World War II Question

[zico]

Been watching quite a lot of stuff recently such as Nuremberg, The Rise and Fall of Hitler documentary on Netflix and several podcasts with various war historians and it becomes more apparent with everything I watch that there were so many twists of fate that led to Hitler's rise to power, not to mention the numerous opportunities to stop him.

One question nags me though and I can't really find an answer, probably because it's totally hypothetical, but if the USA had entered the war in 1939 would it have been all over and done with in a couple of years or could it have been more devastating considering in those early days the Soviet Union had a pact with Germany so if the Americans had entered earlier could the Allies have ended up fighting the Soviets as well if they had stayed as an ally of Germany?

[Westham67]

Six ships were lost in th Falklands War because the RAF did not have air supremacy, so you could imagine the carnage if the Allies did not have air supremacy at D-Day

Operation Overlord is a hard read, becuse it is such a complex operation, as are the Russian and Spanish civil wars, with so many factions on either side. There is an amusing incident in the book I read about the Spanish War a long time ago, the anarchists captured a ship from the nationalists, and they could not appoint a captain

[One Sunny Day]

To the victors lay the spoils.

 And the  narrative that follows.

 

Care to give us, what you believe, is the real narative about this, you complete cսnt?

[Westham67]

D-Day was a success due to air supremacy. Had the Allies had no air supremacy, then the loss of ships and men would have been unsustainable .

Pure conjecture to say that Operation Sealion would have failed if the Germans had air supremacy 

[Westside]

 

Even if the Battle of Britain had been lost, a German invasion of Britain would have failed. The Royal Navy would have decimated the invasion fleet (whilst sufferening massive losses themselves). Germany had no amphibious assault ships, or landing craft they would have towed barges across the Channel. Fast moving British destroyers would be difficult targets to hit from the air (destroyers lost at Dunkirk, were moored up, boarding troops, not manouvering in open water). The wakes from the destroyers would have swamped and capsized the barges. To say nothing of ramming them or shelling them. Germany had no navy to speak off to protect and support the invasion (too many destroyer losses in their invasion of Norway).

Operation Sealion was war gamed at Sandhurst back in the 70's. Germany lost.

Many, many other reasons why the invasion would have failed. Plenty of good articles on line, about it.

Thanks for the detailed response. Never thought of that. I assumed much of British Navy was moored up after Dunkirk.

Every day is a school day!

Spot on ref Operation Sealion. Without air and navy supremacy the German's would have suffered mass casualties. In fact it's rumoured Churchill would have resorted to chemical warfare than let the Germans win. This I believe. 

I saw a docudrama on an imagined German invasion years ago. This said Churchill ahd authorised the use of Mustard Gas on the beaches. General Brooke (commander of invasion defences) is meant to have annotated this in his diary.

[Westham67]

The Battle of Britain was won by the RAF. The Nazis required air supremacy to launch a seaborne invasion and an airborne invasion of Britain

[Westham67]

Zizo, The Roosevelt knew that Britain's days as a world power were over, WW2, so he was cosying up to Stalin at the Potsdam conference just after the war in Europe had finished in 1945

Roosevelt was dead at the time of the Potsdam conference, Harry S Truman was there for America

Yalta Conference excuse my faux pas

[Swiss.]

I believe it is quite commonly known that one of the reasons for USA's later entry into the war was due to concerns about Russia's stance on Germany. Although, even at that time, the German and Russia Pact was not in tatters but was close to collapse. Some conspiracy theorists argue that the USA were holding out until they felt Germany was weak enough to defeat, but I don't buy that. Obviously Pearl Harbour changed everything. 

One of the most alarming moments of WW2 for me is the fact that Hitler didn't push home the advantage gained at Dunkirk. Instead, believing the Britain was defeated, he turned his forces into Russia and created the Eastern Front. I always wonder how this would've affected our parents and grand-parents had Hitler invaded Britain with boots and actually occupied it. 

 

Even if the Battle of Britain had been lost, a German invasion of Britain would have failed. The Royal Navy would have decimated the invasion fleet (whilst sufferening massive losses themselves). Germany had no amphibious assault ships, or landing craft they would have towed barges across the Channel. Fast moving British destroyers would be difficult targets to hit from the air (destroyers lost at Dunkirk, were moored up, boarding troops, not manouvering in open water). The wakes from the destroyers would have swamped and capsized the barges. To say nothing of ramming them or shelling them. Germany had no navy to speak off to protect and support the invasion (too many destroyer losses in their invasion of Norway).

Operation Sealion was war gamed at Sandhurst back in the 70's. Germany lost.

Many, many other reasons why the invasion would have failed. Plenty of good articles on line, about it.

Thanks for the detailed response. Never thought of that. I assumed much of British Navy was moored up after Dunkirk.

Every day is a school day!

Spot on ref Operation Sealion. Without air and navy supremacy the German's would have suffered mass casualties. In fact it's rumoured Churchill would have resorted to chemical warfare than let the Germans win. This I believe. 

[Far Cough UKunt]

Zizo, The Roosevelt knew that Britain's days as a world power were over, WW2, so he was cosying up to Stalin at the Potsdam conference just after the war in Europe had finished in 1945

Roosevelt was dead at the time of the Potsdam conference, Harry S Truman was there for America

[BRANDED]

Too many ifs and buts. 

The USA and the UK had to build up huge trained forces and material. its why it took time to prepare. Russia did all the hard yards and took the biggest hit. 
 

[Westham67]

Zizo, The Roosevelt knew that Britain's days as a world power were over, WW2, so he was cosying up to Stalin at the Potsdam conference just after the war in Europe had finished in 1945

[Russ of the BML]

I believe it is quite commonly known that one of the reasons for USA's later entry into the war was due to concerns about Russia's stance on Germany. Although, even at that time, the German and Russia Pact was not in tatters but was close to collapse. Some conspiracy theorists argue that the USA were holding out until they felt Germany was weak enough to defeat, but I don't buy that. Obviously Pearl Harbour changed everything. 

One of the most alarming moments of WW2 for me is the fact that Hitler didn't push home the advantage gained at Dunkirk. Instead, believing the Britain was defeated, he turned his forces into Russia and created the Eastern Front. I always wonder how this would've affected our parents and grand-parents had Hitler invaded Britain with boots and actually occupied it. 

 

Even if the Battle of Britain had been lost, a German invasion of Britain would have failed. The Royal Navy would have decimated the invasion fleet (whilst sufferening massive losses themselves). Germany had no amphibious assault ships, or landing craft they would have towed barges across the Channel. Fast moving British destroyers would be difficult targets to hit from the air (destroyers lost at Dunkirk, were moored up, boarding troops, not manouvering in open water). The wakes from the destroyers would have swamped and capsized the barges. To say nothing of ramming them or shelling them. Germany had no navy to speak off to protect and support the invasion (too many destroyer losses in their invasion of Norway).

Operation Sealion was war gamed at Sandhurst back in the 70's. Germany lost.

Many, many other reasons why the invasion would have failed. Plenty of good articles on line, about it.

Thanks for the detailed response. Never thought of that. I assumed much of British Navy was moored up after Dunkirk.

Every day is a school day!

[zico]

Westham67.  Well that was part of my thinking to the original question.  I wondered if deep down with the non aggression pact with Germany did Stalin have a non spoken secret ambition early on to take over much of Europe himself?  We see how it ended up after the war with Eastern and Western Europe divided and when the USA did join in they were Allies with the Soviet Union whereas if they had joined at the start I wondered if there was a possibility they could have ended up being enemies of the Soviets.  Especially if Hitler had seen the Americans come in early, would he have considered asking the Societs to join him?  I am sure there would have been a lot of back stabbing later of course.

[Westham67]

No, they would not make a difference in 1939, maybe late 1940. No one was ready for war other than the Axis powers

If you want to read anything about the military history of the 20th century, read Sir Anthony Beevor, an award-winning author and military historian. He was the first to get into the soviet union when the USSR imploded . He got the full details of Stalingrad, which was the turning point of the war. If D-Day had not been a success, the whole of Europe would have been under Stalin's rule

The 20th century was the most interesting politically, as armies were rebelling rather than mobs and peasants. After and during WW1, the Russian civil war 1919 to 1921, the Spanish civil war 1936 to 1939, WW2 1939 to 1945 and then the Cold War and proxy wars in Vietnam, Central America and Afghanistan right up to 1989

[Westside]

Yeah, Stalingrad was a proper meat grinder.

Approx 250k taken prisoner there and after more than a decade 5k returned to Germany 

 

 

 

 

That was the nature of the war between Russia and Germany. Depending on which sources you place most credence on, overall between 50 - 60% of Russian prisoners died in German captivity, between 35 - 40% of Germans in Russian captivity.

The mortality rate of German POW's in British camps, was around 3%.

[The Mercernary]

Agree about the World at War being one of the definitive programmes. Can also highly recommend the Rise of the Nazis docuseries that the BBC did (2019-2023).

Stalingrad is often mentioned as a major talking point, along with Leningrad, where the estimated losses for just the Soviets were towards 2 million, with another 2.4 million sick and wounded. That's just astonishing. As indeed are the overall figures. Compare the three main allies losses:

Soviet Union: 20 to 27 million dead
UK: 450k
USA: 419k

And yet it was the Americans who "won the war" allegedly!

[XKhammer]

Yeah, Stalingrad was a proper meat grinder.

Approx 250k taken prisoner there and after more than a decade 5k returned to Germany 

[Far Cough UKunt]

Chamberlain was PM at the beginning of the war but he didn't take Britain into it, Hitler did that for him, but Chamberlain was part of the appeasement body which was understandable on his part due to the horrific nature of WWI.

[XKhammer]

Our boys fought for nothing in hindsight. Should have let Hitler win - the country and culture has been ruined by politicians and mass uncontrolled immigration 

 

BERLINbottlejob

[Eastside surge]

The world at war is the best reference point for me for anything ww2 related, particularly the last few episodes 
in particular how Truman and Stalin pretty much ridiculed Churchill and how he thought Britain would play a part after the war .

[,]

Notagooner, just in case it has escaped your attention Chamberlain took us into WW2.

As for bringing in the politics of today I make no apologies for that because whatever went on in the past has a lesson for the now and the future.

[BerlingtonBertie]

Our boys fought for nothing in hindsight. Should have let Hitler win - the country and culture has been ruined by politicians and mass uncontrolled immigration 
 

[Far Cough UKunt]

Zico, another thing to speculate on is what, if the likes of Farage had fronted a Reform government in 1939?

I think he would have cosied up to Hitler and we would not have gone to war. The USA would have been happy to simply bully Japan and all of the world would have sat and watched Germany and Russia slug it out.

Well didn't Chamberlain do exactly that? You know waving "the paper" and announcing peace for our time, after meeting Herr Hitler?

You really are a petty little prick bringing current politics of the day and extrapolating them into the late 30s.

[,]

Zico, another thing to speculate on is what, if the likes of Farage had fronted a Reform government in 1939?

I think he would have cosied up to Hitler and we would not have gone to war. The USA would have been happy to simply bully Japan and all of the world would have sat and watched Germany and Russia slug it out.

[goose]

There was some bits in the media last week from some people in the US government about how they won the second world war and saved europe.

I saw a video from a history professor saying that in terms of supplying munitions etc - yes they did. But it was the Russians who beat the Germans. Something like 65% of German troops were fighting on the eastern front and were beaten by the Russians. The US/UK etc were only fighting one third of the German troops.

 

You seem to forget that UK//US bombed the shit out of the German cities/factories unlike the Soviets so it was the allies including the USSR that beat them
The US could have taken Berlin long before the commies but chose to allow USSR to. 
goose with his typical anti Brit bollocks
Italy did well didn't they in WW2 lol 

you aint half dumb joyo son.

there's nothing anti-british in what i posted. its a direct response to certain US politicians claiming they won WW2 for Europe. no surprise the point went over your ginger head.

[XKhammer]

There was some bits in the media last week from some people in the US government about how they won the second world war and saved europe.

I saw a video from a history professor saying that in terms of supplying munitions etc - yes they did. But it was the Russians who beat the Germans. Something like 65% of German troops were fighting on the eastern front and were beaten by the Russians. The US/UK etc were only fighting one third of the German troops.

 

 

You seem to forget that UK//US bombed the shit out of the German cities/factories unlike the Soviets so it was the allies including the USSR that beat them
The US could have taken Berlin long before the commies but chose to allow USSR to. 
goose with his typical anti Brit bollocks
Italy did well didn't they in WW2 lol