Would The US Been Able to Win WWII Without the USSR?

[Johnny_Reb]

Without their tanks and planes....

deadeye the Soviet tanks and planes were hardly helpful in WWII. The Soviet pilots were horrible and the tanks were taken out by Germany early on in the war. An abdunce in soilders not tanks and planes, is what made the USSR able to fight the Nazis.

EDIT:sorry about the quote thing, im still getting used to it lol.Yes it was deadeye who posted it.

[-J�ker-]

Originally posted by slateman

Joker: How dare you insult my god!!! If it were possible I would reach through the phone lines and strangle you!!!

There's no way Patton was over-rated. He wasn't well known enough to be over-rated. Was he a "glory hound"? Absolutely (but then, what god doesn't deserve glory? ).

How were the airborne guys "kickin *** and givin it to the krauts"? They were trapped, w/o adequate food, ammunition, or proper clothing. Yes the Airborne won that battle. But that was because all they had to do was repulse the Germans. If they had had to force the Germans out of their bunkers in mid December, they would have gotten their a**es handed to them. Within two days, Patton turned his entire army ninety degrees and raced towards Bastogne (BTW: Montgomery and Bradely said it woudld take at least a week).

they did it with lead,sweat,blood and courage... yea they were trapped yea they had no supplies but that didnt matter to them. they were highly outnumbered but they held the germans off thats how they kicked their butts.

if you seriously think that highly of a loose cannon like patton was you have problems... whats this about him not being known? i think pretty much everybody knows of patton

[Johnny_Reb]

Joker you obviously dont realize how big a help Patton was, besides being a great general for the US he also inspired those around him to fight well.

IMO with the exception of Robert E. Lee and Stonewell Jackson he could very well be one of the best generals in United States history. Yeah and "holding them off" doesnt exactly mean they were "kicking their butts". Sure holding off Germans while outnumbered is impressive but unless they drive em off they didnt kick their butts IMO.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by slateman
The Soviets never would have been bombed with an A-bomb. Germany was at least 6 months from figuring out that making an A-bomb with heavy water is impractical at best. To my knowledge (not that I'm an expert on these things) it has never been done. And knowing Stalin, he would have launched every soldier,sailor, and airman (or woman) at whatever facilty that he thought was developing it.

Excuse me. The Soviets did not bomb Germany, the Americans and Brits did. The Germans were well on their way to constructing an atomic device. Had the Western allies not been involved and all of Germanies resources were on the Eastern Front, Germany could have dragged the war out long enought to finish their nuke and use it. They would have had air superiority and would have nuked the Soviets into the stone age. The West did bomb Germany A WHOLE LOT! Had it been one sided our way, the war would have been longer, but Germany still would have been bombed. We would still have had the A-Bomb and Germany would have gotten one or two of them from one of our B-29s!

As for Heavy Water-Think H-Bomb! The Fission of two hyrdogen molecules to form helium. More destructive then an atom bomb.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Johnny_Reb


deadeye the Soviet tanks and planes were hardly helpful in WWII. The Soviet pilots were horrible and the tanks were taken out by Germany early on in the war. An abdunce in soilders not tanks and planes, is what made the USSR able to fight the Nazis.

Uhm, wrong. When the Soviets went on the offensive, it was led by their armor and close support fighters. All mass produced. Their equipment stunk at the beginning of the war, but when they began to make their knock-offs of the wester fighters, their numbers most definitely helped. No infantry is ever going to defeat a tank army without support!

[Johnny_Reb]

deadeye's right the Soviets never bombed Germany. Soviet pilots at the time were horrible and probly wouldve crashed on the way over there. As for the US, we bombed em like crazy. Near the end of the German war Berlin had few blocks untouched by American bombs. By the way, I cant remember when the A-bomb was developed. Was it after the Germans surrended or was it developed near the end of the German war and we just didnt see a point in using it?

[Johnny_Reb]

deadeye Im pretty sure the tanks didnt help the USSR much. I remember reading somewhere that the Germans took them out when they first invaded. Ill see if I can find where I read that.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Johnny_Reb
deadeye's right the Soviets never bombed Germany. Soviet pilots at the time were horrible and probly wouldve crashed on the way over there. As for the US, we bombed em like crazy. Near the end of the German war Berlin had few blocks untouched by American bombs. By the way, I cant remember when the A-bomb was developed. Was it after the Germans surrended or was it developed near the end of the German war and we just didnt see a point in using it?

The A-Bomb was finished by mid 1945. Had we fought Germany alone, the war would still have been raging then. Enter the A-Bomb! End of war!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Johnny_Reb
deadeye Im pretty sure the tanks didnt help the USSR much. I remember reading somewhere that the Germans took them out when they first invaded. Ill see if I can find where I read that.

At the start of the war you are correct. As the war drug on, they mass produced better ones. The T-34 they had at the end of the war was formidable. Those tanks led the Soviet Army on their advance to Germany.

[Johnny_Reb]

1945 ok Thanks. You know what Ive always wondered, had Hitler not declared war on the US what wouldve happened? When the Japenese bombed Pearl Harbor we were intent on only fighting the Japense, but then Hitler declared war on us and we decided to focus on the Western front first.

Had Hitler kept his mouth shut would we have gone into the Cold War against Germany instead of the USSR? Or once we defeated Japan would we have fought Germany then? If we hadnt helped fight Germany would they have delevelped the Atomic bomb? Would Germany be the superpower now instead of the US?

[Collegeboy]

The Soviets had argueably the best tank in the war. The German tigers while being well armoured and well armed, they were slow, ate up too much oil, and were a mechanics nightmare. The t34 was fast, could travel a long distance, decently armoured, and a great gun.

The Soviet forces at the begining of the war was well armed, they were just taken by surprised, and their leadership sucked.

Here is something you are forgeting 1de. Would the US have been able to have a place to launch off from and land and transport the abomb to Europe. If Hitler had no russian front, he would have taken England. He would have taken all of Europe except those areas of Soviet holdings. He would spread out his industrial buildings, etc.... All by the time the US would have gotten their bomb. (which would be much later).


And on Vietnam, how did the US not lose the war?

[1stdeadeye]

they did it with lead,sweat,blood and courage... yea they were trapped yea they had no supplies but that didnt matter to them. they were highly outnumbered but they held the germans off thats how they kicked their butts.

Two things:

On the third day of the attack, the weather cleared and allied air power was brought to bear on the German atackers, decimating their armor and lines.

Second: "Nuts"

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The Soviets had argueably the best tank in the war. The German tigers while being well armoured and well armed, they were slow, ate up too much oil, and were a mechanics nightmare. The t34 was fast, could travel a long distance, decently armoured, and a great gun.

Don't start the tank argument again. It was formidable, but not as high quality as the German ones.

The Soviet forces at the begining of the war was well armed, they were just taken by surprised, and their leadership sucked.

No they were not. Much of their armor was old and destroyed by the Germans during their stroll though the USSR to Moscow. (Which they never reached, nor encircled ergo no siege! )

Here is something you are forgeting 1de. Would the US have been able to have a place to launch off from and land and transport the abomb to Europe. If Hitler had no russian front, he would have taken England. He would have taken all of Europe except those areas of Soviet holdings. He would spread out his industrial buildings, etc.... All by the time the US would have gotten their bomb. (which would be much later).

Uhm did you forget the Battle of Britan. The Luftwaffe was virtually ineffective after that. How would the Germans have crossed the English Channel with English domination of the sea? The Brits controlled the seas. German U-Boats harrassed shipping, but never challanged British dominence. So how would the Germans have reached England. Here is how, they wouldn't. Thus, the US would have used Fortress England to Bomb Germany into submission. Ther German Army as strong as it may have been at it's peak would not have been able to swim the channel to invade. The Germans had no real Navy after the destruction of the Price Hoygen and Bismark to protect and invasion flotilla. The English Navy would have sent hundreds of thousands of would be German invaders to a cold and watery grave. Hey, maybe that is how the Allies would have beat the Germans. We could have drowned them all. You who claims to be a student of history should know an Invasion of England was all but impossible with English domination of the Seas and Allied control of the Air! As for moving production around, Remember a madman ran Germany. His Fortress Europe and 1000 year reich would never have let him spread out. Notice he had France for a few years and all he put there were Airbases and V1 launch ramps. Remember, Hitler was one of the reasons we won the war. The German Generals were far superior to the Soviet Generals and better then most of the Western Generals. Imagine Rommell running the invasion of the Soviet Union unhampered by Hitler's innane mandates. Pretty scary, eh?

And on Vietnam, how did the US not lose the war?

Vietnam was a political defeat, not a military defeat. The US had the North Vietnamese on the verge of surrender. Had Nixon continued to bomb NV, the war would have ended there. Now I do believe that as soon as we left with the war won, the NV and Viet-Cong would have broken their armstice and attack again as they did in 1975 when they broke the armstice that ended hostilities in 1973. Nixon could have left The New Jersey off the Vietnamese coast for the entire war as far as I am concerned. 3 2000lb shells a minute, 24 hours a day for a few months would have leveled Hanoi.

I place the blame for Vietnam squarely on Nixon. Had he shown political will after his re-election, he could have ended the war on our terms. The US never lost a battle in this war. But this was never really a war, it was a police action against terrorists and guerillas. Had we stuck to air power, we could have ended it in 1972 when the bombing was at it's fiercest. During the 11 days that Nixon authorized, the US dropped 100,000 bombs, not pound but bombs. This equaled 5 times the destructive force of the Hiroshima A-Bomb. North Vietnam was staggering at this point. They could have taken the South, but had no country left in the North. Pololitical weakenss by Nixon ended the bombing. I will also say that even had we won and forced a NV surrender, we would probably have troops there to this day enforcing it. But again, Vietnam is another mess we can blame on the French. Had the dealt fairly with the Vietnamese after WWII, would a war there have occurred, probably not. But the French wanted all of their colonial possessions back. Thank god they did not drag us into Algeria!

So the US army was not defeated, the politicians back home gave up, big difference, Defeated is what the Germans did to the French in WWII!

Also, had Goldwater been elected in 1964, the war would have been over in 1965. Of course North Vietnam would have been the largest Nuclear testing grounds on Earth, but who cares?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Two things:

On the third day of the attack, the weather cleared and allied air power was brought to bear on the German atackers, decimating their armor and lines.

Second: "Nuts"

Actually it was Aw Nuts, but that is alright.

Did you actually know that it took Patton and his army (one of which was my grandfather, redball express), like 3 days or so longer then suppose to, to reach Bastogne.

[Jack_Dubious]

"1stdeadeye, you magnificent bastard! I read your thread!" -General Patton (if he was on AO)


JDub