General talk WWII

[Iron Domokun]

If the Brits and the Yanks *had* gone to war in the 1930s, would they have allied with the Brits against the Axis... or would there have been too much bitterness to make that politically feasible until far too late? Obviously, cooler heads prevailed historically. If you assume the two powers went to war in the first place, you're assuming that politicians on one or both sides are provoking war because they're stupid or crazy*. Under that assumption, it's possible that the war that never happened could have been longer and more destructive than you'd think.


*A reasonable assumption in any era.

 

[Totenkopf]

We did beat the Japs by ourselves...or the Marines did

Again, not entirely true

Listen, that's what my drill instructors taught us at boot camp, are you calling them liars?

 

[Totenkopf]

Seriously though (or as my black friends say, "Yo, real talk"), I'm glad we never went to blows again with the UK in the 20th century. I don't always like you limeys, but having served briefly alongside you Brits I love that you guys always have our backs and haven't sold us out like the frogs. Same for the Aussies and the any one of the countries that call the United States a friend and treats us like friends (that rules out France). There are obviously people more knowledgible than me when it comes the whole history of the conflicts during the era we're discussing, but I just want to finish up by saying I don't really care for international pissing contests and what ifs. I jumped in mostly for fun and to be obnoxious, but as for what did happen - the evidence is there for everyone to examine. I am inclined to agree with Matt in so far as saying no one single handedly won WWII in any theatre, and to rule out the contributions of any party however small or large, however significant or insignificant is both disrespectful and a crock (so I apologize for my part in that even if it was all in jest).

 

[Lincolnlog]

No one took you tooo seriously, Tot! :lol:

 

[rcbecker1]

Well either way we are stronger together than apart and that may be more important in the future than it was in the past. As for Russia I set them apart as their war with Germany was totally different than its other allies. Because for Stalin there was more about land grab and control of Europe especaily towards the end. At one point it looked like UK and USA might have a problem holding them back thats one reason so many forces stayed after the end. Also the rush for Berlin.
Remember Stalin was as greedy for power as Hitler. I mean this in no bad way towards the Russian people. Im speaking historicaly not racialy.
Ray

As for VAS 2.0 I look foward to this coming out. There seems to be many improvements.
Ray

 

[Rick]

The proposal for the Anglo-American war was "Plan Red" - an attack by the USA on Canada and followed by attacks on other British holdings. Teams of American and British officers actually wargamed this several times and came to the conclusion that the USA would have successfully invaded Canada but lost the Atlantic war and most of its fleets. The British would have lost a large part of its fleets and would (just) be able to blockade the American East coast ports while it tried to put a commonwealth force together to retake Canada (not easily). Hitler, despite making overtures to the (fairly widespread) American Nazi party, would not have intervened except to try to broker a truce between the 2 weakened countries (of the 2 he apparently favoured Britain). Winner - Germany. The end result might have been USA going it alone against the Japanese (or conceding them the oil and Pearl Harbour would never have happened - appeasement), whilst we either stayed out of the war in Europe or sided with Germany against Stalins Russia!

Yes, the world would have been very, very different.

And yes, I would love to see a list for the '32-'34 "Plan Red" alternative history war!

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

The Americans and British wargamed it together? For the potential opponents, that shows a very different view of the world. More gentlemanly, perhaps.

 

[Rick]

The Americans and British wargamed it together? For the potential opponents, that shows a very different view of the world. More gentlemanly, perhaps.

Umm, sorry - I failed to explain that properly. My bad. They wargamed it in the 80's or 90's to see what might have happened. At the time, the USA prepared it in secret (even to the point of stockpiling weapons and building airbases near the Canadian border), but managed to give enough away that the British and Canadians were aware of it. The Canadians even drew up contingency plans to try to deal with it, although it seems the British couldn't be bothered to!

There are bits on wikipedia and other sites about War Plan Red http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red and the other colour War Plans.

 

[tneva82]

The US and the UK would have had a difficult time defeating Hitler without the USSR,

More of case of USSR didn't really need much of help from US/UK who launched their invasion mostly to prevent USSR from taking pretty much entire Europe under it's wing...Got to prevent USSR from going all the way to Atlantic and saying "haha German and France are now part of USSR!".

Always amuses me to read those 3 being called as allies when it was more of having common enemy to fight...For NOW.

As it was without US+Britain having logistical issues and USSR being more than a bit worried about the atomic bomb there might have been US+Britain vs USSR all-out war on Europe right after defeating German.

 

[Rick]

The US and the UK would have had a difficult time defeating Hitler without the USSR,

More of case of USSR didn't really need much of help from US/UK who launched their invasion mostly to prevent USSR from taking pretty much entire Europe under it's wing...Got to prevent USSR from going all the way to Atlantic and saying "haha German and France are now part of USSR!".

Always amuses me to read those 3 being called as allies when it was more of having common enemy to fight...For NOW.

As it was without US+Britain having logistical issues and USSR being more than a bit worried about the atomic bomb there might have been US+Britain vs USSR all-out war on Europe right after defeating German.

Yes and no. In 1943 the USSR really felt that they had their backs to the wall - a lot of their industrial areas had been overrun and they needed time to move what they'd saved eastwards and rebuild their forces. This is one reason why the US/Britain/Commonwealth invaded Italy - to put pressure on the Germans and force them to divert a lot of their troops away from the USSR, giving the USSR the time they needed. The USSR would probably have survived, but would have lost a great deal more territory and would have had a much tougher time forcing the Germans back. If the USSR hadn't been fighting the Germans quite so hard in 1944, D-Day would have either never taken place, or it would have failed.

'Operation Unthinkable' was the codename given to the plan to invade the USSR in 1946 - Churchill was keen on it, the British general staff felt that the USSR's 3-1 superiority was too great (even allowing for the rebuilt Wehrmacht fighting for the allies), and a lot of the US generals (apart from Patton) weren't keen on the idea. I've no doubt that if we had fought against the USSR in 1946, we would have needed to use nukes against them, but it wouldn't have been quite like Japan - the industries in the USSR are dispersed, with huge areas between - a few nuclear strikes on the USSR wouldn't have had the same political impact.

 

[MongooseMatt]

'Operation Unthinkable' was the codename given to the plan to invade the USSR in 1946 - Churchill was keen on it, the British general staff felt that the USSR's 3-1 superiority was too great (even allowing for the rebuilt Wehrmacht fighting for the allies), and a lot of the US generals (apart from Patton) weren't keen on the idea. I've no doubt that if we had fought against the USSR in 1946, we would have needed to use nukes against them, but it wouldn't have been quite like Japan - the industries in the USSR are dispersed, with huge areas between - a few nuclear strikes on the USSR wouldn't have had the same political impact.

People never learn - invading Russia is something you just don't do! I think all military leaders who consider invading Russia ought to play Risk first...

 

[Myrm]

Indeed, as has been said before as to why an invasion of Russia has failed - Its too big, its too cold and there's too flamin' many Russians.

 

[Lincolnlog]

The US and the UK would have had a difficult time defeating Hitler without the USSR,

More of case of USSR didn't really need much of help from US/UK who launched their invasion mostly to prevent USSR from taking pretty much entire Europe under it's wing...Got to prevent USSR from going all the way to Atlantic and saying "haha German and France are now part of USSR!".

Always amuses me to read those 3 being called as allies when it was more of having common enemy to fight...For NOW.

As it was without US+Britain having logistical issues and USSR being more than a bit worried about the atomic bomb there might have been US+Britain vs USSR all-out war on Europe right after defeating German.

Tneva,

There are several reasons the Soviet Union could not win against the Axis powers without Britian and the US.

The first is logistics. The USSR has the manpower but not the logistical/industrial capability, even after moving key industries. The allies supplied critical war stocks, tanks, planes, ammunition, small arms.

The second is Leadership. The Stalin purges of the military in the 30's, wiped out the best of the Soviet military leadership. Prior to the war, Stalin was convinced the military was going to overthrow him. So he made those that he thought could oppose him, disappear. By the end of the war, Soviet Military Leadership was strong once again. It had a 5 year college to develop officers better than any Military School is capable of.

Third, the allies tied town literally millions of Axis troops that otherwise would have been fighting on the Eastern front. Remember, Stalin was against Operation Torch. He wanted a second European front openned earlier. The invasion of North Africa, Scicly, and then Italy made Stalin downright irritable. I would suggest that if the USSR didn't need the Allies, he would not have cared where we had busied ourselves.

Going back to Plan Red, where Matthew compares UK-US production as being roughly even in the 30's, both countries were coming out of a depression. Production is a matter of manpower, raw material, and facilities. The US nay have taken will and a few years to gear up, but in a protracted war, the US would have outproduced the UK including the Common Wealth allies.

But, this once again depends on will. The US was unwilling to jump into the war with the UK and USSR against Hitler until attacked by the Japanese. At that point, we were in lock stock and barrel. I have heard many veeterans speak about the differences in the fighting mans spirit/will in WWI versus Korea or Vietnam. And I think we saw a recurrance of that will in the wake of 9/11.

No single country won WWII by themselves, and I'm not convince could have won by themselves. Without the participation of all the allies the ETO would have turned into a stalemate.

 

[tneva82]

The first is logistics. The USSR has the manpower but not the logistical/industrial capability, even after moving key industries. The allies supplied critical war stocks, tanks, planes, ammunition, small arms.

Ummm...USSR outproduced German big time. If wars would be won by production alone German would have been stopped lot sooner. Yeah US helped them but again this only quickened the process.

The second is Leadership. The Stalin purges of the military in the 30's, wiped out the best of the Soviet military leadership. Prior to the war, Stalin was convinced the military was going to overthrow him. So he made those that he thought could oppose him, disappear. By the end of the war, Soviet Military Leadership was strong once again. It had a 5 year college to develop officers better than any Military School is capable of.

Yeah. That's what caused the initial disaster of 1941-1942. Note however that Soviets had the Germans running back before Normandy. And the Normandy was really a side show. Soviets faced triple the amount of divisions than Allies did. And the quality of said divisions was better on eastern front(more SS and panzer divisions for one) so disequality on the two fronts was even wider than just number of divisions shows up.

Stalin slaughtered the officer corp of '30's. He did not prevent military from re-learning lessons AFTER Germans attacked. War is the best teacher of warfare so the soviets were introduced into quite a crash course in "how to win a war". Result which was that the Germans were soon swamped by the superior manpower and production capabilities of the Soviets, halted in their track and then sent backward.

Process which began well BEFORE the Normandy(and indeed which triggered the whole Normandy invasion 'least USSR take German and French under it's wings as well)

Germans couldn't beat USSR whether or not the USA or Brits came. It would just have taken tad longer for the USSR if allies hadn't landed on French(albeit USSR would have then got German+French under their control as well. So probably Stalin would have prefered US+Britain to stay out of Europe despite extra losses to USSR military that would have caused).

Third, the allies tied town literally millions of Axis troops that otherwise would have been fighting on the Eastern front.

Pittances compared to what they faced already. And USSR could take down larger force.

Remember, Stalin was against Operation Torch. He wanted a second European front openned earlier. The invasion of North Africa, Scicly, and then Italy made Stalin downright irritable. I would suggest that if the USSR didn't need the Allies, he would not have cared where we had busied ourselves.

Yeah. No doubt he wanted when it looked bleak but when the inevitable happened and German advance was finally halted by superior manpower+production and after the USSR military had learned required lessons they were already grinding Germans BACK toward German. And THEN the second front opened.

Why you think the Allies landed AFTER USSR got the Germans running? Answer: They wanted to prevent USSR from going all the way to French. They weren't so much interested in helping USSR(if they had wanted to do THAT they would have done when it actually looked like it might actually be needed. Not when it became pretty certain(barring some incredibly unlikely disasters) they won't be needed after all.

Normandy wasn't anti-german manouver. It was anti-USSR manouver. US and Britain knew very well that once German is dealt they will be against USSR's power. Stalin knew that too. Normandy invasion was done with post-Nazi situation in mind.

 

[Rick]

The USSR only outproduced the German tanks with the T 34's fairly late on (late 43?). Before then they desperately needed the lend-lease equipment supplied by the allies. They also needed a second front opening up - even the USSR on its own wasn't going to win decisively on just a single front - even with Hitlers poor decisions helping Stalin! The lend-lease and Allies tying down divisions in Italy helped to give the USSR time to build up - time which it desperately needed.

As to Normandy - if the USSR had not been as strong and aggressive, there would have been more divisions facing the allies in Normandy - which would have pushed the invasion back into the sea. Don't forget - D-day was a close run thing, the allies could have failed there if Rommels plan had been followed and the reserves had been released, even without any more troops being available. Similiar thing with the USSR - if the German generals had been given free rein it might have been a different story, certainly a much longer and costlier war than it was.

The US was certainly looking beyond the end of the European war - they wanted to deal with the Japanese. They had wanted to do that before dealing with Germany. It was combined pressure from the USSR and Britain that convinced the USA to commit troops to Africa and then Italy. Without them, the USSR would probably have been pushed back even further, and retaking Europe would have been a monumental task. Imagine a new cold war with Germany and the USA being nuclear superpowers! Very few people in the US or British military were looking to continuing the war against the USSR after Germany (Patton and Churchill being the 2 most well-known) - most believed that with the fall of Germany and Japan, the war would have been ended completely.

 

[Lincolnlog]

Patton wanted to forcibly remove the USSR from Western and Central Europe, and then contain them within their borders. As a student of history, I think he realized that taking the Soviet Union was a loosing proposition.

Rick is absolutely correct about the industrial capabilities in comparison. And if not for the Murmansk Convoys, the war would have been protracted for the USSR. And the production capability of the US was greater than Germany and the USSR. But we built a lot of material for our allies, and many materials we built such as shipping and aircraft, were materials that the USSR didn't even attempt in quantity.

It's kind of funny, but usually American's are accused of claiming we won the big one all by ourselves. If Stalin had not needed us, he would not have bothered with the late war conferences.

By the way, there can be arguments made that if not for some very poor strategic moves by both Britain and the US in late 44, we would have beat the USSR to Berlin in a cake walk. Also, the strategic bombing campaign waged by both Britian and the US was a major contributing factor toward robbing Germany of need resources and reducing manufactuuring and well as dirupting transportation. This helped the USSR greatly in offensive operations against Germany.

 

[Rick]

I think one of the poorest tactical decision's was to only advance along one axis. That decision was made to try to capitalise on the Germans' collapse after 'Cobra' but was hamstrung by the fact that the allies couldn't get enough logistics across the channel to support the more desirable 2-axis advance. That and second-guessing the intelligence we were getting from Dutch and French resistance!
However, not to downplay the sacrifice made by the people involved, I still think that the allies advance from Normandy to Germany was easier than the Russians advance to Germany (easier in terms of lives lost on both sides is what I mean - there was still some bitter fighting on all fronts).