Had the United States declared war on Germany
Posted 01 February 2002 - 08:25 PM
Posted 01 February 2002 - 08:28 PM
Posted 01 February 2002 - 09:52 PM
The Soviet Union maybe, this is hard to say. Assuming everything else goes as it did historically, the Wehrmacht could perhaps wage a war of attrition in the East, which would be won.
Posted 01 February 2002 - 10:33 PM
Posted 01 February 2002 - 10:49 PM
Posted 02 February 2002 - 08:32 AM
BUT! Really, this was just a matter of form. American destroyers were engaged in the battle of the atlantic easily half a year before this, and war was inevitable in the end. I do not doubt that America would have declared war on Germany if Germany hadn't.
However, we are assuming that America doesn't really care what happens to Britain, so there is no cooperation going on in the Atlantic etc. etc.
Posted 03 February 2002 - 12:57 AM
I can't remember who sank the ship, possibly Erich Topp? I just can't remember.
Posted 06 February 2002 - 05:52 PM
I will go a step further and say that I believe that Germany would beat the russians.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about this. Remember, the Russians were fighting the Germans for a long time before Western Allies' aid really began flowing in on a large scale.
At the time of Typhoon and the Russian counter-attack outside Moscow, the Russians were pretty much on their own.
Nor can you give the Western Allies credit for Stalingrad. Material aid from the West was just getting started, and hadn't really filtered in to the front line effort. Nor was diversion of German forces to other theaters very significant at that time. There were some divisions in France, but not many and not the best and the Germans would have had a hard time equipping them, reinforcing them, and supplying them even if they had been sent East. Many will point to the DAK as a diversion of forces, but I don't think just three German divisions would have turned the scale at Stalingrad.
On the whole, I don't think the Western Allies had much effect on the German-Russian conflict until well after Stalingrad - by which time the Wehrmacht was very much broken down from its peak strength.
There is no doubt, Western aid to the Russians was a big help once the Russians were on the offensive. American trucks and fuel, in particular, helped the Russians press on their offensives and maintain supply. Also, the strategic bombing campaign by '43 was diverting Luftwaffe strength away from the Eastern front.
So you can definitely say that the Western Allies helped hasten the defeat of Germany.
But I don't think you can say that the US saved the USSR from being defeated by the Germans. They did that themselves.
Posted 06 February 2002 - 07:36 PM
True, the lendlease might have been at a trickle while Stalingrad was happening but, none the less, what they were getting helped keep them afloat untill everything startind to build up. Then you can filter in all the Siberian divisions that were let loose to cause real trouble elsewhere.
I can see that the Germans could have held the russians at a strong defensive line somewhere and not in germanic territory--had the russiand not had all those jeeps, trucks, and tanks that we gave to them.
Without the jppes--command cars, transport trucks--halftracks and tanks--a good many a Russian victory would not have happened simply because of the Russians lack of available transportation. The Russian military was not a mobile military except in rare instances and when they had the narrow gauge trains that ran anywhere near where they were going.
Posted 08 February 2002 - 11:19 AM
The effect of L/L in 41 and 42 was almost negligible, in 41 and early 42 the Soviets were almost entirely depending on stocks of older equipment interspersed with some newly produced weapons and a little L/L, while the evacuation of factories to the East was underway. In the later stages of 42 almost all factories in the Urals and Siberia were fully on-line (horrible conditions for the workers but nevertheless producing almost non-stop), so the Soviet weapons industry was producing enough arms to fight and beat the Germans at Stalingrad and in the Caucasus and Don Regions.
Western military aid only became important after Kursk, with the commencement of the deep operations and the need to carry large numbers of foot-infantry and supplies to support the advancing armoured formations of the Red Army.
(see Glantz, D.M. "When Titans clashed" for a more complete explanation of all this).
Now, with this said, it is almost inconceivable that the US would have stayed out of the war until let's say early '43, thereby denying the USSR some (but not all) of the means of defeating Germany's expansion eastward.
Posted 08 February 2002 - 11:41 AM
Although often glorified these units could not have made much of a difference on the Eastern front, and especially not at Stalingrad, where the main German mistake was not too few troops, but the ill-equipped Rumanians on the flanks of 6th Army as well as a successful Soviet 'maskirovka' deception. This coupled with Gen Paulus' failure to keep an armoured reserve behind the 6th Army and then Hitler's refusal to allow Paulus to link up with von Manstein in late December (this operation would probably have destroyed the 6th Army nevertheless, since it involved 50mi fighting footmarches by the weakened infantry across the frozen countryside before they could escape the Stalingrad cauldron), made things more convenient for the mostly inexperienced Red Army commanders, but even if there had been an additional 5 PzDiv in the area of Army Grps A&B they would have been too widely dispersed to effectively deal with those massive breakthroughs of Operations Uranus and Little Saturn.
No, I believe that while the US aid to the USSR was great, it was not vital, the USSR would most likely have beaten Germany nevertheless. I do acknowledge that it would have talen them longer and the casualties would have been much higher, but from '43 onwards it was Germany that was suffering irreplacable losses, and if the war had lasted another two years with no Allied invasions of Italy and France, Germany would have come off a lot worse than it already did.
Posted 08 February 2002 - 07:12 PM
PS, im not trying to soulnd like a jerk--im just in a hurry as I am late going somewhere.
Posted 09 February 2002 - 05:44 AM
Posted 11 February 2002 - 09:11 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users