Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

My understanding was that the east was the grave of the transport and bomber forces of the Luftwaffe and the West the grave of the fighter arm. Something of a simplification but ...

 

Not at all clear Hitler can do this. He came to power based on a guns and butter platform that promised Lebensraum in the East. The above seems like a formula for domestic discontent.

Might have the same effect for Germans.

Might work if he's willing to give up Holland and Belgium and possibly France.

So Britain and the US concentrate on Italy first and have a foot hold on the continent.

They didn't have the tech to design stealth bombers. No way the Germans are going to develop this kind of aircraft and produce it in numbers in the 40s.

More likely the wreckage of said 1000 bombers scattered across the atlantic would bring a smile to his face.

 

Well said "lwd". The Nazis wasted nearly the same amount of money on the V-2 program as we spent on the MED. Their rockets killed more people building them, than on the receiving end. When you kill more people building a weapon than it kills of the enemy that is a "loss", not a "gain".

And the Nazis had NO chance of building a single, let alone a 1000 cross Atlantic bombers in either the standard mode or in "stealth". Another pipe-dream which stretches the limits of the rules of "what if".

 

Thank you for the heads up, but my paper is really on what were the two critical mistakes made by Hitler in his european campaign that signaled the end, and or cost him the war. I will research sealion and the long range bomber to expand my knowledge on the subject.

 

Well many of my points were countered and therefore I need to do more research (so i thank all of you who commented, I will definitely have a more refined paper). Despite the possibilities, I think the most substantial arguement that I can provide is that Hitler would have always lost the war because of his poor decisions. He had early successes but in the long run he proved to be a poor tactician and leader of the military. Therefore he would never have won the war. Dunirk, Moscow, Stalingrad, battle of the atlantic, the blitz, these all had to do with a poor military decisions that arguably could have cost him the war.

 

I would like to respond to the opinion of Guaporense that Americans aren't very good at war compared to Europeans. I bought up earlier about mistakes and embarrasments in the Franco-Prussian war, the Boer war and could probably add the Crimean Wal & Russo-Turkish war. Furthermore it seems most of the opinion about the US revolves when it was fighting Europeans in Europe but I wonder just how well alot of European Armies would have done in North America against Americans on their home turf? It was also brought up about current wars in Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan however didn't the Afghani's also drive out the British & Soviets years,decades or centuries before? Didn't the Vietnamese also whoop the French? How well did France do in Mexico in the 1860's?

 

Not really.

Germany's fuel problems started long before the attack on the Soviets and just got much worse as the war progressed.

Even in a defensive war, on a continental scale, you still have to move raw materials, food, and fuel to the factories and then redistribute everything to the fighting fronts. You still have to train pilots and operate aircraft and ships. You still have to move ammunition, provide electricity, and feed the troops and civilian population.

For example, the Germans planned to produce aluminum on the same scale as the US, but that involved shipping bauxite from Greece, France, and Croatia to Norway where, utilizing the abundant hydroelectric resources, it would be smelted into aluminum which would then be shipped back to aircraft factoires in central Germany to be made into aircraft components. Obviously, this would have required large amounts of fuel just to keep the German aircraft factories producing aircraft. And this doesn't take into account the fuel required to operate the aircraft or train the pilots.

 

I wonder where the idea that Americans (or British or Soviets, for that matter) couldn't fight a war came from?

How many times were American forces defeated in amphibious operations, arguably the most difficult of all military operations, in WW II?

In how many campaigns were Americans defeated in Europe in WW II?

How many times were Americans forcibly, and permanently, pushed out of a theater in WW II?

How many times were American strategic bombing, or naval, campaigns stopped by enemy counter-measures?

How many American ground offensives were stopped by enemy action before achieving at least some of their objectives?

Which side won the war, the Allies or the Axis?

In my view, the Axis was the side that was incompetent when it came to modern warfare.

By November, 1942, the Germans have lost the initiative in the East and are essentially fighting, unsuccessfully, to hold on to what they have.

By November, 1942, the Germans are losing in North Africa thanks to the Anglo-American "Torch" offensive.

By, March, 1942, Britain is launching air attacks on Germany; attacks that Germany cannot effectively counter and which will eventually thoroughly devastate the country.

By June, 1942, just 6 months after Pearl Harbor, Japan's Pacific offensive is stopped cold, and her navy's offensive striking power gutted, at the battle of Midway.

By August, 1942, America launches it's first offensive in the Pacific and never looks back.

By July, 1943, Italy is knocked out of the Axis and the war.

By the end of 1942, the Axis has lost the war and has no realistic chance of reversing the tide. It's all over save for the necessary bleeding and dying to convince the losers that they've lost. In just 28 months of warfare, the Axis which started the war on it's own terms and with all the advantages, has been outfought by the British, Soviets, and Americans. I'd say that's a pretty convincing argument that the Allies knew what they were doing most of the time, while the so-called "supermen" didn't have a clue.

 

Be very careful on this. Some of what are sometimes pointed out as poor decisions on the part of Hitler were actually not his others were not necessarily poor based on what he knew at the time. Also consider that Hitler didn't get involved with tactics all that much at least early in the war.

 

Well put DA, the "Ubermensch" were doomed by the middle of 1942 without doubt. For all of their military traditions, they lost to the decadent, peace-loving democracies of the west and the equally ruthless dictator to their east.

 

The United States lost the war of 1812 and sued for peace.


I for one, believe that the United States is a superb military fighting force.

 

No, we didn't. Status Quo ante bellum. Both side were done with each other. Despite the failure of the US to take Canada. How did those three invasions go for England?

 

Not sure I agree Mike.

The U.S. lost 90% of all naval battles, 90% of all land battles. White House and Capital along with the naval yard were burned. President on the run one of the only battles won during the war (New Orleans) was at a time when the war had already ended ...At best it was a stalemate, looking at over all figures though...


Not to mention that a little fat man in France had something to do with Britain agreeing to peace.

 

Mike is correct, the US didn't "lose" the War of 1812, it negotiated a peace that Britain desired just as much as the US.

The fact that the US capitol was burned meant nothing; The US capitol was also captured in the American Revolution, but the Americans still won. But the US winning the last battle at New Orleans so decisively was significant because it negated the British strategy for continuing the war, of blocking off the Mississippi Valley.

Had the war not taken place, and it almost didn't because the British were willing to grant most concessions before the war, The US would have ended up pretty much as it did anyway.

 

I think you have a good point; not all of the many mistakes that Germany made could be laid at Hitler's feet. However some of the most serious and far-reaching errors were due to Hitler's interference in areas where he was.

For example, Fritz Todt, Walter Rohland, Hans Kehrl, Thomas, and the majority of the German General Staff, all warned Hitler that Germany did not have the logistical wherewithal to accomplish the objectives of Operation Barbarossa. Yet Hitler overruled them. Thus the logistical deficiencies which doomed the German offensive in the Soviet Union and sealed the fate of the Nazi regime were a direct result of Hitler's military incompetence.

 

It would definitely have been a lot harder fir them to win without the Russians. Rommel would have got his extra divisions in North Africa, so he could have easily been able to beat the 8th army. There would be more German resources in Italy and France, and the Atlantic Wall would have got the materials it needed. The Germans would have a lot more forces stationed in France, and they would have few thousand more planes freed for the Western front. So the American and British bombers would have been destroyed more easily.

Europe would become a fortress. The Allies would never have been able to land in France, and if they had, heavy concentrations of tanks and artillery would throw them back to the sea. They might not have even been able to get off the beaches in Overlord (imagine Omaha beach with a few thousand more Germans...), an the Bocage terrain beyond the beaches would have been impassable. If the Allies had tried to land in Sicily they might have taken that, but if 100,000 men in Italy could have stopped the Allies for years, imagine what another 30 or so divisons added to that could do. They would be extremely hard to beat.

The Germans would have more freed for industry, and so they would be able to produce more planes, tanks and submarines. The Germans would be in good spirits as Russia had not happened, so they would believe they were the best army in the world and fight better. And the Allies would not be able to comensate for this, as the bulk of American stength would still be in the Pacific, so they would be outnumbered and outgunned whereever they landed in Europe. They could have tried an airborne landing like they did at Normandy, but I think it would have turned into a repeat of 'market garden'.

So I think that with Russia out of the picture, the war would have lasted for years, and the Germans might have won (as there were more men to invade Britain etc). So I would say that if the Germans would not have won, they would have at least carried the war a few more years at least.

 

I don't think that the Germans had the possibility for better logistics (nor any other army )and I don't think a motorised army would be able to operate in Russia .
I disagree that the logistic deficiencies doomed the German offensive :it failed in september due to the unexpected Soviet mobilisation:the Soviets had in september more manpower at the front than in june .The German failure was due,for a main part,to the German intelligence services .

 

There were others however that gave German a quicker victory in Russia than Hitler himself proposed. Keitel and Jodl both thought that Russia would capitulate in a matter of 6 weeks. Model, and Guderian were also confident in Russia's demise. Hitler simply picked their side over Fritz, Rohland etc.

Than again, Hitler had his mind made up regardless of who told him what. The fact that several high profile Generals took his side only helped his resolve.

 

This is simply irrelevant... The Battle took place after the peace was signed. Both sides however, didnt know because of how long it took for the message to get back to the states.... months.


But we seemed to have slipped of track here.....