazi's would quite happily arrest the relatives of any who tried to oppose this happening this might well force those overseas to cooperate as well as those in Britain.

Let's say if the British had failed by some means (most likely a starvation from submarine warfare). History has proven that Germany had no strength to conquer Egypt, leave alone India. The US involvement in the Africa Campaign is minimum and I don't think the outcome will change otherwise with or without your support or the British mainland, most of the troops come from India anyway so even if the Royal Navy is defeated in the Atlantic, I think there will be minimum effect on the middle-east theatre.

You are factually inaccurate here. The majority of force personnel in the allied desert force were British nationals. The other nationals there were all in the British army or the British Empire army (with the exception of an independant Polish Division, but they had British equipment and supplies). Indian divisions were present but they all had one British Brigade to two Indian Brigades and had British staff commanders. These forces were in the desert because the British put them there. How could these units function without British supplies? I can't see any proper resistance being mounted without Britain being in the war. The middle east, with all its oil reserves had shown pro-Nazi sympathy at the beginning of the war. British forces had to quell a rebellion in Iraq for example. With Britain out I think the Italians would stroll into Egypt and beyond and be welcomed as liberators. An Italian victory of this magnitude might well have kept Mussolini in power through the war as well.

India had been under a British Dictatorship since the early 19th Century. Wealth was clearly being taken from the subcontinent and the people were being paid poorly for their labour. Several rebellions occurred over the years and were put down ruthlessly. Gandhi started calling for independence in 1930 if not earlier and was very influential by the 1940's. With Britain gone I don't see how India remains under British rule. (French Colonial territories sided with Free France and resisted Vichy France rule but only with significant help from the British.) I think it inevitable that India would be in turmoil with the sudden loss of governance, especially the rigid governance enforced by the empire. This could be exploited to let Japanese forces in, who again might even be seen as liberators initially.

Japan on the other hands, has even more limited resources than Germany and it is a well established fact that the IJN and IJA have far too few of a forces to conquer India. Their strategy was to further humiliate the British Empire in hope that the native Indian would overthrow its British rulers and knocked India out of the war. In a sense, they have succeed but the India independent arrived far too late to affect the outcome of the War. Although arguably, without US involvement, the Japanese would "stay in South East Asia for another hundred years". China might have been split and not wholesomely conquered by Maoist communist.

Japan fielded about 500,000 troops in Burma (Now Myanmar) which borders India. India was conquered with a much smaller army by the British. With no British Empire troops in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore etc. to resist these forces, who would stop the Japanese taking India? After taking India a link up is possible between Italian forces in the Middle East and the Japanese. As I said before the supplies to China would stop when India falls. So China would struggle to resist the 4 million Japanese troops that invaded. With the resources of India and China, Japan would be tougher to stop.

Of course all what I have said is hypothetical and I am extrapolating based on lots of assumptions. My main contention is that the contribution of Russia on the allied side was unexpected and very significant and that WWII was not such a forgone conclusion as many think. In 1940 it seemed possible that Germany could not be stopped, as victory after victory was being achieved and Russia appeared to be a strong ally of the axis forces. In 1940 the US army consisted of 1 Cavalry division, 5 Infantry divisions, 1 airborne division, 2 Marine divisions and no armoured divisions (This would not significantly increase until 1944) so could not offer any help.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 7:01:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As a matter of fact, I think Germany had committed ALL of her resources available already in the Battle of Britain. The rest of her assets are ground forces divisions which couldn't be committed to aerial and naval engagement by anyway.

In September 1940 Hitler abandoned any attempt at invading Britain. This is recorded in messages sent by the Fuehrer. So production resources focused on the preparation for Barbarossa and was diverted from aircraft production, so I disagree that the axis put all its resources into the Battle of Britain. Anyway if we assume Britain surrenders the big question is under what terms does the surrender occur? Hitler would want all of the resources of the British empire and her armed forces. There would of course be resistance to just handing this over but seeing as the Nazi's would quite happily arrest the relatives of any who tried to oppose this happening this might well force those overseas to cooperate as well as those in Britain.

I mean resources as in assets, combat aircraft, ammunition, spare parts etc. Hitler had spend all that is required for an attacking forces (3:1 ratio) in the Battle of Britain. Any lowers number of aircraft don't even make sense to try and challenge British ais superiority. And he will need years to build up that level of forces again. And this war will end in just another 2 years when American atomic bomb is completed, that's why I said he had spend all of his resources (required for the task, and within required time frame ) to win the war against GB.

You are factually inaccurate here. The majority of force personnel in the allied desert force were British nationals. The other nationals there were all in the British army or the British Empire army (with the exception of an independant Polish Division, but they had British equipment and supplies). Indian divisions were present but they all had one British Brigade to two Indian Brigades and had British staff commanders. These forces were in the desert because the British put them there. How could these units function without British supplies? I can't see any proper resistance being mounted without Britain being in the war. The middle east, with all its oil reserves had shown pro-Nazi sympathy at the beginning of the war. British forces had to quell a rebellion in Iraq for example. With Britain out I think the Italians would stroll into Egypt and beyond and be welcomed as liberators. An Italian victory of this magnitude might well have kept Mussolini in power through the war as well.

India had been under a British Dictatorship since the early 19th Century. Wealth was clearly being taken from the subcontinent and the people were being paid poorly for their labour. Several rebellions occurred over the years and were put down ruthlessly. Gandhi started calling for independence in 1930 if not earlier and was very influential by the 1940's. With Britain gone I don't see how India remains under British rule. (French Colonial territories sided with Free France and resisted Vichy France rule but only with significant help from the British.) I think it inevitable that India would be in turmoil with the sudden loss of governance, especially the rigid governance enforced by the empire. This could be exploited to let Japanese forces in, who again might even be seen as liberators initially.

Yes, but most of that forces are move from their base in India, not GB. Majority of them are the Commonwealth troops that came to Egypt via Suez not the Atlantic (which is also the same route where the British got all their supplies and ammunition). That's why losing access to GB will not affect the campaign in Africa.

Japan on the other hands, has even more limited resources than Germany and it is a well established fact that the IJN and IJA have far too few of a forces to conquer India. Their strategy was to further humiliate the British Empire in hope that the native Indian would overthrow its British rulers and knocked India out of the war. In a sense, they have succeed but the India independent arrived far too late to affect the outcome of the War. Although arguably, without US involvement, the Japanese would "stay in South East Asia for another hundred years". China might have been split and not wholesomely conquered by Maoist communist.

Japan fielded about 500,000 troops in Burma (Now Myanmar) which borders India. India was conquered with a much smaller army by the British. With no British Empire troops in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore etc. to resist these forces, who would stop the Japanese taking India? After taking India a link up is possible between Italian forces in the Middle East and the Japanese. As I said before the supplies to China would stop when India falls. So China would struggle to resist the 4 million Japanese troops that invaded. With the resources of India and China, Japan would be tougher to stop.

The British defeated India with minimum forces but that is when the India as we know today is yet to existed. Prior to the British India, the India sub-continent is a just a home to many small states and city-states that weren't even loosely connected to each other. They are easy to control, divided, conquered with minimum forces requirement.

Also remember that the British conquered India in a pre-industrialization era. The production capacity, population density, etc. are very mush differences from their WWII state. Look at its this way, during the Napoleonic War a small corpse are the largest military unit deployed in combat and that can barely conquered Western Europe. Those small corpse is what the IJA have in South East Asia and I highly doubt that they will be able to defeat and control India in the age that several dozens of divisions are deployed just to contest for Europe even the WWI. And that's still not include their ever expanding front in China, Soviet threat in Manchuria, and restless guerilla in South East Asia. It's very clear, at least to me that the IJA simply don't have enough forces for another major front.

Of course all what I have said is hypothetical and I am extrapolating based on lots of assumptions. My main contention is that the contribution of Russia on the allied side was unexpected and very significant and that WWII was not such a forgone conclusion as many think. In 1940 it seemed possible that Germany could not be stopped, as victory after victory was being achieved and Russia appeared to be a strong ally of the axis forces. In 1940 the US army consisted of 1 Cavalry division, 5 Infantry divisions, 1 airborne division, 2 Marine divisions and no armoured divisions (This would not significantly increase until 1944) so could not offer any help.

Appreciate. And sorry for such a late reply :P
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 12:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Had Hitler not invaded the USSR, he could have focused on defeating Britain. The British Empire would have fallen in another year, even with the Americans supplying the British. At this point, it would have been the USA vs much of the world. The USSR would have been supplying Germany instead of fighting them. The atomic bombs were introduced in 1945. Germany may have been able to invade the USA in 1943. At this point, the US government would have decided that it would not be even worth using up resources in order to develop a bomb that may not even be possible to make with their country about to be invaded by the axis. But on the other hand, this is if Germany did decide to invade the USA.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 12:45:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 12:14:37 PM, STALIN wrote:
Had Hitler not invaded the USSR, he could have focused on defeating Britain. The British Empire would have fallen in another year, even with the Americans supplying the British.

I simply don't see the evidence for this.

1) Operation Sea Lion was a failture, hence they attacked Russia.
2) The Germans were too far behind in regards to their Navy and they were losing too many planes to sustain an attack lasting that long.
3) Even if the Germans managed to land, I don't see how a sustained occupation would have been successful. The English weren't going to just give up like the French.

At this point, it would have been the USA vs much of the world. The USSR would have been supplying Germany instead of fighting them.

The USSR was taking as much as it was giving. Stalin, by whom you take your name here, was masterful at manipulating deals to his advantage. He would have stayed out as long as it was beneficial for the USSR, which wouldn't have been long.

The USA would also likely have not stood by and let our greatest ally and last line of defense in Europe fall.

The atomic bombs were introduced in 1945. Germany may have been able to invade the USA in 1943.

This I find totally far fetched. Invade the US? With what navy? The Germans never had an Aircraft Carrier finished and battle ready. These would have only allowed fighters and dive bombers, and there was no location from which they could launch dive bombers to hit the US.

They would have attempted an invasion against the US, without air superiority, without naval superiority, out-gunned and out-manned.

I find this impossible, as did the German Military High Command, you then add the fact that Hitler underestimated them and you have a recipe for disaster. The US would have been successful in obtaining the Atomic Bomb prior to Germany, simply because they would have remained in the war and Hitler didn't really have an interest in the project.

At this point, the US government would have decided that it would not be even worth using up resources in order to develop a bomb that may not even be possible to make with their country about to be invaded by the axis. But on the other hand, this is if Germany did decide to invade the USA.

The invasion would have promptly failed if attempted, but it would have ended likely like Operation Sea Lion. A failed mission that never launched because conceiving of victory in such circumstances proved impossible even for Hitler's mind.

Hitler would be content with U-Boat warfare, and of course I disagree with you as to his possible success in invading the British Isles.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 5:06:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 12:45:56 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:14:37 PM, STALIN wrote:
Had Hitler not invaded the USSR, he could have focused on defeating Britain. The British Empire would have fallen in another year, even with the Americans supplying the British.

I simply don't see the evidence for this.

1) Operation Sea Lion was a failture, hence they attacked Russia.

How could Operation Sea Lion have been a failure if it never happened? Hitler lost the Battle of Britain only because he decided to switch to bombing cities instead of finishing off the RAF. The reason Hitler attacked Russia wasn't because they couldn't invade Britain. It was because Hitler believed that the real war and Germany's destiny lay in the east against the Soviet Union who he believed was run by Jews.

2) The Germans were too far behind in regards to their Navy and they were losing too many planes to sustain an attack lasting that long.

I agree, the German navy stood little chance against that of Britain. However German submarines were pounding the British. One torpedo would be enough to sink a British aircraft career as proven in 1941 when German a German submarine sunk the HMS Ark Royal. Although Germany was losing many planes, Britain was also losing many planes and like I said earlier, Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain had Hitler decided to finish off the RAF.

3) Even if the Germans managed to land, I don't see how a sustained occupation would have been successful. The English weren't going to just give up like the French.

What makes you say this? in 1940, the only thing stopping Britain from falling was the English Channel. Britain had a small army in England while German Wehrmacht had 1.5-2 million men.


At this point, it would have been the USA vs much of the world. The USSR would have been supplying Germany instead of fighting them.

The USSR was taking as much as it was giving. Stalin, by whom you take your name here, was masterful at manipulating deals to his advantage. He would have stayed out as long as it was beneficial for the USSR, which wouldn't have been long.

Stalin was exporting oil, food, and other materials to Germany. You would need to say something about what would make him stop sending these supplies to Germany.


The USA would also likely have not stood by and let our greatest ally and last line of defense in Europe fall.

Which the USA didn't do. They sent supplies to Britain although they never sent their military there until Germany declared war. Had Hitler decided to finish off Britain, American supplies would not have been enough.


The atomic bombs were introduced in 1945. Germany may have been able to invade the USA in 1943.

This I find totally far fetched. Invade the US? With what navy? The Germans never had an Aircraft Carrier finished and battle ready. These would have only allowed fighters and dive bombers, and there was no location from which they could launch dive bombers to hit the US.

Japan would be with Germany. Pearl Harbor would still have happened in 1941 unless the US decided to declare war on the axis powers before that.

They would have attempted an invasion against the US, without air superiority, without naval superiority, out-gunned and out-manned.

In 1939, the US had the 13th largest army in the world. Even Romania had a larger army. In 1941, it was somewhat bigger. Still, Germany would have been able to first invaded canada and from there invade the US.


I find this impossible, as did the German Military High Command, you then add the fact that Hitler underestimated them and you have a recipe for disaster. The US would have been successful in obtaining the Atomic Bomb prior to Germany, simply because they would have remained in the war and Hitler didn't really have an interest in the project.

My point was that the US president may have decided to divert those resources into fighting off an invasion instead of building an atomic bomb since nobody knew if it was possible to build one.

At this point, the US government would have decided that it would not be even worth using up resources in order to develop a bomb that may not even be possible to make with their country about to be invaded by the axis. But on the other hand, this is if Germany did decide to invade the USA.

The invasion would have promptly failed if attempted, but it would have ended likely like Operation Sea Lion. A failed mission that never launched because conceiving of victory in such circumstances proved impossible even for Hitler's mind.

Operation Sea Lion was not ever attempted. But I will not tell you what to think.

Hitler would be content with U-Boat warfare, and of course I disagree with you as to his possible success in invading the British Isles.

Conclusion:

This forum involves speculation which is what I am doing. In 1941, Hitler invaded Russia with 4 million men. Instead of invading the USSR, he could have diverted all those resources and manpower to fighting and defeating Britain. Rommel alone was able to drive the British back into Egypt with a few hundred thousand men. After losing Egypt, the British Empire would have lost the Middle Eastern oil fields and India.

But I am only speculating. The reality of WWII was that Germany did decide to invade the USSR and the USSR did get involved in the global conflict and arguably ended up playing the most important role in defeating the axis powers.

I will leave my arguments there. You may choose to reply if you wish but I will not write any more on this topic. I deal in facts, not "what if's."
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:55:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 5:06:17 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:45:56 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:14:37 PM, STALIN wrote:
Had Hitler not invaded the USSR, he could have focused on defeating Britain. The British Empire would have fallen in another year, even with the Americans supplying the British.

I simply don't see the evidence for this.

1) Operation Sea Lion was a failture, hence they attacked Russia.

How could Operation Sea Lion have been a failure if it never happened? Hitler lost the Battle of Britain only because he decided to switch to bombing cities instead of finishing off the RAF. The reason Hitler attacked Russia wasn't because they couldn't invade Britain. It was because Hitler believed that the real war and Germany's destiny lay in the east against the Soviet Union who he believed was run by Jews.


Indeed, Hitler underestimated the resolve of the British and thought he could destroy their will to fight by bombing the cities.

There were multiple reasons why they went to war with the Soviet Union, and chief among them is what you noted. However, he wanted to have dealt with the British before going to war with them as he wanted to avoid 2 fronts. His failure to launch a successful invasion of the British Isles definitely lead him to change his attention towards Russia.

2) The Germans were too far behind in regards to their Navy and they were losing too many planes to sustain an attack lasting that long.

I agree, the German navy stood little chance against that of Britain. However German submarines were pounding the British. One torpedo would be enough to sink a British aircraft career as proven in 1941 when German a German submarine sunk the HMS Ark Royal. Although Germany was losing many planes, Britain was also losing many planes and like I said earlier, Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain had Hitler decided to finish off the RAF.


The U-Boat tactics quickly became obsolete as the war drew on and the Americans and British adapted, not to mention cracking the German codes. I don't think that would have ever spelled defeat for the British despite Hitler's commitment to the strategy. Even the more advanced U-Boats were largely ineffective once introduced.

3) Even if the Germans managed to land, I don't see how a sustained occupation would have been successful. The English weren't going to just give up like the French.

What makes you say this? in 1940, the only thing stopping Britain from falling was the English Channel. Britain had a small army in England while German Wehrmacht had 1.5-2 million men.


The British were able to save much of their ground forces with the "miraculous" evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. Even if their forces were eventually defeated, a sustained occupation would have been costly and violent. Surely the British proved their resolve was more stalwart than the other European nations.


At this point, it would have been the USA vs much of the world. The USSR would have been supplying Germany instead of fighting them.

The USSR was taking as much as it was giving. Stalin, by whom you take your name here, was masterful at manipulating deals to his advantage. He would have stayed out as long as it was beneficial for the USSR, which wouldn't have been long.

Stalin was exporting oil, food, and other materials to Germany. You would need to say something about what would make him stop sending these supplies to Germany.


If the British Isles fell, Stalin would likely think he was next, and in this hypothetical situation that would have been more probable than a circumstance where they are not involved.

This I think would have cut off their supply.


The USA would also likely have not stood by and let our greatest ally and last line of defense in Europe fall.

Which the USA didn't do. They sent supplies to Britain although they never sent their military there until Germany declared war. Had Hitler decided to finish off Britain, American supplies would not have been enough.


It is my personal opinion that Roosevelt would not have stood by and let the invasion succeed. Public opinion would not have stood for the last bastion of Democracy to fall in Europe.


The atomic bombs were introduced in 1945. Germany may have been able to invade the USA in 1943.

This I find totally far fetched. Invade the US? With what navy? The Germans never had an Aircraft Carrier finished and battle ready. These would have only allowed fighters and dive bombers, and there was no location from which they could launch dive bombers to hit the US.

Japan would be with Germany. Pearl Harbor would still have happened in 1941 unless the US decided to declare war on the axis powers before that.

If Japan were to attack the USA, then the Soviet Union would have no restraints in attacking Germany. I don't see how one could cut them out of the picture in this case, as history proved true.


They would have attempted an invasion against the US, without air superiority, without naval superiority, out-gunned and out-manned.

In 1939, the US had the 13th largest army in the world. Even Romania had a larger army. In 1941, it was somewhat bigger. Still, Germany would have been able to first invaded canada and from there invade the US.


They would have invaded with what navy? Just ship some barges across the atlantic? How would they protect their ships from the sky, they had no aircraft carriers? More than half of their forces would have perished on the way, and there is no way they would have committed so much with the Soviet Union getting stronger along their flanks.


I find this impossible, as did the German Military High Command, you then add the fact that Hitler underestimated them and you have a recipe for disaster. The US would have been successful in obtaining the Atomic Bomb prior to Germany, simply because they would have remained in the war and Hitler didn't really have an interest in the project.

My point was that the US president may have decided to divert those resources into fighting off an invasion instead of building an atomic bomb since nobody knew if it was possible to build one.

Delayed perhaps, but it was moving forward since 1941.


At this point, the US government would have decided that it would not be even worth using up resources in order to develop a bomb that may not even be possible to make with their country about to be invaded by the axis. But on the other hand, this is if Germany did decide to invade the USA.

The invasion would have promptly failed if attempted, but it would have ended likely like Operation Sea Lion. A failed mission that never launched because conceiving of victory in such circumstances proved impossible even for Hitler's mind.

Operation Sea Lion was not ever attempted. But I will not tell you what to think.

Hitler would be content with U-Boat warfare, and of course I disagree with you as to his possible success in invading the British Isles.

Conclusion:

This forum involves speculation which is what I am doing. In 1941, Hitler invaded Russia with 4 million men. Instead of invading the USSR, he could have diverted all those resources and manpower to fighting and defeating Britain. Rommel alone was able to drive the British back into Egypt with a few hundred thousand men. After losing Egypt, the British Empire would have lost the Middle Eastern oil fields and India.

But I am only speculating. The reality of WWII was that Germany did decide to invade the USSR and the USSR did get involved in the global conflict and arguably ended up playing the most important role in defeating the axis powers.

I will leave my arguments there. You may choose to reply if you wish but I will not write any more on this to
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 5:19:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The war would have stalled for a long time. If the USSR was completely isolation, which imo, is a ridiculous idea, the combined might of German and Japanese economic power would have forced Britain to surrender. If the US gets involved, I don't see the Allies surrendering, but I also don't see a successful Western Front.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 9:07:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

Math.

Germany could have taken France and Britain. They may have taken the USSR if it had been just the Germans verses the USSR. The addition of America and its industrial might would have eventually worn down the Germans - it would have, however, absent the USSR, left the Soviets in a dominant position after WWII rather than the US.

Its doubtful that Stalin would have simply let the advantage slip.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 1:47:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

I'd say it would have been very likely, considering about 80% or so of the casualties on both sides occurred on the Eastern Front. I feel like in the Western narratives of the war the role of the USSR is extremely downplayed actually.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:19:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

No. The Allies had superior technology, and they would still develop the bomb first because most of the German scientists left the country once evil shiit started brewing. The best Hitler could have done was force a stalemate.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 10:56:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:19:13 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

No. The Allies had superior technology,

Er ... no we did not.

and they would still develop the bomb first because most of the German scientists left the country once evil shiit started brewing.

Until we knocked out their heavy water plant in 1943 they were ahead of the allies. This raid was led by British trained Norwegian fighters. With no Russian front this raid might have failed.

The best Hitler could have done was force a stalemate.

German forces captured nearly all Europe in a miraculously short time. Until the German took on the Russians they were unstoppable. You underestimate how good the Axis forces were.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 3:24:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.

People tend to forget the British Empire which existed at that time. There was Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Inda, Egypt, etc., etc. And Hitler didn't have the capabilities of invading the British Isles. After failing to gain air superiority in the Battle of Britain (before he invaded Russia) he and the German High Command concluded that invasion was impossible. Britain's navy controlled the world's seas at that time. It would have been a very rough time, but there is no reason to believe the German's would have succeeded, especially if the Russian't hadn't helped Germany invade Poland and carve-up Eastern Europe.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:04:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 3:24:09 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.

People tend to forget the British Empire which existed at that time. There was Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Inda, Egypt, etc., etc. And Hitler didn't have the capabilities of invading the British Isles. After failing to gain air superiority in the Battle of Britain (before he invaded Russia) he and the German High Command concluded that invasion was impossible. Britain's navy controlled the world's seas at that time. It would have been a very rough time, but there is no reason to believe the German's would have succeeded, especially if the Russian't hadn't helped Germany invade Poland and carve-up Eastern Europe.

The British Empire would have been unable to defeat Nazi Germany and its European allies alone considering that Rommel with a few hundred thousand troops was able to push the British straight into Egypt. And this excludes the fact that 80% of the German army was fighting in the east at this time.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 2:23:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:04:13 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 9/4/2014 3:24:09 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.

People tend to forget the British Empire which existed at that time. There was Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Inda, Egypt, etc., etc. And Hitler didn't have the capabilities of invading the British Isles. After failing to gain air superiority in the Battle of Britain (before he invaded Russia) he and the German High Command concluded that invasion was impossible. Britain's navy controlled the world's seas at that time. It would have been a very rough time, but there is no reason to believe the German's would have succeeded, especially if the Russian't hadn't helped Germany invade Poland and carve-up Eastern Europe.

The British Empire would have been unable to defeat Nazi Germany and its European allies alone considering that Rommel with a few hundred thousand troops was able to push the British straight into Egypt. And this excludes the fact that 80% of the German army was fighting in the east at this time.

They wouldn't have to defeat them alone. They would only have to hold-out until other countries like the US, Canada, Australia, China, etc. became fully mobilized, just as they did. Remember, it was a while between the invasion of France and that of Russia, and in that time Germany did try to defeat or sideline England. They failed. England defeated them in Africa (Rommel was ordered to return to Germany to avoid capture) and other territories, and every month she was getting stronger even before the US entered the war. You should read more about the fighting between Rommel and Montgomery, especially at the 2nd battle of El Alamain, where Rommel was soundly and permanently defeated. He was defeated again during the D-Day invasions after he was placed in charge of defending the Atlantic Wall.

Now if Germany had waited another few years and concentrated solely on continuing to build her military might then she might have had a better chance. But we can't forget that even while Hitler was in jail following the Beer-Hall Putsch, he wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that his ultimate goal was to gain lebensraum by expanding eastward into Russia. Stalin knew that Hitler was coming, although he misjudged how much time he had to get ready for it.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 2:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 5:06:17 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:45:56 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/22/2014 12:14:37 PM, STALIN wrote:
Had Hitler not invaded the USSR, he could have focused on defeating Britain. The British Empire would have fallen in another year, even with the Americans supplying the British.

I simply don't see the evidence for this.

1) Operation Sea Lion was a failture, hence they attacked Russia.

How could Operation Sea Lion have been a failure if it never happened? Hitler lost the Battle of Britain only because he decided to switch to bombing cities instead of finishing off the RAF. The reason Hitler attacked Russia wasn't because they couldn't invade Britain. It was because Hitler believed that the real war and Germany's destiny lay in the east against the Soviet Union who he believed was run by Jews.

Hitler didn't decide to start bombing cities. A very large raid consisting of German bombers accidentally bombed two British cities, and Britain reciprocated. When they bombed Berlin, Hitler was so incensed that he began to bomb London. That's the way war works. Hitler's failure to gain air-superiority over the English Channel precluded operation Sea Lion by making it impossible. As for invading Russia, that had been Hitler's ultimate goal from the beginning. He wrote about it in Mein Kampf and the Russians began preparing for it even before it happened.

2) The Germans were too far behind in regards to their Navy and they were losing too many planes to sustain an attack lasting that long.

I agree, the German navy stood little chance against that of Britain. However German submarines were pounding the British. One torpedo would be enough to sink a British aircraft career as proven in 1941 when German a German submarine sunk the HMS Ark Royal. Although Germany was losing many planes, Britain was also losing many planes and like I said earlier, Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain had Hitler decided to finish off the RAF.

The Germans had absolutely no chance of a naval victory, and they knew it. They had planned to build-up their navy before the commencement of hostilities, but Hitler wasn't willing to wait. Russia had nothing to do with the battle of the Atlantic, so I'm not really sure how their absence from the war would have affected it much early-on. It would simply have become a war of attrition, as it actually did.

3) Even if the Germans managed to land, I don't see how a sustained occupation would have been successful. The English weren't going to just give up like the French.

What makes you say this? in 1940, the only thing stopping Britain from falling was the English Channel. Britain had a small army in England while German Wehrmacht had 1.5-2 million men.

Britain had the world's most powerful navy. When you are an island nation that counts for a lot. That's why the British Empire had lasted for so long. The inability to invade England left Hitler feeling helpless.

At this point, it would have been the USA vs much of the world. The USSR would have been supplying Germany instead of fighting them.

The USSR was taking as much as it was giving. Stalin, by whom you take your name here, was masterful at manipulating deals to his advantage. He would have stayed out as long as it was beneficial for the USSR, which wouldn't have been long.

Stalin was exporting oil, food, and other materials to Germany. You would need to say something about what would make him stop sending these supplies to Germany.


The USA would also likely have not stood by and let our greatest ally and last line of defense in Europe fall.

Which the USA didn't do. They sent supplies to Britain although they never sent their military there until Germany declared war. Had Hitler decided to finish off Britain, American supplies would not have been enough.


The atomic bombs were introduced in 1945. Germany may have been able to invade the USA in 1943.

This I find totally far fetched. Invade the US? With what navy? The Germans never had an Aircraft Carrier finished and battle ready. These would have only allowed fighters and dive bombers, and there was no location from which they could launch dive bombers to hit the US.

Japan would be with Germany. Pearl Harbor would still have happened in 1941 unless the US decided to declare war on the axis powers before that.

They would have attempted an invasion against the US, without air superiority, without naval superiority, out-gunned and out-manned.

In 1939, the US had the 13th largest army in the world. Even Romania had a larger army. In 1941, it was somewhat bigger. Still, Germany would have been able to first invaded canada and from there invade the US.

Yet despite that fact they defeated Japan and helped defeat Germany and Italy in less than four years. Pretty impressive.

I find this impossible, as did the German Military High Command, you then add the fact that Hitler underestimated them and you have a recipe for disaster. The US would have been successful in obtaining the Atomic Bomb prior to Germany, simply because they would have remained in the war and Hitler didn't really have an interest in the project.

My point was that the US president may have decided to divert those resources into fighting off an invasion instead of building an atomic bomb since nobody knew if it was possible to build one.

At this point, the US government would have decided that it would not be even worth using up resources in order to develop a bomb that may not even be possible to make with their country about to be invaded by the axis. But on the other hand, this is if Germany did decide to invade the USA.

The invasion would have promptly failed if attempted, but it would have ended likely like Operation Sea Lion. A failed mission that never launched because conceiving of victory in such circumstances proved impossible even for Hitler's mind.

Operation Sea Lion was not ever attempted. But I will not tell you what to think.

Hitler would be content with U-Boat warfare, and of course I disagree with you as to his possible success in invading the British Isles.

Conclusion:

This forum involves speculation which is what I am doing. In 1941, Hitler invaded Russia with 4 million men. Instead of invading the USSR, he could have diverted all those resources and manpower to fighting and defeating Britain. Rommel alone was able to drive the British back into Egypt with a few hundred thousand men. After losing Egypt, the British Empire would have lost the Middle Eastern oil fields and India.

But I am only speculating. The reality of WWII was that Germany did decide to invade the USSR and the USSR did get involved in the global conflict and arguably ended up playing the most important role in defeating the axis powers.

I will leave my arguments there. You may choose to reply if you wish but I will not write any more on this topic. I deal in facts, not "what if's."
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:42:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 2:23:28 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:04:13 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 9/4/2014 3:24:09 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.

People tend to forget the British Empire which existed at that time. There was Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Inda, Egypt, etc., etc. And Hitler didn't have the capabilities of invading the British Isles. After failing to gain air superiority in the Battle of Britain (before he invaded Russia) he and the German High Command concluded that invasion was impossible. Britain's navy controlled the world's seas at that time. It would have been a very rough time, but there is no reason to believe the German's would have succeeded, especially if the Russian't hadn't helped Germany invade Poland and carve-up Eastern Europe.

The British Empire would have been unable to defeat Nazi Germany and its European allies alone considering that Rommel with a few hundred thousand troops was able to push the British straight into Egypt. And this excludes the fact that 80% of the German army was fighting in the east at this time.

They wouldn't have to defeat them alone. They would only have to hold-out until other countries like the US, Canada, Australia, China, etc. became fully mobilized, just as they did.

Rommel pushed the British straight into Africa with a few hundred thousands troops. imagine what the Germans could have done with 3 million.

Remember, it was a while between the invasion of France and that of Russia, and in that time Germany did try to defeat or sideline England.

Hitler didn't need to invade Russia at all. He could have used the German army which had millions of battle hardened veterans at this point to push through Egypt and the middle east and in the end reach India and possible even establish a link with Japan.

They failed. England defeated them in Africa (Rommel was ordered to return to Germany to avoid capture)

Rommel was ordered to return to Germany to command the Atlantic wall, not to avoid capture.

and other territories, and every month she was getting stronger even before the US entered the war.

To be honest, Britain only did as well as it did because of the overwhelming supplies the US gave to help. American supplies were like a lifeline for Britain.

You should read more about the fighting between Rommel and Montgomery, especially at the 2nd battle of El Alamain, where Rommel was soundly and permanently defeated.

Yes and you should take a look at how heavily he was outnumbered.

He was defeated again during the D-Day invasions after he was placed in charge of defending the Atlantic Wall.

Believe it or not, the ONLY reason the D-Day invasion succeeded because at the time of the invasion, there were 228 German divisions on the Eastern Front and only 58 in France (of which 11 were deployed at Normandy). Had even a fraction of the forces on the Eastern Front been present at Normandy, the entire invasion would have been a failure.


Now if Germany had waited another few years and concentrated solely on continuing to build her military might then she might have had a better chance. But we can't forget that even while Hitler was in jail following the Beer-Hall Putsch, he wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that his ultimate goal was to gain lebensraum by expanding eastward into Russia. Stalin knew that Hitler was coming, although he misjudged how much time he had to get ready for it.

This is irrelevant as to whether or not Germany could have defeated Britain had the USSR not been on the side of the allies.

If you want to debate any of this, then just send me a challenge. Otherwise there is no point in arguing this over the forums since neither of us each other's opinion.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 5:45:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 7:42:05 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 9/5/2014 2:23:28 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:04:13 PM, STALIN wrote:
At 9/4/2014 3:24:09 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 6/12/2014 7:47:16 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

This would leave only British forces to oppose the axis powers for 2 years so I suspect it would have led to an axis victory.

People tend to forget the British Empire which existed at that time. There was Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Inda, Egypt, etc., etc. And Hitler didn't have the capabilities of invading the British Isles. After failing to gain air superiority in the Battle of Britain (before he invaded Russia) he and the German High Command concluded that invasion was impossible. Britain's navy controlled the world's seas at that time. It would have been a very rough time, but there is no reason to believe the German's would have succeeded, especially if the Russian't hadn't helped Germany invade Poland and carve-up Eastern Europe.

The British Empire would have been unable to defeat Nazi Germany and its European allies alone considering that Rommel with a few hundred thousand troops was able to push the British straight into Egypt. And this excludes the fact that 80% of the German army was fighting in the east at this time.

They wouldn't have to defeat them alone. They would only have to hold-out until other countries like the US, Canada, Australia, China, etc. became fully mobilized, just as they did.

Rommel pushed the British straight into Africa with a few hundred thousands troops. imagine what the Germans could have done with 3 million.

Rommel gained the initial advantage, but he lost the larger fight, much as Germany itself did. I don't call that a victory.

Remember, it was a while between the invasion of France and that of Russia, and in that time Germany did try to defeat or sideline England.

Hitler didn't need to invade Russia at all. He could have used the German army which had millions of battle hardened veterans at this point to push through Egypt and the middle east and in the end reach India and possible even establish a link with Japan.

They failed. England defeated them in Africa (Rommel was ordered to return to Germany to avoid capture)

Rommel was ordered to return to Germany to command the Atlantic wall, not to avoid capture.

Rommel was ordered to return because he had gained the rank of Marshal, and no German Marshal had ever been captured up to that point. It was felt it would be too big a blow to moral. Don't get me wrong, I highly admire Rommel, but in the end Britain's control of the seas prevented the resupply necessary for him to fight effectively in the long run.

and other territories, and every month she was getting stronger even before the US entered the war.

To be honest, Britain only did as well as it did because of the overwhelming supplies the US gave to help. American supplies were like a lifeline for Britain.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Germany had Italy and Japan on its side. Besides, the amount of aid from the US could hardly be called "overwhelming." The biggest thing he did for them was to "lend" them 50 outdated US destroyers to perform escort duty.

You should read more about the fighting between Rommel and Montgomery, especially at the 2nd battle of El Alamain, where Rommel was soundly and permanently defeated.

Yes and you should take a look at how heavily he was outnumbered.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Germany had a larger army than Britain did, even without Italy as an ally. If you count the Italian troops present in Africa then England was outnumbered by the Axis.

He was defeated again during the D-Day invasions after he was placed in charge of defending the Atlantic Wall.

Believe it or not, the ONLY reason the D-Day invasion succeeded because at the time of the invasion, there were 228 German divisions on the Eastern Front and only 58 in France (of which 11 were deployed at Normandy). Had even a fraction of the forces on the Eastern Front been present at Normandy, the entire invasion would have been a failure.

D-Day succeeded for many reasons. One was the allies' ability to fool the German high-command as to where the landings would happen. The Germans were expecting an invasion and had some of their best divisions waiting for it. Many of the Eastern divisions were made-up of conscripts from other countries. Hitler was aware that he had time and space in which to deal with Russia, while an Allied invasion would be a much more immediate threat and would open a second front, spelling ultimate disaster. That's why he gave Rommel control of the Atlantic wall, and boasted endlessly about how invincible it was. It was the greatest amphibious invasion in history.

Now if Germany had waited another few years and concentrated solely on continuing to build her military might then she might have had a better chance. But we can't forget that even while Hitler was in jail following the Beer-Hall Putsch, he wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that his ultimate goal was to gain lebensraum by expanding eastward into Russia. Stalin knew that Hitler was coming, although he misjudged how much time he had to get ready for it.

This is irrelevant as to whether or not Germany could have defeated Britain had the USSR not been on the side of the allies.

It is very relevant that Hitler never wanted war with Britain but was totally geared for war with Russia. That's the main reason he didn't feel the need for a greater navy, for one thing. He never gave Operation Sealion half the attention it needed. It's simply military tactics.

If you want to debate any of this, then just send me a challenge. Otherwise there is no point in arguing this over the forums since neither of us each other's opinion.

I'm not giving opinions, I'm stating facts, and I'll be happy to share sources if you wish. I do not participate in debates because a medical condition keeps me from committing to such things. It's the same reason I dropped-out of college. But I have spent a lot of years studying WW2 and I was in the military, and have been trained in tactics. I would never rely merely on personal opinions, but would rather focus on more likely outcomes. No one knows for certain what would have happened if the Russians hadn't made a pact with Germany at the beginning of the war, let alone what would have happened if she hadn't been invaded by Germany later. This is all conjecture based on known facts.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 9:08:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

In all likelihood the allies would've lost. The Nazi's wouldn't have had to contend with two fronts, and could have diverted more resources to just the one front.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Bolshy
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:53:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?

Would the allies have won without the USSR? Maybe they would have done so sooner or later, even without the USSR. However there is no point in speculating. Lets look at the facts.

Nazi Germany was only defeated mostly by the USSR. Some 80% of German dead, all of the Hungarian and Romanian casualties, and 80,000 Italian casualties were on the Eastern Front. On top of this, the Soviet Union played an important role in the eventual defeat of the Japanese Empire.

Whether or not people would prefer to say that "the USA had the atomic bomb and therefore Germany would not have won the war" (something that I have seen in this thread) does not change the fact that the USSR played perhaps the greatest role in the overall defeat of the axis powers.
benko12345678
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:37:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?
The USSR would have gotten involved one way or another. Even if Hitler never initiated Barbarossa the USSR would have attacked nazi germany. Stalin was clever and knew what to do. After pearl harbour america declared war on Japan and the axis, which was a striking blow to the axis. Hitler wouldn't have had the capabilities to fight the UK and the USA. He needed the oil supplies on the Caucasus.
RussiaPutinBest
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 2:18:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Impossible to speculate, although the role the USSR played a huge role in defeating the Axis powers, a role that is often not understood very well.
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2014 10:37:48 AM, benko12345678 wrote:
At 6/11/2014 2:14:10 AM, GOP wrote:
Would they have lost it if the USSR was not involved?
The USSR would have gotten involved one way or another. Even if Hitler never initiated Barbarossa the USSR would have attacked nazi germany. Stalin was clever and knew what to do. After pearl harbour america declared war on Japan and the axis, which was a striking blow to the axis. Hitler wouldn't have had the capabilities to fight the UK and the USA. He needed the oil supplies on the Caucasus.

He had Romanian oil and thus was all set. He couldn't take on the Western allies because the Kriegsmarine was simply not on par with the Royal and US Navies. Not so sure about the Soviets attacking Germany as Stalin was set on establishing a firm diplomatic relationship with Hitler until the last hour, and Hitler was right on that path for a good while to.