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

[Johnny_Reb]

Our goal WASNT to take over canada. Ill try and simplify what deadeye has been saying. You see Britain didnt recognize America as a country and boarded american ships and stole sailors and pressed them into service. The goal of the War of 1812 was to insure the US as a country. The war ended as a stalemate. The Battle of Orleans the Americans under Andrew Jackson easily defeated Britain's finest. Britain then recognized the US as a country, that was the goal of the US throughout the war, so the US won.

As for losing to Canada? No way! Canada hadnt even won its independence yet so they werent really canada yet. Thats like British troops coming over to colonize the US but being driven away by Native Americans and the US claiming victory for it when the US wasnt even formed yet.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Greg98
your thoughts on whether it was a primary goal or not is beside the point....you tried to invade our country and we held our ground. I've also always been a bit curious as to when we consider someone in our country a citizen. I mean I know their were British regulars, but there was also Canadian Militia and I believe Tecumseh and his formidable force of Native Canadians. Yes the militia came from england, but when are they considered Canadian? Everyone in America was from britain early on your eastern seaboard, yet somehow they were always American. I hope somebody understands that rambling of mine. The war of 1812 was simply about America finding a ground on which to fight the british, they couldn't sail over there, so they simply went North. Invasion and annexation was a goal, I believe it was the american concept of manifest destiny.
Uhm, whatever. America declared war based on the illegal conscription (kidnapping) of American sailors at sea by the British Navy. I guess the US was looking for any excuse, eh? You Canadians were Brits until 1932. You waited 150 years longer then we did for our independence. P.S. Manifest Destiny was about reaching the Pacific, not the North Pole! You also invaded our country and got your butts kicked. *cough* New Orleans *cough*

"Detriot was captured, but not held" 1stDeadeye

Actually, IIRC, we never intended to hold Detroit. Our foray down the east coast was simply revenge for when Americans burned down much of York (now Toronto), so we went down into detroit, burned down some buildings, then headed down to washington and burned down the white house thats why you have that pretty new one.

Study your history fool. No Canadian Army or British one for that matter swept down from Canada and invaded the East Coast. Washington was attacked by the British Army and Navy coming UP the Chesapeake. They attacked our capital, but were defeated at Fort McHenry. Some guy wrote a song about it, some Banner thing! That was no Canadian/Indian army in that battle, but British regulars who were turned back!

We (or britain, however you wish to look at it) did not lose the war. your goal was to take the country over, we stopped you, thats a victory right there.

Actually our goal was to protect our sovereignty and stop the British from Impressing American sailors into their Navy by force. THe war ended that, so I guess we won. The American declaration of war never had anything to do with expansion.
What we also did do was cement our claims to the Louisiana purchase and force Britan to acknowledge this. Again, Canada was an afterthought, not the whole war. Sorry to burst your bubble.

yes they suffered defeat at new orleans (a quirk of history, rather strange circumstances!) and they also took a severe loss in a sea battle when they were led by a man who underestimated the American navy and basically walk into a slaughterhouse. I don't recall his name, I've got too much history stuff in my head, lol. but if you wish to continue debating, please do, hopefully we both can learn some more

The Treaty of Ghent is one of the more remarkable documents in History. It allowed both sides to declare victory and depending on how you looked at the conflict, both sides did win. We however got the better end of the deal as we did accomplish what was stated in our Articles of War.

and please, no cheap shots on Canada. I know it's hard for some Americans to comprehend, but we can be extremely proud of our country as well.

Somebody cue up "Blame Canada"!


Oh, I see someone wanted to know about other attempts on Canada, and I believe the Fenian raids was another attack, not so much an invasion. About 10,000 Irish Americans tried to strike at Canadian cities and such to try and draw British troops away from Ireland, so they could retake their homeland. It was unsuccesful, obviously

Hey you guys want next? I am sure our military could use you guys for training exercise now! It can be our Canadian Victory lap or do you think you guys can take us? Or should we be on the look out for the mighty Canadian Navy! Should I post the picture or would someone else like to?

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


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!

Now, the German tanks (specifically the Tiger and King Tiger tanks) were the most superior tanks of the war. I will agree that they were oil eating machines, Collegeboy. But, then again, that is the nature of tanks anyways. And they weren't necessarily slow, but rather large and cumbersome. This wasn't a problem in the steppes and plains of Russia, but did prove quite troublesome in the confined areas of the Ardennes in the Battle of the Bulge. It would have been wiser had the Germans used the smaller Panther and Panzer mark IV's to force a breakthrough there.

But guess what, the change from the Tiger to the King Tiger was to change from the boxier shape of the Tiger to that of the more rounded Russian T-34.

In fact, the T-34 was a highly regarded tank, even by the Germans. Some of this may have had to do with the large number of them deployed by the Russians. But, their comments matched with the design changes made by the Germans definitely shows that the Russians had a winner in the T-34.

Then there was the IL-2 Shturmovik. This thing was basically a tank in the air. Equate it with the modern day A-10 Warthog, because it was designed as a tank killer from the start.

With their advances throughout the war, and their superior numbers of men you can begin to see why the Russians were able to turn the Germans backward. [One has to take into account however, the opening of the Western Front in France, and the constant Allied bombing from the West, performed by the RAF and USAF.] Had the Germans fought ONLY the Soviets it is quite possible they would have beaten them.

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by Greg98
Everyone in America was from britain early on your eastern seaboard, yet somehow they were always American.

It is not wise to make blanket statements in an argument. Of the 13 original colonies that declared independence, they were not all originally British holdings.

[1stdeadeye]

He he

Originally posted by alkafluence



Now, the German tanks (specifically the Tiger and King Tiger tanks) were the most superior tanks of the war. But guess what, the change from the Tiger to the King Tiger was to change from the boxier shape of the Tiger to that of the more rounded Russian T-34.

In fact, the T-34 was a highly regarded tank, even by the Germans. Some of this may have had to do with the large number of them deployed by the Russians. But, their comments matched with the design changes made by the Germans definitely shows that the Russians had a winner in the T-34.

Then there was the IL-2 Shturmovik. This thing was basically a tank in the air. Equate it with the modern day A-10 Warthog, because it was designed as a tank killer from the start.

With their advances throughout the war, and their superior numbers of men you can begin to see why the Russians were able to turn the Germans backward. [One has to take into account however, the opening of the Western Front in France, and the constant Allied bombing from the West, performed by the RAF and USAF.] Had the Germans fought ONLY the Soviets it is quite possible they would have beaten them.

*ducks* Waiting for CollegeBoy to attack Alka's post!

[alkafluence]

Re: He he

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


*ducks* Waiting for CollegeBoy to attack Alka's post!

I'm actually tempted to state some of the blunders of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, and how the invasion of the channel (Operation Sealion) might have been possible if not for Hitler and his high command's bungling.

I'm not referring to the actual officers, but of stupid decisions made by Goering and Hitler. Such as the decision to stop attacking industrial production and military bases to focus on population centers and morale. The RAF was within centimeters of its death, because the rate at which fighters and more specifically pilots were being lost was greater than the Germans knew.

Additionally, Hitler had decided not to focus on producing a long range-heavy bomber. The Battle of Britain was fought mostly with light to medium bombers on the part of Germany, because this production had been scrapped by Fuhrer directives. Furthermore, the ME-109 or the BF-109 depending on whose designation you go by had only about 30 minutes worth of combat time once it went across the channel, because again Germany did not have need for a longer range fighter until that point in the war. If we look at where Germany had already expanded, there was no need to develop longer ranged heavy bombers or longer ranged fighters, because of the availability of land bases across continental Europe. To a large extent, this is also what prevented the Germans from hampering Russian production of T-34's in factories well behind the front.

Had the industrial and military targetting continued, the RAF would have been neutralized. This would have opened the possibility for Sealion to occur. Granted the Royal Navy did have a large superiority at that point in the war, the Germans still had a reasonable number of surface ships. The Turpitz and Bismarck (real battleships) +the 2 pocket battleships built before the beginning of the war and labeled heavy cruisers to try to skirt around Treaty limitations. They were later refitted with heavier guns. But I'm digressing... The Germans didn't need to control the channel indefinitely... They only needed to hold the crossing for a reasonable amount of time to perform the initial crossing, with their surface fleet. It may have been costly for the German surface fleet to hold this, but it would have been worth it. Furthermore, the deployment of large wolf-packs of submarines at the northern and southern entrances to the channel would have been expected, both during the landings and afterwards, making it risky for the Royal Navy to commit to that area.


Additionally, Hitler was stupid in pressing the war far earlier than his Generals were originally planning for. The original plan did not call for war until 1944. This would have given Hitler ample to time to implement Plan-Z, which called for the development of at least a modest surface navy, which was to encompass at least 2 aircraft carriers and a 144,000 ton super-battleship. (For comparison, the Iowa-class which encompasses the now famous Missouri only displaces 55,710 tons).


Just some interesting food for thought above, but it does seem that if a few variables had been assigned differently (the existing variables regarding the target switch and temporary holding of the channel) Sealion could have been possible.


For all you what-if Generals I highly recommend the Panzer General series of games, which allows to play out a number of what-if scenarios, including a possible German invasion of D.C.

[Collegeboy]

Why would I attack anyone 1de? I have yet to do so, so why do you think I would do it now.

It is my opinion, like I said, that the T34 was the best well rounded tank for it was good on just about any surface, for an extended period of time, didn't break down like the tigers, was faster then the tigers, had a decent gun, and a decent armour. Now people argue over this every day what is the better tank, the tiger, or the t34. It depends on what you place your values on. On one instance if you put your value on the most powerfull tank or other instances then you have to go for the tiger series, but if you put it on the most well rounded tank, and etc... Then in my opinion you have to go with the t34 series. But these are all debates that have done around for decades and will continue to go on.

When did Hitler start allocating troops from the east to the west?

I am not sure the date, but I know that Kursk happened on July 5, 1943 (began). The Germans were already on the run before this and this was there last attempt to attack the soviets.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Why would I attack anyone 1de? I have yet to do so, so why do you think I would do it now.

Okay, whatever.

It is my opinion, like I said, that the T34 was the best well rounded tank for it was good on just about any surface, for an extended period of time, didn't break down like the tigers, was faster then the tigers, had a decent gun, and a decent armour. Now people argue over this every day what is the better tank, the tiger, or the t34. It depends on what you place your values on. On one instance if you put your value on the most powerfull tank or other instances then you have to go for the tiger series, but if you put it on the most well rounded tank, and etc... Then in my opinion you have to go with the t34 series. But these are all debates that have done around for decades and will continue to go on.

My opinion is the Sherman! Why that little toy you may ask? Because there were so darn many of them!

When did Hitler start allocating troops from the east to the west?

I am not sure the date, but I know that Kursk happened on July 5, 1943 (began). The Germans were already on the run before this and this was there last attempt to attack the soviets.

1943? Jeez, wasn't Germany under sever bombardment by that time by the US and British bombers? They couldn't re-enforce and re-supply the eastern front as was needed to maintain the front. The Germans collapsed, go figure. I still blame this on Hitler being a moron and letting 200,000+ troops get captured/kiled at Stalingrad amoung other glaring errors he made overriding his Generals. Like I said before, imagine Rommell running the Eastern front with no Western Front or European Wall to worry about building or defending. Scary thought, eh?

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

When did Hitler start allocating troops from the east to the west?

I am not sure the date, but I know that Kursk happened on July 5, 1943 (began). The Germans were already on the run before this and this was there last attempt to attack the soviets.

The western front, should not only be considered France, but Italy as well. As a matter of fact, the Italian campaign was opened due to Stalin's anger over the failure of the western allies to open a western front sooner. Britain and the U.S. were unable to launch the French landing due to the lack of landing craft, so they compromised and opened a front in Italy on September 8, 1943. {Sicily had been invaded as of July 9, 1943}

This tied up Kesselring's entire army group in Italy, comprised of the 10th and 14th armies. Many of these troops would have otherwise been slated for duty on the eastern front.

And of course, it was necessary to man and continue to build the Atlantic well for defense against a potential cross-channel invasion. This ties down more divisions that could have been used on the Eastern front.

My point is, that it was quite possible that the Germans could have defeated the Soviets barring war with the western allies.