Could the Western allies have won it alone?

Yes of course, but all the more attention it would draw. It's alone but moving in a clear direction, faster than a recon plane and higher as well. It would definitely arouse suspicion among the Germans, and after the first drop they'd surely be in the air 24/7 looking for just such planes.

 

Which is why after the first the rest would be hidden in a huge formation.

 

OkOkOk...

This, by the way, is a good example of micromanagement. In a discussion of how the western Allies would cope without help from the Soviets in defeating Germany, we turn to a discussion of how you'd get the nukes on German cities...

 

Although the german bomb wasn't as advanced as the states, there was a lot of info on A bombs in Britain, which could have been used.

Also Britain had the first Digital computer which again if fallen into Nazi hands could have been reprogrammed to be used for their requirements.
Changing the whole course of the war.

If you read or watch the fatherland, it may not be too far from reality.

It may have been the second A bomb on New York or Washington.

Again just a small spanner.

 

Actually, a brief scene in the book Fatherland discusses how the three major Allied states were beaten in succession during the years of 1941-1945. However I fail to remember the 'solution' the Germans found for the US and the Soviets according to Robert Harris. The Brits in ths book were starved to death by the U-boats as nearly happened in reality; just to show how close this book is to actual history. Chilling.

 

Digital :-? on the 40s :roll: , no way jose, it was an analog, made with then state of the art vacum tubes, does any one remember this things of the past? :smok:

 

now that we started to talk about comp, I read some time ago, that the germans developed a comp but crude and mecanical but able to perform some calculations, I do not longer have that magazine, but in it says that the germans used to make calculation in their R&D for areodinamics

 

Please follow the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3754887.stm

Because it had valves doesn't make it digital.

 

From http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sectio ... puters.asp




A digital computer is designed to process data in numerical form (see digital circuit ); its circuits perform directly the mathematical operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. The numbers operated on by a digital computer are expressed in the binary system ; binary digits, or bits, are 0 and 1, so that 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, etc., correspond to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Binary digits are easily expressed in the computer circuitry by the presence (1) or absence (0) of a current or voltage. A series of eight consecutive bits is called a “byte” ; the eight-bit byte permits 256 different “on-off” combinations. Each byte can thus represent one of up to 256 alphanumeric characters, and such an arrangement is called a “single-byte character set” (SBCS); the de facto standard for this representation is the extended ASCII character set.


Therefore by making a valve, switch fully on or off and having two distinct states the computer is digital.

 

sorry

 

That's ok. Easy mistake.

 

No. Germany and the Axis neede to be attacked on three fronts. This really placed a strain on the finite resources at their disposal.

 

Did they NEED to be attacked on three fronts (Germany and Italy), or was it merely that being attacked on three fronts hastened the demise of the European Axis powers?

 

Indeed. That's precisely the question we are discussing here basically.

 

There is, of course, the option of an Allied landing in the south of France. This would be necessarily be preceded by the North African campaign mentioned earlier in this forum. The Sicily campaign would also be needed before a French landing, IMHO, to help secure the Allied flank.

 

If there had been only two ronts, the second would have to be major (i.e. Overlord style). Then it could probably have had the same success, or slightly less because of a few more German divisions who didn't have to fight in Italy.

However I am convinced that any divisions that were not engaged in their historic fronts would have been sent to the East in alternative scenarios. Or at least three quarters of them.

 

Here is an interesting question - say Britain is out of the war, or for some reason opening a Western Front is not an option...

Just suppose (leaving aside the rampant paranoia of Stalin for a second) that US troops went through Soviet Russia (they could embark on Soviet vessels, or at least vessels flying the Soviet Flag, to evade Japanese patrols) and proceed via the trans-Siberian railway to the 'Eastern' Front.

Oh, yes, this senario would include the US building another 2 or 3 tracks onto the railway.

How well do you think it would go?

Personally I think that there is potential for the US to be a 'weaker ally' in the harsh conditions of the Eastern Front (not USA-bashing - I doubt if us Brits could have done it either!) and be almost a hinderance to the Soviets. At least at first - I'm sure they'd have adapted well-ish eventually!

 

I don't know whether the US would have gone into such a complicated undertaking - not becase they shun such things but because of the complete cooperation with the SU they'd have to agree to. Imagine the diplomatic trouble of keeping the Soviets from taking all of Europe as their earned spoils of war!

I think the military aspect of it is perfectly possible, with American troops taking over some part of the Russian front or even coordinating actions with them, but on the high level would be near impossible to get agreement.

 

Personally, I think the geography and the climate of the Soviet Union would have been too great a shock for U.S (or British or whoever) forces to get used to for a very long time. Remember, Germany (by far the best army in the world at that time) took a full year and a half to begin to properly come to grips with it. The winter of early 1943 was the first time the Germans managed to be effective in really harsh winter conditions (Kharkov) and winter in Russia made up a fair proportion of the year (not to mention the mud and slush of spring and autumn). By the winter of 43/44 the Germans were a match for the Soviets in winter fighting, possibly even superior. Do not underestimate the Russian weather and fighting conditions.

 

As long as the US could find a place to land troops and supplies safely into Europe, Germany would eventually be beaten.

First of all, by the end of WWII, the US had 16 million troops, more than Germany had even at its peak (somewhere around 12-13 million troops).

Secondly, as we all know, German production was nothing compared to US production.

Of of the most important reasons is the civilians. If the US continued a war with Germany, it would be fought in Europe. The German civilians would start to get very tired, sick, and scared of the war, and more than likely pose revolutions, uprisings, etc. The US did not have this problem. Their population was thousands of miles away, across oceans, and in no danger from enemy forces. They could and would continue a war until the objective is acheived.