Would the Allies win without Russia in the real war?

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.

• mod

@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.

@NameUsedBefore:

I’d explain it if you’d like.

Please do.

@NameUsedBefore:

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.

The war was won by the Soviet Union alone- they “obsorbed” 75% of the german fighting forces. If in a fairy tale world where German and soviet interests could have co-existed and in a world where Stalin would never had attacked hit “ally”, then their was no chance in hell for the allies to win. consider:

1. Hitler now cant attack USSR as a way of forcing England to surrender which he never wanted to destroy england and in fact wanted them as allies.–-Now Hitler has to use the direct approach which from july 1940-dec 1941 would have resulted in occupation on england and loss of all her colonies (germans unleash 160 divisions in afrika, england, middle east) they take all the oil and secure a transportation route to germany because Malta, and Gibrater and the entire Medditeraen are now an “axis lake”

2. the additional oil supplies allow the italian fleet to combine with german fleet and used for the invasion and occupation of england.

3. The loss of England from the war creates a huge void in the pacific, allowing japan to finish off China and take the dutch east indies with better security allowing an invasion of Australia in the summer of 1941.

4. the United states would be alone fighing for the survival of only north and south america, while they had no forward bases since all of Europe,afrika, and asia are totally overrun by axis forces.

5. The industrial power base of all these conquests would easilly be more than equal to american abilities. The new manpower resorces would exceed our ability to field equal numbers , while the technology race and time would have allowed Hitler to come up with some goodies to spice up the soup while we tried to figure out how we can supply our forces all the way from north america since we let Hitler have his cake and eat it too.

i think you over estamate the axis power. the japanese simply did not have the man power to supply there military. as well the terriroty/ country they do invade will put up a fight. atleast a gurilla war. they will not simply fall over. as well as the germans actually need supplies to build infrastracute. wich they had none of. and this all takes time. time is importand. if the americans focused on one country at a time they could have easly won. and with briton. there airforce and navy was to strong. even if in a theory the germans did invade englad( i say that with a laugh) they would have sustained to much losses getting to england. even if the germans in theory do conquer england(say that with even bigger laugh) scotland and ireland would be right in there as well, plus a gurilla war. that is something germany would have problems with.

yea you got to watch those men with the skirts from scotland they are decisive in battle (if their not playing bagpipes while fighting). I hope the SS can handle them!
Churchill had nothing but his bark to back up his “defend the beaches speech”. It was a cold bluff to demonstrate the nations resolve. The reality is they could not stand up to any sucessful German beachhead. The BEF couldnt bridge the gap at Sedan even with the help of allies…so how do they contain the victorious armies from France once they get into the Dover/Ramsgate beachhead? Control of the air is vital and was the only prerequisite for the invasion. The navy at scapa flow was too far and if the Brits moved naval units in the channel with German Air superiority they would be sunk before any threat developed against the invasion fleet. Plus the Germans could have mined parts of the path that would be taken to engage the invasion fleet. Plus the Brits had no prepared “atlantic wall” since the defeat came as a surprise to the world their was simply no investment in anti- invasion defenses unlike what the Germans prepared from 42-44 along the coast of France. And you see what that did in Normandy. Without that the invasion would be just like Anzio. Germans would get a few rocks thrown at them by British children.

The only thing that saved British interests was Hitler who decided to fight a real war in the east hoping it would lead to a bloodless conquest of England. A small psycological pressure was applied by the RAF and Churchill to show the resolve, but it was very much like a game of a Hawk and ground rodent, where this rodent stands up tall and faces the Hawk so as too look big, but once the thing turns its head even for a second, the Hawk has his prey.

I think that U.S.A. would own Canada we would have air, naval, tank, artillery superiority on a ratio of like 10 to 1.  Not to mention we would have way more men.

And to answer your little “canadian troops are better trained”… we could use troops who have actual combat experience (Iraq, Afganistan).  I would say 1 week of combat experience can make up for 1 month of training

I totally missed this gem!

Quote from: Real Fake Reel
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…

CC writes back:
this makes no sense.  Even if taken sarcastically.

OMFG>>>>too funny LMFAO… that crap  made my day… wtf …LOL!!!

Wait, what circumstances constitute an Axis win? Do we mean total world domination?

And, when you guys speak of D-Day and other events involving the Western Allies, we don’t know that those operations would have been the same had the USSR not been involved in the war. Although France was a good invasion point for the Allies, it may never have happened at all if the Soviets weren’t involved. Or, more likely, it would have been modified. So many things could change based on this “What if” scenario.

An “Axis win” is a victory condition set forth in a game.  Nice and neat for playing out strategies, but realistically, if the Axis powers had forced an armistice/peace treaty/surrender on their terms, they would have been forced to deal with many of the problems that other countries faced during the latter half of the 20th century.  Imagine if the Germans had held onto France after the war, assuming a concession by the Western Allies that liberating France was not worth the cost of continuing a war.  You could easily have a situation where occupied France turns into Algiers/Hungary/South Vietnam/Afghanistan.

The Germans would have simply exterminated all opposition to rule. They were not PC at all.

Point well taken, Imperious, but neither were the Soviets during the Afghanistan invasion.  It would be extremely difficult to represent on a boardgame, but I could forsee a scenario where in the late 40’s/early 50’s, an occupied France becomes a hotbed of resistance to the Germans, with the resistance supplied by either the Western or Communist Allies.  The Germans would not want to slaughter the French population wholesale, as 1: they needed the manpower to operate French industries and 2: wiping out an entire indigenous population is much, much harder to do than ostracize a minor ethnic group, especially when the French were well aware of the disappearance and highly suspicious of the fate of the Jewish population.  Were the Germans to attempt to wipe out the French altogether, it would prove likely to be their undoing.  Even if it took half a century.  I can just imagine Reagan making a proclamation on the cliffs of Dover, “Mister Kohl, tear down this (Atlantic) Wall.”

I have a sudden desire to go re-read Newt Gingrich’s alternate history novel.