The Soviets were winning the war long before D-Day. The reason the retreats speedened were of course having a second front and split forces are going to reduce effectiveness. Without D-Day, I believe the Soviet Union would still have defeated Germany.
@Guerrilla:
That is BM that you give no chance for development(like long range bombers, Radar, IT, and the A-Bomb)….Regardless of Russia being out of the war The US would have eventually been sucked in and given them a full wack…THey would have beaten the Germans… Industrialists for some reason always beat Craftsmen.
GG
Industrialists don’t beat craftmenship! It’s the other way around! Do you think 1000 spearmen could defeat 10 soldiers with sub-machineguns? Another exemple, US may have a bigger force then Canada does, but our troops are better trained because we have a smaller force. Also we have the best commandos,snipers and ground support units in the world!!! I saw a competition for it. It was so cool.
The reason both Italy and France were not well equipped for the war is because their industry focused on craftsmanship and not mass production. They made good weapons, but they could not turn them out fast enough to utilize them well. This was part of the reason that France was overwhelmed so quickly by Germany, and why Germany had to come to Italy’s rescue in Africa.
you could also look at how fast germany collapsed in the east after d-day,because it was way out of proportion to the retreats they had made pre-d-day. They collapsed in the east after d-day.
either way i think that if the russians had attacked germany first, and tried to invade as the above poster said they would, they would have been smashed.
they wouldnt have the russian winter, which realy has saved them in countless wars, and they would be crushed.
we know this, napoleonic wars, every battle outside russia pre 1812 they lost to france, in the russian campaign 1812-1813 they lost until the winter.
russia realy has a terrible military history, they have been saved countless times by their enemies under-estimating the winter.
this also happened with germany, they failed to take moscow because of the winter freeze.
Then why did Paton was called back after the fall of Berlin? Why did the allied decided to make a temporary peace with the russian that could only lead to the cold war, if they were so easy to defeat outside russia.
Russia was completly disorganised but their number was incredible. Even after 20 millions had been killed they were still a threat to the west.
If we hadn’t landed in France I’m positive the Russians would not have stopped at Berlin. By the time we landed the war was already over, Russia had finally gotten its act together and Germany was doomed.
If Russia was a neutral country, somehow, then the U.S. would put a lot of effort into resupplying the U.K. to keep from it being taken over. At least I’d like to think that, 8)
@Guerrilla:
That is BM that you give no chance for development(like long range bombers, Radar, IT, and the A-Bomb)….Regardless of Russia being out of the war The US would have eventually been sucked in and given them a full wack…THey would have beaten the Germans… Industrialists for some reason always beat Craftsmen.
GG
Industrialists don’t beat craftmenship! It’s the other way around! Do you think 1000 spearmen could defeat 10 soldiers with sub-machineguns? Another exemple, US may have a bigger force then Canada does, but our troops are better trained because we have a smaller force. Also we have the best commandos,snipers and ground support units in the world!!! I saw a competition for it. It was so cool.
Dude were not dealing with two seperate time periods… plus bad Ratio… Lets choose One Million Spears Vs. 100 Sub-machine Guns and limited Rounds (250 Each) and no supplies for 3 hours… If your really good you will knock out 250,000 if you shoot one bullet per man… but what about the other 750,00… this isn’t a 1970’s Space Alien Shoot 'Em Up with unlimited ammo… the logistics come into play… Back to WW2 comparison -wise it is the 1930’s(Russians and most Minor Allies) and 1940’s (Britain and US) vs. 1940’s (Japan and Italy) and 1950’s (Germany)… 10 years… and if I might add I think in some respects the Americans were better Craftsmen… look at such Creations as the M-1 Garand (compared to the Kar-98 Mauser or the Carcano) and the B-17 (compared to the Ju-88 Its German Equivelant for mainline Bombers)…
GG
Look how long we took to get through France a miniscule amount of terrain compared to Eastern Europe/Russia. And we had plenty of air support to tag along…
The Western allies were simply an inferior force only moving forward through sheer numerical superiority. Now, imagine the entire German army being in France instead of Russia. Now way America or Britain (or any other allies) get far, if off the beaches.
If Russia wasn’t in the war German would be owning France right now and probably parts of Africa as well. Quite frankly the U.S. and U.K. troops just couldn’t match up against the Germans. We won through air superiority and numerical superiority… Germany free from Russia can match us and thus defeat us!
the trick word in your statement is defeat… to “defeat” us required an Invasion plus destruction of the British Fighter Force(Which they had failed to do before BArbarossa) the British Bombing Force(Which was hard to knock out due too Night time bombing) and American Bombing Force (which even though it was Daytime bombing and taking heavy losses it was dealing a death blow to the German produciton might)… But lets switch all that Bombing Power to the Coast of Normandy particularly a Transport force… Granted it is covered by AA defenses but so is so many factories in the Heartland… to defeat us is to make us surrender something we would never do… “Come get across this channel and try to Invade”… So what if they have a ton of troops over there… they are doing nothing except making a Fortress Europe… Now we would have taken much longer then it did in real life to build any force stronger to Invade… D-Day 1948… But we would have had more production, more Materials, Machines, and Men… So would they but we were Larger and with a devoted effort and a real threat I see no reason why it would not have happened… Germans could have produced an Invasion navy but they weren’t too strong in that area in both production or Technology… You talk of Superior training which is a truth in the light of the Germans… But we are dealing with what if’s… Does that mean the Americans could not have become seasoned in fighting to the point that they could have defeated the Germans? I think it is possible…
GG
I don’t think you realize the scope of the German army simply being placed in France/Italy.
Look at Sicily where Hube got away with a minor army and then held off the Allies in Italy till the end of the war. If Allies try to invade through the Balkans the results would be even worse because the mountains in Greece are even worse than those in Italy.
So, we have France.
The beaches now have triple, maybe quadruple the defence they had in ‘real’ history + a constant flow of armor divisions and a strong Luftwaffe (the only reason the Germans lost the Battle of Britain was because Goring changed the gameplan too many times and –- yup — planes were needed to invade Russia; so what if the Germans never pulled back their attacks…?).
Germany bumps up their rocket development from the bottom of the list and maybe the Panther-tank is never produced (t’was a counter to the T-34, but since the Russians aint fighting Germany…) but the Me-262 comes out in '43/'44… Allied air-superiority is practically crushed right there and then.
The Allies could barely beat Rommel in the desert (an open playing field) despite having numerical superiority in every aspect (manpower, airpower, tanks, supplies) — so what if the Germans deploy more tank divisions in Africa because there wouldn’t be a war with Russia? Think the measly M3-Lees/Grants had a tough time with Pz IVs? What about some StuGs and even more Tigers (they already had two battalions there)? Air superiority?
We’re talking about the ENTIRE German army here plus any advances they were planning to make but couldn’t execute BECAUSE of Russia (rockets, jet-aircraft, nukes?). Germany could easily invade the Arabic lands from Egypt and have all the supplies necessary to continue their war to an eventual invasion of Britain (perhaps in '40/'41).
Russia is what wrought the end of Germany — without that harbringer sucking supplies, engineering, and manpower Germany could easily steamroll all other opponents in Europe/Africa. If anyone thinks otherwise you are really not thinking hard enough on it (or just lack the knowledge thereof).
If anyone thinks Americans are inferior fighters,just ask the Japanese…We utterly destroyed them during the island hopping campaigns
We’re talking about a war without Russia, Mr. Fake.
Without Russia the Allies lose, end of story.
END, OF, STORY.
BTW America didn’t even have more forces than the U.K. in Europe until late '44/early '45 –- America didn’t save anyone’s ass, it was Hitler’s decisions that saved the Allies.
Hitlers decisions saved the Allies? Are you glad or disappointed? Does “might make right”,which is the nazi philosophy?The Germans with their neato army couldnt beat millions of peasants and Im glad…Hurray for the Russian people,who were just as brave and just as strong as the krauts and gave the Germans an asswhooping…
Think the Russian army was a peasant-force?
Should I even waste my time…?
:roll:
RFR - i killed your previous post for language. I debated editing it, but don’t have the energy.
this is your last warning.
@Real:
Hitlers decisions saved the Allies? Are you glad or disappointed? Does “might make right”,which is the nazi philosophy?The Germans with their neato army couldnt beat millions of peasants and Im glad…Hurray for the Russian people,who were just as brave and just as strong as the krauts and gave the Germans an asswhooping…
this makes no sense. Even if taken sarcastically.
Russia is what wrought the end of Germany –- without that harbringer sucking supplies, engineering, and manpower Germany could easily steamroll all other opponents in Europe/Africa. If anyone thinks otherwise you are really not thinking hard enough on it (or just lack the knowledge thereof).
Agreed!! But don’t forget that nasty Russian winter!!
I’d blame it more on the Siberian-divisions and the muddy-Spring that followed the intense winters. Actually, Russia all-together is just one big horrible weather-condition.
Realistically the Germans should have never even came close to Moscow. But Stalin’s purges really killed all the experience the Russians had. I think if he hadn’t done that the Germans either A) Never invade (no Finland-example to investigate) or B) Invade but don’t get farther or to Kiev. I’d explain it if you’d like.
I’d explain it if you’d like.
Please do.
Realistically the Germans should have never even came close to Moscow. But Stalin’s purges really killed all the experience the Russians had. I think if he hadn’t done that the Germans either A) Never invade (no Finland-example to investigate) or B) Invade but don’t get farther or to Kiev.
By realistically do you mean hypothetically? That would make alot more sense.
Once again NUB you mentioned the allies would have lost… lost to mean means conquered… And I have pointed out that they didn’t have the navy to do it… And what navy they did have we could blow out of the water with our air force… granted we wouldn’t have breached fortress europe in 1945 but I think eventually time and Technology would have caught up with us… with Germany bottled up in Afrika and Europe they would not have advance far Terrritorially… or economically… also you mentioned the classic “If-only-Hitler” statement… if he was out of the way their wouldn’t be a war…
@Guerrilla:
they didn’t have the navy to do it…
They didn’t historicially, but without having to deal with the Soviet Union, I think they would have been able to build up an Air Force and Navy to defeat Britain by the time the US enters the war, not having to use rescources on preparing for Barbarossa.
True but Russia would be missing the Lend-Lease which the americans had been providing Britain since the Lend-Lease Act was released March 11, 1941 (and now would be being shipped to Britain)… I would imagine that would have been Significantly increased with the threat on London…
the allies would still have won but it would take longer. the japanes did have the advantage in the start of the war. by attacking pearl harbor, and by the superior naval fleet in the pacific. the germans had a great fighting force. and naturally they are really good fighters. however the economic power of the united states the the loyal british troops would have over powerd the axis. as well they had the loyalty of the entire continent of europe. mostly of france. plus if the scientific exploration in theory went on as it did if russia was in in the war. america would have been the first country with the atomic bomb. we all know the out come of these terrible bombs. we all know the effect it had on japan. what we dont know is what effect it would of had on germany. we also dont know if we would have used it.
