Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There is no way the Soviet Union would have "steam rolled" all the way to the Channel coasts if the USA decides to remain neutral...it´s become some sort of allied mantra.
In this you are correct, if the Russians can defeat Germany in the "No USA" scenario, then it would be a long, slow, hard, bloody fight. No "Steam-roller"
Sometimes it´d appear the allies do no yet fully recover from the wild celebration held following the German surrender; too much alcohol, too much ladies, panties and bras scattered all over the place, too many sleepless nights...
"No matter what the Germans would do or would not do, they in the end would lose the war..."; so easy huh?
No, IMO a German loss would be POSSIBLE, not inevitable
Whether commonwealth people like it or not, the U.S.A. is ESSENTIAL for allied victory.
Was Great Britain essential for allied victory? Hmm...i do not think so...let´s see: protected by the mighty channel, and cursed by U.S. neutrality, Germany and Great Britain attain what we call a stalemate. So Great Britain is essential when it comes to reaching stalemates only. No victory scenario.
You have just contradicted yourself!!! Without the UK Commonwealth tying down 50 divisions in the west, keeping a big chunk of the Luftwaffe Flak units in the West, delaying Barbarossa by 2-3 months not to mention supplies to the Soviets in 1941 - it would be almost impossible for the Soviets to survive. Do you think the USA UK could then defeat Germany without the USSR?
In the past i have commented the allies reached the perfect balance of ingredients to formulate victory: the large army of some brutal regime who did not care for losses (USSR); a very large and very competitive air force (USAAF); two large navies (US and Royal Navy); a powerful military industry safe and away from significant enemy harm (USA); an assembly base separated from the continent (UK), plus the armies of both the USA and Great Britain.
This, however, will not undermine the accuracy and validity of the argument: while the U.S.A. did of course benefit from the intervention of the other 2 major allies, the U.S.A. could have remained in the comfort and safety of their neutrality while in Great Britain new religions, cults and sects are created that worship the Channel, and the Soviets accept German terms for ending the war in the east, losing a chunk of their territory.
And after the Japanese Germans have conquered all of Asia, Africa, etc. how does the Neutral USA at peacetime status face down the Axis?
The USA is essential. An issue not subjected to doubt or inquiry.
Why? Because you say so? Apparently some here on the forum didn't get your memo because we disagree with you
Of Great Britain, oh well, i do not bother that much. (??)
So, again, no U.S.A. in Europe, no allied victory at all and no soviet "steam rolling" all the way to the Channel coasts. At minimum, we have a stalemate, if not a clear Germany victory.
The real issue here should be that given the status of things in Europe in the early 1940s, it was Great Britain who needed the U.S.A. and not vice-versa. They needed the help of the U.S. for the very simple and pristine reason Germany was an enemy to tough and too powerful to deal with all by themselves. The Heer was not an enemy, it was THE enemy. British/Commonwealth army forces were decisively routed and/or defeated by the Heer wherever they clashed until Al-Alamein.
PERIOD.
Soren, you underestimate the damage that Hitler would have inflicted in the Army.
All those extra troops and supplies would be squandered.
Explain this comment more Syscom.
Marcel:
It was not necessary to occupy the entire territory of the Soviet Union. The word "necessary" as i used it here sounds hilarious...it was something well beyond the human and material potential of Germany. It was simply not contemplated....
....
Another question to all: Could the western allies have won without the USSR?
Again syscom3 you're forgetting the resources spent on the Allied air raids the campaign in Africa.
With 650,000 more troops the Soviets would've lost Stalingrad for sure, esp. when the German troops were fully equipped with winterclothing which undoubtedly would've been the case with an extra million support personnel. The LW would be present in stronger numbers as-well.
Keep the feet on the ground: by even suggesting such a thing you are likewise suggesting it is the Soviet Union and Great Britain defeating Germany. This constitutes a drama far beyond rubbish; the utmost tragedy in the anals of reason.
So anybody that has an opinion different than your is "Rubbish"?
No, not like that. I respect and value opinions that are at variance with my own, but one enters the realm of Rubbish when resisting evidence that is as sound as 1 ton of solid concrete falling on top of your head.
No I dont forget how crucial it is. Germany was not going to defeat Russia. They had a chance in 1942 and they lost it. After that it was just a long march back to Berlin.
It seems hard for some people to realize just how much manpower material was used to defend the reich from aerial bombing, that and about 20% of the entire Wehrmacht was by 44 fighting the Western Allies. Just another 20% more manpower in the east and a million more men at home to help supply the troops and Stalingrad would've fallen quickly.
On 4 July 1942, Independence Day, six American crews from the 15th Bombardment Group (Light) together with six RAF crews were despatched from RAF Swanton Morley, Norfolk, on a daylight sweep against four German airfields in the Netherlands. It was the first time American airmen had flown in American-built bombers against a German target, but although it was important historically, the raid was not an unqualified success.
In August 1942, the 92nd and 301st Bomb Groups arrived to join Brigadier General Ira C. Eaker's rapidly increasing air force.
It took time to get the new groups ready for combat and training was lacking in many areas. Colonel Frank A. Armstrong, had mid-August 24 crews ready for combat. Meanwhile, as arguments went on behind the scenes about whether bombing in daylight was possible over heavily defended targets in Europe or even that the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberators' bomb-carrying capacity and their armament would be enough, the first Fortresses strike of the war was scheduled for August 17, 1942.
One thing to ponder on about the US contribution to the war in Europe..... it wasn't untill summer of 1943 that there were enough troops and amphib ships for the US and Brits to be a factor in Italy.
The Germans essentially lost the war in Russia at Stalingrad long before the US's power was felt.
After having read so many books and articles about the eastern front, i find it amazing to realize there are countless historians which see "Barbarossa" doomed virtually from its inception. I am bewildered.
You are correct, there are many that say "Barbarossa" was a big blunder by Hitler, but I don't agree. Hitler had to attack the USSR, or they would have built up and attacked Germany. The Germans had a good chance to win, but only until 1942, after that it is too late.
With all mistakes and unwise decisions made they were still so damn close to beat the Soviets i can not believe there are people who truly believe things could not have happened differently if some pieces on the chessboard would have been placed correctly.
Agreed, I think Hitler's biggest mistake was delaying for 3 months in the Balkans. I think he would have been better off sending only 8 - 12 divisions to help the Italians, and launching Barbarossa in April. He would have had 12 - 20 less divisions, but the Russians would have been even less prepared. Hitler could probably have taken an extra 10 - 15 divisions from France, he vastly over-estimated the danger from a British invasion of France in 1941
Acknowledged is the fact Germany had already scattered its forces throughout Europe prior to June 22, 1941. The day Barbarossa was launched the Heer had ~50 divisions still stationed in the West.
*** It is relevant to notice that by such time, the USA was not still in the war though.***
Yes indeed. So the fact that the US was not in the war would not have helped. Actually 58 German divisions if you count the Balkans, 39 in Western Europe, 12 in Norway, 7 in the Balkans.
But, let´s move to a period of time when the USA was now a combatant: 1943; by this year the contribution of the USA to the allied war effort had become more than significant. Torch had already taken place, and the allied presence in the West/Mediterranean seemed more threatening than ever. Throughout the entire 1943, the Heer maintained an average of ~50 divisions stationed in the West only...think of any % of such divisions sent to the East, say, for Kursk.
Udet said:The dimension of the Reich´s air defence system was astounding, and as i put it, that was mainly courtesy of the massive 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces; without such fleets involved the size and effort invested in such venture would of been way less significant, releasing a huge number of men and material that goes to the east.