If italy Joined the allies World War 2

Would the allies have been succesful if italy had joined them


  • Total voters
    8

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Pearl Harbour coincided with the final failure of Barbarossa and the start of the Soviet Winter Offensive,and Rommel's first retreat in North Africa .
 
Pearl Harbor happened when it did due the the Japanese steadily running out of oil after the US led oil embargo. IIRC the approximate date of the attack was determined by the Japanese high command, based on a minimum of 13 months of oil required to have any chance of winning a war with the US. The 13 months required was the amount needed to accomplish the operations laid out in their war plan, plus a reserve. Japan waited until they only had an additional 2 month of oil over the minimum.
 
This is an absolute and exaggerated claim : Japan did not lose because it had not enough oil, with more oil it would also use .
Even after the oil embargo, it took two years before Japan had oil problems .
Japan produced/imported in 1941 26,2 million barrels of oil,with a consumption of 37 million barrels .
In 1942 it was 28,9 million with a consumption of 41, 8 million : the IJN had enough oil for Midway .
In 1943 it was 32,4 million with a consumption of 44 million .
In 1944 there were big problems : consumption was 25 million with imports/production was 16,1 million .
But, even in 1944 there was sufficient oil for Leyte .
 
David Glantz, the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, concludes:

Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same
 

Yeah, and those Dodge trucks and 15 million pair of boots moved Soviets soldiers into battles that accounted for 60% of all Wehrmacht casualties. You seem to think the passage you've quoted contradicts what I'm saying. It doesn't.

The Allied effort was a team effort. Saying that "America won the war" is a vast oversimplification which derogates the contributions and sacrifices of the many Allies, and invites invidious comparisons to be made.
 
i know but without logistics you cannot win ill say it this way
Polish, Czech, Dutch, Norwegian, French, British, Russian, Ukrainian, ANZAC all proved their worth and without them, the war would have been longer and harder but the US was the pipe line in which their operations could be logistically successful
 

I know this; you're talking to someone who has been reading about this subject since long before you were born.
 

Users who are viewing this thread