Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Anglo-American participation as decisive


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Jenisch

Jenisch

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 01:15 AM

Some historians today have this view. Their premisse is generally that Germany did have a realistic chance to beat the Soviet Union alone. So, the intervention from the Western Allies was decisive in it's defeat. Particularly, I think this is a fair view, and so is the conventional view of the Eastern Front being the decisive theater. It's a matter of interpretation in my understanding.

The arguments used by such historians include the Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, majority of casualities from the Luftwaffe in the West and the German and Italian troops employed in other theaters. Factually all very relevant factors, specially if analyzed in cumulativity.

What are your views about this?

Edited by Jenisch, 08 July 2012 - 01:21 AM.


#2 urqh

urqh

    Tea drinking surrender monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,681 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 01:35 AM

Without help the UK would have gone under.

Without help the USA would not have won its war.

Without help Australia would have succumbed..Switzerland, sweden. Canada.

I don't get this never ending repeating question of would the USSR have gone under without allied help..Its mute as so would all the individual other allies if they did not have allies.

What is the reasoning behind this constant question? Yes they probably would have succumbed. But no less so than any other allied nation if fighting on their own.
  • Tamino likes this

British Army 1939-1945 - World War II Tribute Video

 

 

[URL="http://youtu.be/Zbp_4XBmD4w"]

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 


#3 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 08 July 2012 - 01:44 AM

Some historians today have this view. Their premisse is generally that Germany did have a realistic chance to beat the Soviet Union alone. So, the intervention from the Western Allies was decisive in it's defeat. Particularly, I think this is a fair view, and so is the conventional view of the Eastern Front being the decisive theater. It's a matter of interpretation in my understanding.

The arguments used by such historians include the Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, majority of casualities from the Luftwaffe in the West and the German and Italian troops employed in other theaters. Factually all very relevant factors, specially if analyzed in cumulativity.

What are your views about this?

All that counts is that Russians have utterly pulverized German army. In addition to that, Russia can be proud of having so great allies.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.


#4 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 14,911 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:55 AM

All that counts is that Russians have utterly pulverized German army. In addition to that, Russia can be proud of having so great allies.


I guess The Bomb was a non-starter?

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#5 von_noobie

von_noobie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 04:35 AM

I see both really as being just as important to one as to the other, With out Russia an Germany going at it the Western allies would have had a tougher time in NA, in the Atlantic and the Med (Ships would not be constrained by lack of fuel as much) and would have faced a fully trained fully equipped army where as with out the Westerner's the Soviets would have lacked the transportation and certain key resources that helped them beat Germany.

So personally they should both be thankful for each other, Cause I don't see the Yanks willing to accept a loss of life in the millions to defeat Germany, Nor do I see them willing to drop the bomb in Europe.

#6 urqh

urqh

    Tea drinking surrender monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,681 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 05:45 AM

I don't get it slip...the bomb was used on Japan. Original poster is on about Germany in his question?

Unless you are thinking of ultimate victory as Nooble points to as in dropping the bomb on Germany at some undetermined date. In which case without UK which I shall presume as falling without the aid of its allies or at least coming to a seperate peace without any help from anyone in 1940, why should America even come to war with Germany. And would it win any race for the bomb if Germany had British scientific knowledge as a helper and time and space on its side. A what if this is turning into...Seems I do do em even if I don't.

As Britain could carry on under a vichy style administration, RDF, or Radar will still appear..The aircraft to drop the bomb is going to have to fly some distance, which later in the war it would be able, but the Germans and their new allies would not have stood still in the intermediate period.

Edited by urqh, 08 July 2012 - 05:52 AM.

British Army 1939-1945 - World War II Tribute Video

 

 

[URL="http://youtu.be/Zbp_4XBmD4w"]

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 


#7 von_noobie

von_noobie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:29 AM

I'm going on the view that everything in WWII played out as it did except for what ever involves Russia.

Now I don't see Britain going for a separate peace of any form of peace. Based simply on the KM capabilities, the RN and the location of the UK neither side would be able to gain the upper hand until the US got involved. Once the US is involved well I see the air war going as it did, But likely with more casualties and smaller results. The main fight thus would take place in NA which would likely come down to the same result sooner or later (Being the main front for ground combat Hitler would certainly get involved).

Remember, Germany declared war on the US after they invaded the USSR, If they were happy to declare war on America while fighting the Russians, Would they be more likely or less likely to declare war when there sitting fairly comfortably in Europe with no major threat?

The only major difference I see is being the time frame, With the Axis being able to concentrate more on the Luftwaffe and AA units/equipment the war could drag on into late 1945/46+.

#8 von_noobie

von_noobie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:34 AM

I'm going on the view that everything in WWII played out as it did except for what ever involves Russia.

Now I don't see Britain going for a separate peace of any form of peace. Based simply on the KM capabilities, the RN and the location of the UK neither side would be able to gain the upper hand until the US got involved. Once the US is involved well I see the air war going as it did, But likely with more casualties and smaller results. The main fight thus would take place in NA which would likely come down to the same result sooner or later (Being the main front for ground combat Hitler would certainly get involved).

Remember, Germany declared war on the US after they invaded the USSR, If they were happy to declare war on America while fighting the Russians, Would they be more likely or less likely to declare war when there sitting fairly comfortably in Europe with no major threat?

The only major difference I see is being the time frame, With the Axis being able to concentrate more on the Luftwaffe and AA units/equipment the war could drag on into late 1945/46+.

#9 urqh

urqh

    Tea drinking surrender monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,681 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:50 AM

Yes mate, but I'm following the idea of allies not existing. The US is not going to be the UK's ally. The original poster has set the tone of Russia not having allies in the UK and US as a pre requisite for his assertion that Germany defeats Russia without Russia having allies. My answer to that is yes...Just as she would the UK without our allies and help. I know this did not happen. But on the basis raised by the original poster we must base the UK surviving on the basis of us not having any allies or help either..Why should we be exempt from the thought process of not having allies if that is the idea of the post on the Russians surviving? If the UK has no allies and no outside aid, its not a what if its a what would. It didn't happen and neither did the Russians not have allies to help them. I certainly cannot see the UK giving a fig for anyone else who is not in fact an ally if its about the survival of the nation. Without allies in 1940 Britain will make a seperate peace. We cannot survive long term without aid. If so why did we go down that road.

British Army 1939-1945 - World War II Tribute Video

 

 

[URL="http://youtu.be/Zbp_4XBmD4w"]

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 


#10 A-58

A-58

    Cool Dude

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,633 posts
  • LocationBaton Rouge, Louisiana

Posted 08 July 2012 - 04:19 PM

Why do some people always go down that road you ask urqh? It's because nobody uses the "search button" and are too lazy or ignorant to do research on their own. They'd much rather start a "new" thread with the same old questions.

"On the Plains of Hesitation, lies the blackened bones of countless millions who,
at the dawn of victory sat down to rest, and resting died"....

(Adlai Stevenson to Harry Truman on discussing the pros and cons of dropping the big one, or so I'm told)


#11 belasar

belasar

    Court Jester

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 04:31 PM

Why do some people always go down that road you ask urqh? It's because nobody uses the "search button" and are too lazy or ignorant to do research on their own. They'd much rather start a "new" thread with the same old questions.


Party Pooper! :) (but you're right)
Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)

#12 Skipper

Skipper

    Kommodore

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 22,309 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:39 PM

Keep it gentle lads, no need to get offensive here, if you get tired about answering what you consider a dead horse question, it's your choice. The matter has been dealt with ok, but starting a duplicate thread is not the end of the world , or is it?

Vorsicht+Feind.JPG


#13 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:55 PM

Why do some people always go down that road you ask urqh? It's because nobody uses the "search button" and are too lazy or ignorant to do research on their own. They'd much rather start a "new" thread with the same old questions.

Yes, there are few great threads addressing this subject, for example:
When did Germany lose the war?

The present thread seems to be a variant of the eternal post.war dilema: what if the Western allies have left Nazis alone to settle accounts with Soviets? The answer is simple: Nazis were more repulsive option.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.


#14 A-58

A-58

    Cool Dude

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,633 posts
  • LocationBaton Rouge, Louisiana

Posted 09 July 2012 - 05:24 AM

No, it's not the end of the world as we know it, so I'll do my best to keep it inoffensive to keep everyone happy and not to come off like brother Za Rodinu used to. Maybe I should have phrased it a little better. Instead of "lazy or ignorant", perhaps I should have said, "unknowing and uninformed". Ok, I get 50 push-ups and 20 laps around the forum.

"On the Plains of Hesitation, lies the blackened bones of countless millions who,
at the dawn of victory sat down to rest, and resting died"....

(Adlai Stevenson to Harry Truman on discussing the pros and cons of dropping the big one, or so I'm told)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users