As I've already said, my historical knowledge needs some broadening. So, after a debate with a guy in America, I'm asking:
Would we have still won WWII without the help of America?
You've opened a can of worms here mate! ;D
It's the wargaming equivalent of Football vs NFL!
Yes and no. This is all opinion based. I'm Canadian by the way.
Yes the U.S did keep the Brit's alive but without the Brit's the US would have lost to the German war machine in time.
Think about it. The UK would have starved to death even with Canada helping them.
The US would have then had to deal with German Subs and no intelligence from Europe. Also lets not forget that some of the guys that escaped Germany helped build the A-Bomb and NASA.
As for Canada helping the US? Nah man at this point we would be used up trying to feed and arm the UK.
Quote from: Hurley on 09 March 2010, 03:23:17 AM
Yes and no. This is all opinion based. I'm Canadian by the way.
Yes the U.S did keep the Brit's alive but without the Brit's the US would have lost to the German war machine in time.
Think about it. The UK would have starved to death even with Canada helping them.
The US would have then had to deal with German Subs and no intelligence from Europe. Also lets not forget that some of the guys that escaped Germany helped build the A-Bomb and NASA.
As for Canada helping the US? Nah man at this point we would be used up trying to feed and arm the UK.
That's interesting, I've never heard the Canadian viewpoint on this. What I'd heard previously was that Hitler had overextended himself when he went into Russia, underestimating the time it would require. This left him fighting on two fronts, which, over time, would have crippled him, regardless of the US involvement.
Also, when you say 'arm the UK', can you elaborate? I'd always thought that the UK armed itself?
We (UK) wouldn't have, but the Russians would; and the post war Iron Curtain would have been the Rhine...
Quote from: Leon on 09 March 2010, 03:38:19 AM
Also, when you say 'arm the UK', can you elaborate? I'd always thought that the UK armed itself?
Consider the proportion of Commonwealth tanks that were Shermans and Grants, or the proportion of convoy escorts that were US (even before December of 41). Britain could have held out, but D-Day would have been impossible.
This is setting aside the Canadian made component of Commonwealth manufacturing, or I am sure the contribution of India and other parts of the Empire. The Commonwealth may have done much of the arming of itself, but that is not just the UK.
I think that the Soviets would have had an even harder time of it without at least the truck component of lend lease.
Another Canuck here, by the way.
A lot of the raw metals came from Canada and the UK. Without metal you got no way to fight a war on a large scale. My home town is Bell Island, which is in Newfoundland. We are a mining town, most of the iron we mined before WW1 was for the Germans, then of course it all went to the UK. Bell Island had ships sank at anchor while they where being loaded with ore (during WW2). So if we lost some ships even with the help of the US god knows what the count would have been without the US. At one point before the us joined the fight the Germans stone walled us at the start of the St. Lawrence cutting off food from the prairies with subs. Once the US joined the fight the Germans had to spread out to cover not just Canada's shores but the US's as well.
It is my opinion (not fact) that with out the extra ships from the us going to the UK the German Subs would have been able to cut off shipping in hole to the UK. This would have deceased the effective use of air planes allowing even greater bombing of the UK. Also without hope of resupply this would have lowered or broken moral of the public in the UK.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Quote from: Leon on 09 March 2010, 01:19:20 AM
As I've already said, my historical knowledge needs some broadening. So, after a debate with a guy in America, I'm asking:
Would we have still won WWII without the help of America?
Who's 'we'?
US involvement definately shortened the war but frankly as soon as Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia) faltered, it was inevitable really that Germany would fall to Russia. The Russians were simply out-producing Germany on a massive scale and also as time passed its personnel and materiel improved to be in many ways better than the Germans.
Without US involvement, the war may well have dragged on into 1946/1947 but ultimately a UK/Russain victory would have been achieved in Europe.
However its all 'ifs and buts' as of course given a year or two more a German atomic missile may well have been developed tipping the scales back in their favour....
Then of course there's the Pacific theatre and its unlikely the Russians would have had much interest in taking on the Japanese so a stalemate may have been reached there, perhaps ceding control of much of the captured British territories there to the Japanese....
Its a very difficult question to answer accurately, but my 'gut feeling' is that the US involvement simply shortened the war rather than won it... :-\
That's similar to what someone else told me a while ago. I find it interesting how these things work, and how there are so many different factors.
I'll probably have another question next week for people, all in the aid of expanding my limited historical knowledge.
I don't think so simply because we did not have the industrial clout or the finance to carry on the war. Basically WW1 had drained us as it had France. The US had everything going for it Finance, Industrial power and it was not being bombed.
In broad terms, three factors won the war for the Allies
1. British intelligence - The 'Ultra factor'
2. Russian Blood
3. American Resources
Without the resources of the USA, or if the war aganist Japan had been given priorty, then yes, the Iron curtain would have been over most of Europe.
Could UK have mounted a D Day without the US ? That is the key question.
Quote from: Sunray on 17 March 2010, 04:47:56 PM
Could UK have mounted a D Day without the US ? That is the key question.
No.
'Give us the tools and we will finish the job' :- Churchill
But in my opinion its not 'the key question'.
D-Day simply shortened the war by diverting German war effort to a second front. Without it the Russians would have still overwhelmed Germany but it would have been a harder slog and probably would have dragged on into 1946/47.
Ultimately i think, and this is of course opinion, the US involvement was largely inconsequential in Europe, merely shortening the conflict. Which is in no way to denigrate the sacrifices made there. Where their involvement was crucial was the Pacific. Without it the Japanese Empire would have remained unchallenged since the only other regional power (Britain) was eshausted.
The Brits may have been able to mount operations into Italy but even this is doubtful. After Dunkirk and Simgapore, the British were basically a spent force in terms of equipment, if not in terms of fighting spirit.
Yes, I think that's a useful qualification.
To unpack all the corollaries of the counterfactual argument some hard factors emerge.
First, It is possible to argue that the Empire would have been hard pushed to mount 'Torch' nevermind 'Overlord'.
Secondly, you take the 8th Air Force out of the war. Albert Speer meets his targets in terms of the new weapons ....like Me262s . And the Luffwaffe can send 109s AND 190s eastward.
Thirdly, with no prospect of a second front, the physchological aspects of the war changes. Vinchy France might have come in the Axis camp
and key crack units can be sent east from Norway to N France.
Fourthy, - and every military academy in the west played this scenario - how would the Wermacht have fared with only one front? Pretty damm good actually.
the in depth defence,thet averaged a tank kill ratio of 5:1 (equalled only by IDF in Yom Kippur) But they would have enjoyed total AS.
If you want to put that on the tabletop, mass your Red Army - JSIII and T34/85s ...But as they artilley gets into position let loose the Me 262s....
and the tanks stream forward .....divert into killing grounds with Tiger II and Panthers commanded by Aces like Wittmann. In the 1970s...when I was a soldier, they were our TATICAL role models. and YES, THERE'S A GOOD GAME TO BE PLAYED THERE. back to the table....
Quote from: Sunray on 18 March 2010, 12:56:35 PM
First, It is possible to argue that the Empire would have been hard pushed to mount 'Torch' nevermind 'Overlord'.
Agreed. I think Britain was spent by the overrun of its territories and the loss of its materiel at Dunkirk. Without American equipment (which incidentally the British government only finished paying for in 2004) it was out of the war as an aggressor really.
QuoteSecondly, you take the 8th Air Force out of the war. Albert Speer meets his targets in terms of the new weapons ....like Me262s . And the Luffwaffe can send 109s AND 190s eastward.
Agreed but i'd propose that, like on the ground, German technology in the air would be simply outproduced by the Russians. and their air power was readily able to challenge the Luftwaffe.
QuoteThirdly, with no prospect of a second front, the physchological aspects of the war changes. Vinchy France might have come in the Axis camp
and key crack units can be sent east from Norway to N France.
Perhaps for the Germans but the Russian psychology was set by the early events of Barbarossa. Germany was the great enemy that would be overcome at all costs.
QuoteFourthy, - and every military academy in the west played this scenario - how would the Wermacht have fared with only one front? Pretty damm good actually.
the in depth defence,thet averaged a tank kill ratio of 5:1 (equalled only by IDF in Yom Kippur) But they would have enjoyed total AS.
Not really. most of their best units were deployed in the east anyway and look what happened. Also air superiority to the Germans? Not with the volume of aircraft the Russians were pushing out. They could replace their losses and build their forces far faster and to a larger capacity than the Germans. I think the Luftwaffe would have struggled to keep up, and ultimately would have lost the air to the Russians.
As for material losses, the Germans killing 5 tanks to 1 lost? Impressive. Trouble is the Russians replaced those five with 20 more...something the Germans couldn't do.
US involvement shortened the war but ultimately it was the Russian Bear and their great ally 'General Winter' that defeated Germany.
Well when it comes to the german army outperforming the russians , why not. But since before landings in Sicily and Normandy the OKH (as in Hitler at that time) had already issued the "not one step back " order and started the "festung" defence strategy.
This removed most of the actual german military superiority(except for Kharkov early'43), which was based on better , if fewer , equipment; higher morale , if less men; and high mobility of crack units(read Grossdeutschland and such), even if most of the of the time boots and hooves where the norm for the german soldier.
When we take in account that at the high point of the war on the eastern front('43) , the russian army had about 15+ millions men under arms, bear in mind this includes all non-combatants too.
Considering aswell the fact that Germany did not start to mobilise its industry for total war before '43 (beer hall speech from Goebbels)
The OKH was quite clear over that at the onset of winter '41 their chances got slimer for every passing day that allowed the Stavka to recover ,learn,and put in action their incredibly high manpower.
Essentially the eastern front was a win or die situation from the start.The attrition rate to secure vital ressources for the reich's (war)industry,which essentially was the goal of Operation Barbarossa, was so unsustainable in the long run that after the failure to capture the oilfields south, the war as a ressource gathering priority was lost on Germany.Add to that the bombing of Germany's industry by the british...
Then ,only men and equipment remains, some of wich , while arguably of lesser quality , the russians had plenty of.(and then some more)
In the end , i believe, Germany would have lost anyway.
Quote from: Leon on 09 March 2010, 01:19:20 AM
Would we have still won WWII without the help of America?
The short answer probably is: You wouldn't have, but the Russians would.
You opened a can of worms indeed. The long answer is far too long for a wargaming forum. I am always struck by the economy of intellectual scale among wargamers. They have amazingly detailed knowledge of, say, the inner workings of the Springfield M1903A4, but when it comes to the larger picture they will just as easily maintain that 'Roosevelt was an idiot' or 'WWII came about 'cause Hitler was a vegetarian'.
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 25 March 2010, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Leon on 09 March 2010, 01:19:20 AM
Would we have still won WWII without the help of America?
The short answer probably is: You wouldn't have, but the Russians would.
You opened a can of worms indeed. The long answer is far too long for a wargaming forum. I am always struck by the economy of intellectual scale among wargamers. They have amazingly detailed knowledge of, say, the inner workings of the Springfield M1903A4, but when it comes to the larger picture they will just as easily maintain that 'Roosevelt was an idiot' or 'WWII came about 'cause Hitler was a vegetarian'.
Cheers,
Aart
Sadly Aart I would have to agree.
Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 25 March 2010, 08:55:26 AM
You opened a can of worms indeed. The long answer is far too long for a wargaming forum. I am always struck by the economy of intellectual scale among wargamers. They have amazingly detailed knowledge of, say, the inner workings of the Springfield M1903A4, but when it comes to the larger picture they will just as easily maintain that 'Roosevelt was an idiot' or 'WWII came about 'cause Hitler was a vegetarian'.
Haha!
There are some interesting points being brought up here. I never knew the production scale/output of the Russians, or the importance of the Americans defending the Atlantic to allow equipment to reach Britain, so this is all good stuff.
Quote'WWII came about 'cause Hitler was a vegetarian'.
LOL ;D
And me think it was because he was homosexual.....I read this in somewhere some time ago. And i went dooo!, the whole leather thing, hands in the air, and little blond boys was kind of a clue :P
Interesting. What in that case happens in Tunisia without the US? No invasion of Sicily or the Italian mainland. In that case what happens with the Italians? With no US involvement (does that include not receiving the Grant, Stuart and Sheman?) do the Brits lose the middle east? Ouch!
Well lets put this up for a talk eh? A little fun thinking.
Take these as a understood condition:
No US involvement.
1.
a)What equipment wouldn't the British have?
b)What tanks where made fully in Britain?
c)What Planes where made fully in Britain?
d)Where did the UK get fuel?
2. What stopped the dessert fox?
3. What stopped the eastern advance? I would like to see what the time line is like for it and actions by non-Russians to see if this effected the Germans.
4.
A)Would japan have been able to attack Russia?
B)Could Russia fight a war on to fronts?
C)Would there be a chance of a early war win like the Germans had until Russia moved it factories?
I'll try and answer myself. (with proof from the net)
Ok well I went to wiki first and found that well the German actually out produced the Russians for most of the war. This is because the Russians had to move there factories after Operation Barbarossa in the Summer 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Industrial_output
There is one other interesting thing a found out, the Russians where running out of people. "As the Soviet Union's manpower reserves ran low from 1943 onwards, the great Soviet offensives had to depend more on equipment and less on the expenditure of lives."
This leads me to an interesting question could Austria fight Japan without help from anyone, cause Japan would have unopposed rule of the south pacific water ways.
If Austria couldn't fight off Japan, Japan would be free to start and eat Russia from the other side. This would have been a large front war meaning bigger then the front in western Russia so the Germans would have an easier time. India would have been in the fight at this point so lets say 1/4 of the Russian forces are used to fight off Japan.
So lets simplify this out.
Russia Produced: ~24,000 Tanks and Self-propelled Guns in 42 and 43 (wiki)
Germany & allies not japan: ~10,500 in 42 and 20,000 in 43.
Lets say 1/4 of these numbers are sent off to fight japan and 1/4 of them don't get made cause the lend-lease does not happen. (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)
IF the Germans where still fighting the Russians in mid 43 and holding there own then without having to fight D-day, so more troops to the eastern front. I believe Germans would have pushed harder to get bombers into range of the Urals based factories. With less men and less factories I believe Russia would have lost.
Hurley
Gentlemen you have simply forgotten 1 factor - British spunk - the Bosche simply dont like it up em!!- Americans indeed!! where were they when we really needed them in 39 (just like 1914???) No Sir - the British Empire payed dearly for being the last man standing against Hitler and his Hun- we payed with our Empire when it were all put to bed.
Supplies from America?? - What else would an Englishman need but a tin of Bully Beef and a Lee Enfield? - good old Tommy Atkins.
Joking apart - Im married to a German (met her in 84 when posted to Munster) and knowing Germans and the German way - we needed all the help we could get - and rightly needed to rid the world of the Regime. Could we have done without the yanks? - who knows, just thank the lord for the English channel or it would have all been over after Dunkirk, old Uncle Adolf would have took Britain in the wink of an eye, didnt have much waiting on the other side did we?
Bless everyone who fought in the war, whichever side. Its only after youve been a soldier that you realise soldiers only do their duty - whatever it is- and war brings some very strange situations and feelings. My mates still in the Regiment tell of many tales in Afghan- no ta! - God bless
QuoteIF the Germans where still fighting the Russians in mid 43 and holding there own then without having to fight D-day, so more troops to the eastern front. I believe Germans would have pushed harder to get bombers into range of the Urals based factories. With less men and less factories I believe Russia would have lost.
Hurley
With all due respect for your Wiki-Fu,
Hurley, I have to say your scenario looks more like a 'whatever' than a 'what if'.
I think our friend
17-21| has it when he says that war is full of surprises, mostly unpleasant ones, and that WII by itself has been 'interesting' enough to discourage such fancy speculation. I for one am deeply grateful for the fact that we can now indulge in this nonsense we call 'reenactment' without having to face any real consequences.
Cheers,
Aart
Quote from: Hurley on 03 April 2010, 07:47:48 PM
Ok well I went to wiki first and found that well the German actually out produced the Russians for most of the war. This is because the Russians had to move there factories after Operation Barbarossa in the Summer 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Industrial_output
There is one other interesting thing a found out, the Russians where running out of people. "As the Soviet Union's manpower reserves ran low from 1943 onwards, the great Soviet offensives had to depend more on equipment and less on the expenditure of lives."
This leads me to an interesting question could Austria fight Japan without help from anyone, cause Japan would have unopposed rule of the south pacific water ways.
If Austria couldn't fight off Japan, Japan would be free to start and eat Russia from the other side. This would have been a large front war meaning bigger then the front in western Russia so the Germans would have an easier time. India would have been in the fight at this point so lets say 1/4 of the Russian forces are used to fight off Japan.
So lets simplify this out.
Russia Produced: ~24,000 Tanks and Self-propelled Guns in 42 and 43 (wiki)
Germany & allies not japan: ~10,500 in 42 and 20,000 in 43.
Lets say 1/4 of these numbers are sent off to fight japan and 1/4 of them don't get made cause the lend-lease does not happen. (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)
IF the Germans where still fighting the Russians in mid 43 and holding there own then without having to fight D-day, so more troops to the eastern front. I believe Germans would have pushed harder to get bombers into range of the Urals based factories. With less men and less factories I believe Russia would have lost.
Hurley
Indeed, that 's why the russians restructured they army at the time, they could not continue to waste bodies to the meat grinder and get the industry output they were after. But it is worthy to notice too that in'43 the german army was running low on manpower and most of the ostrfont division were understrenght, gone from 4 to 3 batallions.
Japan got their bum kicked royaly by the russians in the thirtees and didn t really have any armored might/tactics to make any decisive encroachments at any reasonable speed in the east.Remember that the japanese soldier did most of it's travels(on the continent that is) on foot.I'll give them credit for that ...
come down for a walk...Japan -India...should get you in a good shape...build up that stamina...