The most important battle of World War II?

try this on for size…play axis and allies WITHOUT the USA…they remain a neutral country unless attacked by either germany or japan…can the UK and USSR win this game?  99.9 i think the answer is no.

I guess that settles it. Axis and Allies decides History. Excellent argument!

@Imperious:

try this on for size…play axis and allies WITHOUT the USA…they remain a neutral country unless attacked by either germany or japan…can the UK and USSR win this game?   99.9 i think the answer is no.

I guess that settles it. Axis and Allies decides History. Excellent argument!

Now i see why you ARE the Imperious Leader.  Classic!!!

Germany was already losing and would have kept losing with or without the US. Japan would have run rampant in the Pacific until Germany got dealt with, then UK and the Commonwealth countries would have started pushing Japan back. So basically, Germany would have fallen in 1944 anyway (1945 at the latest) and Japan would have taken a lot longer to settle, maybe until 1950. But The Allies definitely would have won WWII even if the US had stayed out of it the whole time.

@Zombie69:

Germany was already losing and would have kept losing with or without the US. Japan would have run rampant in the Pacific until Germany got dealt with, then UK and the Commonwealth countries would have started pushing Japan back. So basically, Germany would have fallen in 1944 anyway (1945 at the latest) and Japan would have taken a lot longer to settle, maybe until 1950. But The Allies definitely would have won WWII even if the US had stayed out of it the whole time.

ok…as i said play a game of A&A global 1940 with the US remaining neutral and win the war with just the UK and USSR and the ANZAC and france and let me know how the game goes…the US does not enter the war at ALL unless JAPAN attacks pearl…so tell the Japanese player NOT to attack Hawaii or ANY US territory and he does NOT have to worry about USA’s industrial might the entire game and the USA can still purchase units but at it’s non-war income level and they can do non-combat movement and they cannot attack anybody.

oh…germany was NOT already losing in december of 1941,  the east front had bogged down into winter and had slowed them down, but the germans had still captured a lot of territory in the first six months of the great patroitic war however, Rommel was still very strong in north africa, japan was pushing deep into china, and britain was saying SOS to america at this time before december 6 because the germans were making killings in the battle of the atlantic, please tell me how the allies win this war without the men and industrial juggernaut that was the USA, remember please…the battles and invasions that the US participated in…do not take place…which means no operation torch, no normandy, at least the british would have had to invade ALONE, which means 1.5 million american troops are NOT in the UK at this time, no sicily, no salerno, no anzio, no midway, no leyte gulf, no island hopping, which means the japs have carriers EVERYWHERE in the pacific decimating the british fleet there, should i go on?  oh yeah…no atom bomb either, because germany would have invented it FIRST because they were doing WARTIME R & D and the USA would NOT be doing it at the speed at which they did.

@RJL518:

America launched operation torch in north africa in november of 42…something the ussr wanted the americans to do help releive pressure on the ussr during stalingrad…

If america does not get into the war…the japanese claim the pacific…the germans woudl have kicked the british out of north africa…and of course normandy does NOT take place opening up the west front of ww2…and of course…NO atom bomb…at least not by the USA…do u think germany could held off the russians long enough for them to get THEIR atom bomb into the air?  Everyone seems to forget, germany was working their OWN manhattan project…the US just beat them to it…

so i ask again…if america does NOT get into world war 2…do the allies win?  thats why pearl harbor was a HUGE day for america…not just for ww2…but that day changes america into the dominant power they are even to this day!

try this on for size…play axis and allies WITHOUT the USA…they remain a neutral country unless attacked by either germany or japan…can the UK and USSR win this game?   99.9 i think the answer is no.

America launched operation torch in north africa in november of 42…

I agree this helped the Soviet Union. But the Soviets would have won at Stalingrad even without Operation Torch.

If america does not get into the war…the japanese claim the pacific…

This is true. The Japanese would have owned most of the non-American islands in the Pacific; such as Indonesia, New Guinea, etc. This would have given them a good supply of oil. In addition, they could have increased the industrial capacity of Manchuria and of Japan itself. Japan would have taken the place of the British Empire, at least in the far east. But they would not have conquered India or the rest of China. Their island empire would have taken up a lot of space on a map–at least if you counted the Pacific as being “owned” by Japan–but in terms of land area controlled or the population of occupied countries, it would have been a smaller, weaker empire than Britain’s.

the germans woudl have kicked the british out of north africa

This is doubtful. Hitler wanted to throw as much strength as he could against the Soviet Union. Rommel had been given only a very small force. Hitler regarded the main purpose of the North African effort as diplomatic (to save Italy’s bacon in Libya), not strategic. At first, it looked as though Rommel might take Cairo. But after his initial offensive petered out, the British added reinforcements to the area at a much faster pace than the Germans. When Montgomery began his westward push, he had overwhelming numerical superiority.

do u think germany could held off the russians long enough for them to get THEIR atom bomb into the air?

Hitler had chosen to allocate only minimal funding to Germany’s atom bomb effort. His rationale was that the outcome of the war would be decided in '42, or '43 at the latest. America did not use nuclear weapons on Japanese cities until late '45.

try this on for size…play axis and allies WITHOUT the USA

In order to create a balanced game with a relatively simple rules set, it was necessary for Larry Harris to overstate the economic power of the Axis and understate what the Allies could do. During WWII, there was a reasonably solid correlation between military aircraft production and overall military production. Bearing that in mind, below are military aircraft production numbers. The first column represents military aircraft produced in '42; the second production in '44.

U.S.      48,000        96,000
Germany    15,000    41,000
U.S.S.R.    25,000      40,000
U.K.        24,000      26,000
Japan      9,000        28,000

In 1941, the U.S. produced 19,000 military aircraft. Though still technically at peace, the U.S. delivered large numbers of these aircraft to the Soviet Union and to Britain. In 1940, the plan had been to expand American aircraft production to 70,000 planes per year; with half that production delivered to Britain.

It’s also worth looking at the production of land weapons.

Artillery production (entire war)
Germany: 73,000
Japan: 13,000
U.S.S.R.: 517,000

Tanks and self-propelled guns
Germany: 67,000
Japan: 4,000
U.S.S.R.: 106,000

@Imperious:

Midway would not change the Pacific War. The productive capabilities of America would destroy anything Japan had.

Japan could only hope to avoid war with US. Four Carriers is not the difference between victory and defeat.

Not to mention that America almost always knew Japanese naval movements by breaking their codes, and Japan simply could not do the same thanks the the Navajo code talkers.

Even worse, the U.S. scored a number of successes right from the start against Japanese convoys with submarines, robbing them of any chance to reap the benefits of their conquests in the mineral rich DEI. So even if America lost their carriers (surely to be replaced quickly), it wouldn’t be enough time for the Japanese to fully ultilize their resources.

Gotta go with Moscow.  Some of you are forgetting that Hitler felt that the only reason England stayed in the war was because they hoped to get the USSR in it to relieve pressure.  If Russia falls, England would sue for peace.  I do not find that at all unreasonable.  Germany would not have pushed further into the eastern part of the USSR because it was pretty much worthless.  Taking the entire German army and Air force and than putting them in France in 1942 after the Russian surrender would have made England’s chances at victory impossible.  They would be lucky to be able to stop an invasion at that point.

I am looking at the question as a “rub a lamp, make a wish” kind of way.  The feasibility of Germany beating Russia is another question all together.

@Zooey72:

Gotta go with Moscow.  Some of you are forgetting that Hitler felt that the only reason England stayed in the war was because they hoped to get the USSR in it to relieve pressure.  If Russia falls, England would sue for peace.  I do not find that at all unreasonable.  Germany would not have pushed further into the eastern part of the USSR because it was pretty much worthless.  Taking the entire German army and Air force and than putting them in France in 1942 after the Russian surrender would have made England’s chances at victory impossible.  They would be lucky to be able to stop an invasion at that point.

I am looking at the question as a “rub a lamp, make a wish” kind of way.  The feasibility of Germany beating Russia is another question all together.

Yeah, Moscow seems decisive.  If the Germans had started their campaign 6 weeks earlier then perhaps they would have gotten closer to Moscow or even taken it.  German success in Moscow might have allowed the Nazis to recruit puppet leaders and set up an alternate government to divide what remained of the Soviets.  German capture of Moscow might have impacted on the morale of the citizens of Leningrad, especially if civilians in Moscow were treated humanely.

@Zooey72:

Gotta go with Moscow.  Some of you are forgetting that Hitler felt that the only reason England stayed in the war was because they hoped to get the USSR in it to relieve pressure.  If Russia falls, England would sue for peace.  I do not find that at all unreasonable.  Germany would not have pushed further into the eastern part of the USSR because it was pretty much worthless.  Taking the entire German army and Air force and than putting them in France in 1942 after the Russian surrender would have made England’s chances at victory impossible.  They would be lucky to be able to stop an invasion at that point.

I am looking at the question as a “rub a lamp, make a wish” kind of way.  The feasibility of Germany beating Russia is another question all together.

A German victory at Moscow would have been of paramount importance. Von Manstein wrote that if the Germans had captured Moscow, the Soviets’ ability to launch concentrated offensives would have been crippled due to Moscow’s central location in their transportation hub. The capture or destruction of the Soviet force defending Moscow would also have been useful. The Soviets would also have experienced a reduction in their industrial capacity.

However, Stalin had relocated large portions of Soviet manufacturing capacity east of the Urals. Even without Moscow, the Soviet Union would still have greatly out produced Germany in 1942. The Soviet Union would also have still had an overwhelming numerical advantage. This is not to suggest that Soviet victory would have been inevitable. But a German victory on that front wouldn’t necessarily have been inevitable either, even with the fall of Moscow. It is likely much more fighting would have occurred until the issue was decided one way or the other.

You are correct to say that Hitler felt Churchill was holding out in hopes of Soviet intervention. However, Churchill’s real hopes were based on American intervention. I’ve heard it said that Churchill lacked enthusiasm for a ground invasion of Germany. If that’s true, then his plan for victory–or at least one of his plans–may have been to use the food blockade to create starvation/discontentment in Germany’s occupied territories, while using bombing raids against German cities to destroy Germany’s industrial capacity and willingness to resist. The physical destruction of cities such as Hamburg and Dresden represents the sort of action seemingly envisioned for all major German cities. Nuclear weapons would also have been used for that purpose once they became available.

Suppose the western Soviet Union had fallen to Germany; and that Hitler and Stalin had subsequently had agreed to peace. The possession of that Soviet territory would have given Hitler greater access to industrial potential, manpower, and raw materials–all of which could have been used to help defend against the physical destruction of Germany’s cities. But success would have been far from certain. Odds are very strong that Churchill would have refused to negotiate peace; and would have at least attempted to destroy urban Germany from the air. Even with the western Soviet Union captured, it would have been very difficult for Germany to defend its civilians against this threat. This would have been especially true later in the war, when the United States learned how to build long range fighter aircraft that could escort bombers all the way to their targets.

The Battle of Britain….