World War II

Urblock

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
19,159
Liked Posts:
12,239
Looks like we have a few guys that know the history of the war very well. It's interesting and I would like to read more of what you guys think. Damn it! Would a mod fix the thread title?
 

Hbkrusso

Objective Fanboy
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
17,667
Liked Posts:
11,858
Location:
wv
remake this shit in the bar bro be a better spot for it as this really isn't a b&i thread
 

Hbkrusso

Objective Fanboy
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
17,667
Liked Posts:
11,858
Location:
wv
World War 2

Lets here everyones thoughts on this question

What if the USA stayed totally neutral and gave no lend lease and no convoy escorts too the allies before they ever entered the war.


Does Russia hold out against the german blitzkrieg without the supplies and trucks ammo and most importantly money supplied by the US?


Do the brits end up sueing for a stalemate or peace with Germany if they werent helped by the Us with funds supplies and Escort services?

Would Japan have attacked the US even though a fully neutral USA doesn't apply the oil embargo?

In this if situation do you see the germans winning the war in Europe? or do Russia and Britain pull through regardless?

Do the Japanese Beat china and also invade Russia forcing them too fight a two front war?
 

Urblock

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
19,159
Liked Posts:
12,239
Ok. Mods don't fix just merge or delete.
 

Hbkrusso

Objective Fanboy
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
17,667
Liked Posts:
11,858
Location:
wv
lol sorry stold your thunder and started it anyway couldn't wait
 

Scoot26

Administrator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
41,382
Liked Posts:
28,488
What do you want to know?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,566
Liked Posts:
7,586
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
What do you want to know?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

What should he especially want to know? Patten and his demotion and return is always fascinating?
 

Hbkrusso

Objective Fanboy
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
17,667
Liked Posts:
11,858
Location:
wv
Lets here everyones thoughts on this question

What if the USA stayed totally neutral and gave no lend lease and no convoy escorts too the allies before they ever entered the war.


Does Russia hold out against the german blitzkrieg without the supplies and trucks ammo and most importantly money supplied by the US?


Do the brits end up sueing for a stalemate or peace with Germany if they werent helped by the Us with funds supplies and Escort services?

Would Japan have attacked the US even though a fully neutral USA doesn't apply the oil embargo?

In this if situation do you see the germans winning the war in Europe? or do Russia and Britain pull through regardless?

Do the Japanese Beat china and also invade Russia forcing them too fight a two front war?
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
63,765
Liked Posts:
40,735
Without US aid as well as the US fighting the Germans outside the European theater such as in North Africa, I think the Russians still ultimately end up defeating them but with even more devastation and loss of life than what they already endured. There is no doubt that having to fight a two front war was incredibly detrimental to the German war effort and it certainly sped up their defeat but without it the Germans still faced one major obstacle which is Russia as a country was so much larger than it population wise. France and Britain are similar sizes to Germany with similar populations and army sizes. So in a battle if France lost more mean than Germany then it was devastating.

Russia on the other hand was so massive a country that the Russians were able to move their factories and war production to the east far away from the Western Front and they had the people and resources to simply outproduce the Germans. To be sure what they were producing was of lower quality as were their soldiers in many respects but when you have the ability to produce say 10 tanks for every 1 German take or lose 10 men for every 1 German, eventually no matter how effective and efficient the Germans are, they are going to run out of resources and people.

There was on other thing that made this more likely as well. The Germans while enemies of the French and British treated them as humans. They considered them of similar stock to them hence why they occupied France. By contrast, Hitler considered Slavic people subhuman. So the Russians weren't merely fighting for their freedom like the French or British. They were fighting for their very existence because if they lost, their future wasn't simply an occupied Russia like an occupied France. Their future was gas chambers. This is an important point because there was no real avenue of surrender for the Russians which meant they would fight until the bitter end. So the Germans would literally have to conquer just about every part of Russia rather than simply defeat them in a few battles and then have them sue for peace like the French.

This is born out by the fact that the Germans actually wiped out much of the Red Army by 1941 ie the original 5 million man Red Army was almost entirely defeated. For a nation like France or Britain they would most likely have sued for peace similar to what Germany had to do at the end of WWI because doing so didn't mean extinction for them. Instead, Russia conscripted 8 million more men and continued the fight and there was another 8 million more behind that and so on and so forth. This was not a conventional war for Russia. This was only two outcomes. Victory or annihilation so every member of their population would have been thrust into the fight if needed.

The final factor IMO is the harsh Russian winter of 41/42. Assuming Hitler still attacks at the time he did, it doesn't matter how many people he threw at the Russians, the battle would still be halted by the harsh winter. I suppose you could argue he may have broken throw before the onset of winter but even if he had, he still would have to wait before proceeding deeper into the country which still would have given the Russian time to relocate their factories to the east. As I said in the other thread, the Germans essentially made it to like Phoenix or Las Vegas while the Russians had moved their factories to New York. That is a long way to go still against an enemy that has something like 10-15 times more people than you once you include the civilians/conscripts who were fighting for their lives.

I would say the best chance for Germany victory if we exclude US involvement would have been to finish the war with Britain first so that they could focus solely on the Western front and to attack Russia only after getting a firm commitment from Japan to attack from the East. The number 1 priority of the attack should have been to destroy the Trans-Siberian railroad as that is ultimately what won the war for the Russians was their logistical ability to move resources across such a massive country. Without it, their ability to wage war would have been crippled. With it, they always had the logistical advantage over the Germans and the Japanese because they had a well connected massive supply line all on land while Germany had to move supplies through various occupied countries and Japan via sea.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,721
There's a wild card in all of the above, the Germans were also working on the first atomic bomb.

Fortunately they didn't have enough time to finish.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
63,765
Liked Posts:
40,735
Yes that is a fair point. If they had finished the Atomic Bomb then that would obviously be a game changer. Although to some extent that would have defeated the purpose of invading Russia as the main reason for doing so is that Hitler wanted the land so dropping an Atomic Bomb on Russia would have destroyed much of the farmland unless the target of said bomb was just a city like Moscow.
 

CRM 114

Premium Member
Donator
Joined:
Dec 9, 2013
Posts:
13,115
Liked Posts:
4,285
Yes that is a fair point. If they had finished the Atomic Bomb then that would obviously be a game changer. Although to some extent that would have defeated the purpose of invading Russia as the main reason for doing so is that Hitler wanted the land so dropping an Atomic Bomb on Russia would have destroyed much of the farmland unless the target of said bomb was just a city like Moscow.

I'm assuming that is where Germany would have droped it.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,721
Yes that is a fair point. If they had finished the Atomic Bomb then that would obviously be a game changer. Although to some extent that would have defeated the purpose of invading Russia as the main reason for doing so is that Hitler wanted the land so dropping an Atomic Bomb on Russia would have destroyed much of the farmland unless the target of said bomb was just a city like Moscow.

London, Moscow, even NYC/DC would have been targeted.

Hitler was obsessed with missiles, so much that he used the last of Germany's resources to develop long range weapons well into 1945.

Fortunately he was a strategic idiot as well, lost the Battle of Britain by using the wrong planes...or I should say allowed Goering to talk him into it.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
63,765
Liked Posts:
40,735
I'm assuming that is where Germany would have droped it.

Yes but again, I think ultimately Hitler would have had to make a choice. Russia isn't like France or Britain or Japan. Taking out Moscow doesn't equal taking out Russia because much of the productive capacity was in the east. Russia was still largely an agrarian society and not an industrial one so taking out their capital doesn't have the same effect as it would on another country. If Hitler wanted to crush Russia with nukes, he would have to nuke a lot of the very land he wanted for the Germans.

And again, unlike France and Britain there was no surrender for Russia. You bomb Paris or London and France or Britain may give up and accept whatever unfair Peace Treaty Hitler offered. The same can't be said for Russia as Hitler made it clear, there was no future for a Slav in his New World Order. So the Russians aren't going to give up when doing so meant extinction for their people. This wasn't a conventional war for Russia like it was for France or Britain. This was a war of annihilation hence why after the war was won, Stalin wanted to turn Germany into a potato field. The only thing that prevented him from doing so was the Allies. That was really where the US war effort paid off as it prevented the USSR from basically sending Germany back to the Dark Ages.

Put another way, the industrial revolution for the the West occurred in the big cities like London and Paris so taking those cities out would cripple the war effort of those countries. However, the industrial revolution for Russia didn't occur in Moscow so much as it occurred in the countryside and all those places where Russia turned farmland into factory land. So a place like Moscow certainly had some symbolic and strategic significance but it's really the country side and the Trans-Siberian railroad that you have to dismantle in order to defeat Russia.
 

CRM 114

Premium Member
Donator
Joined:
Dec 9, 2013
Posts:
13,115
Liked Posts:
4,285
Yes but again, I think ultimately Hitler would have had to make a choice. Russia isn't like France or Britain or Japan. Taking out Moscow doesn't equal taking out Russia because much of the productive capacity was in the east. Russia was still largely an agrarian society and not an industrial one so taking out their capital doesn't have the same effect as it would on another country. If Hitler wanted to crush Russia with nukes, he would have to nuke a lot of the very land he wanted for the Germans.

And again, unlike France and Britain there was no surrender for Russia. You bomb Paris or London and France or Britain may give up and accept whatever unfair Peace Treaty Hitler offered. The same can't be said for Russia as Hitler made it clear, there was no future for a Slav in his New World Order. So the Russians aren't going to give up when doing so meant extinction for their people. This wasn't a conventional war for Russia like it was for France or Britain. This was a war of annihilation hence why after the war was won, Stalin wanted to turn Germany into a potato field. The only thing that prevented him from doing so was the Allies. That was really where the US war effort paid off as it prevented the USSR from basically sending Germany back to the Dark Ages.

Put another way, the industrial revolution for the the West occurred in the big cities like London and Paris so taking those cities out would cripple the war effort of those countries. However, the industrial revolution for Russia didn't occur in Moscow so much as it occurred in the countryside and all those places where Russia turned farmland into factory land. So a place like Moscow certainly had some symbolic and strategic significance but it's really the country side and the Trans-Siberian railroad that you have to dismantle in order to defeat Russia.

Interesting. I did not think of it that way.
 

Hbkrusso

Objective Fanboy
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
17,667
Liked Posts:
11,858
Location:
wv
Yes but again, I think ultimately Hitler would have had to make a choice. Russia isn't like France or Britain or Japan. Taking out Moscow doesn't equal taking out Russia because much of the productive capacity was in the east. Russia was still largely an agrarian society and not an industrial one so taking out their capital doesn't have the same effect as it would on another country. If Hitler wanted to crush Russia with nukes, he would have to nuke a lot of the very land he wanted for the Germans.

And again, unlike France and Britain there was no surrender for Russia. You bomb Paris or London and France or Britain may give up and accept whatever unfair Peace Treaty Hitler offered. The same can't be said for Russia as Hitler made it clear, there was no future for a Slav in his New World Order. So the Russians aren't going to give up when doing so meant extinction for their people. This wasn't a conventional war for Russia like it was for France or Britain. This was a war of annihilation hence why after the war was won, Stalin wanted to turn Germany into a potato field. The only thing that prevented him from doing so was the Allies. That was really where the US war effort paid off as it prevented the USSR from basically sending Germany back to the Dark Ages.

Put another way, the industrial revolution for the the West occurred in the big cities like London and Paris so taking those cities out would cripple the war effort of those countries. However, the industrial revolution for Russia didn't occur in Moscow so much as it occurred in the countryside and all those places where Russia turned farmland into factory land. So a place like Moscow certainly had some symbolic and strategic significance but it's really the country side and the Trans-Siberian railroad that you have to dismantle in order to defeat Russia.

I don't think your taking into account the financial aid though it was very signifigant remove that and the infrastructure your talking about doesn't exsist also don't forget the Japanese would have been coming in from the east as well without a doubt and unhindered by us oil embargoes they were very formidable in their own right
 

Mitchapalooza

Guest
How about the Battle of the Bulge? that shit seemed scary as ****. You sit in a hole for a month straight getting bombed to oblivion and you can't do a damn thing about it. You just have to freeze in your hole and wait.
 

Mitchapalooza

Guest
my dad just got back from Normandy a few weeks ago. He visited Omaha, Utah, Pointe Du Hoc, Carentan, Caen, Ste. Mere Eglise, etc. He brought me back sand from the beaches, pieces of the bunker he managed to chip off, etc.

He has so many pictures. made me jealous as ****. He even took a video of him walking from the water to the sea wall on Omaha. That shit is a lot further than it seems. Insane. And the German bunkers werent shooting dead on, they were shooting on angles so we couldn't shoot at them from the beach. Basically 2 bunkers would make an X while crossfiring.

Talk about a blood bath.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
63,765
Liked Posts:
40,735
I don't think your taking into account the financial aid though it was very signifigant remove that and the infrastructure your talking about doesn't exsist also don't forget the Japanese would have been coming in from the east as well without a doubt and unhindered by us oil embargoes they were very formidable in their own right

The bulk of the aid from lend lease occurred after the German advance was halted outside of Moscow due in part to the winter. It was definitely a massive help and again I would say it accelerated the German defeat but I still think defeat was inevitable without it. The Germans simply had no answer for the fact the USSR relocated most of their production past the Ural Mountains which was largely out of reach of German bombers. Without lend lease, the Russians would have had to focus more resources on producing the equipment that the US provided but it was production they were capable of achieving.

Of course, we will never know the truth or not so in the end, I suppose we can agree to disagree.
 

Top