Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

[Trackhead M2]

.

American paranoia for security on the Manhattan Project

With hindsight, they were quite right to be paranoid Maybe they were not paranoid enough?

Dear Big E,
Are you raising the Greenglass and Rosenberg issue? As they were Americans who betrayed or were accused of betraying atomic secrets? Yes, it was a problem because J. Edgar Hoover was too concerned over socialist tendencies of J. Robert Oppenheimer and let the little fish eat away with impugnity.
Strike Swifty,
TH-M2

[The_Enigma]

.

American paranoia for security on the Manhattan Project

With hindsight, they were quite right to be paranoid Maybe they were not paranoid enough?

Dear Big E,
Are you raising the Greenglass and Rosenberg issue? As they were Americans who betrayed or were accused of betraying atomic secrets? Yes, it was a problem because J. Edgar Hoover was too concerned over socialist tendencies of J. Robert Oppenheimer and let the little fish eat away with impugnity.
Strike Swifty,
TH-M2

TH-M2,

I believe i might be, i am not familiar with the names just the notion that the project was infilitrated and apparently all kinds of information passed to the Soviets resulting in the advancement of their own project. Cheers for the details.

Terry, excellent post!

[Terry Duncan]

In the territories conquered by the Germans 1941-1942 there were some 70 -90 million people - thus they were lost to the USSR as soldiers and a production force. So think before you accuse other people hm

When in doubt waffle eh. Unless you imagine all the elderly and children were somehow potential soldiers and production workers your figures are still hopelessly inaccurate even if we do overlook that much of the production facilities had been moved east along with all the workers. The Russian figures suggest that there were just under 200 million citizens of the USSR in 1941, whilst the areas occupied by the Germans during the course of the war totalled 70 million prior to the war starting. Therefore we can see that not all of these people would still be there by the time the Germans arrived in mid 1942 or even early 1943 even if they did live there on 22nd June 1941, and maybe only half of the remainder of them would have been suitable soldiers and production workers at best - the chances are the most able were the ones removed and the least able were the ones left. Then of course you need to factor in all those remaining that were involved in the partizan forces and therefore not really lost to the Soviet war effort. Maybe you need to think before attempting to redefine your claims.

However, as you have refused an aswer on every other point raised in my post I can only presume that you accept each as a valid criticism of your claims, lack a suitable rebuttle and instead concentrated your effort into attempting to redefine the above claim. Having failed on that token misguided effort, and apparently accepted that your claims of Nazi super forces and production are simply so much hot air coupled with a fertile (though bankrupt) imagination.

Now to my favourite part of your latest post;

PS: Nice how you avoided to write something to the fact that I crushed your argument that the Allies in France advanced as fast as the Germans

Nice to see you are so inattentive to accurate detail that you have failled to notice that I never made any claim about the respective advances across France or even passed a comment about it, and that this was something another member posted. So much for claims of 'crushed', your performance has so far been cringeworthy.

PS: When in doubt, stop digging!

[Politician01]

In the territories conquered by the Germans 1941-1942 there were some 70 -90 million people - thus they were lost to the USSR as soldiers and a production force. So think before you accuse other people hm

When in doubt waffle eh.

That the reason u doing it all the time?

[Terry Duncan]

That the reason u doing it all the time?

So not even manufactured 'facts' now? Nothing to 'crush' and spectacularly fail at this time?

[Andy H]

Hello Gents.

Lets please argue the case and not each other.

Thank you

Andy H

[ljadw]

Could some one explain ,what's the meaning of "ON THEIR OWN"?
Is this:The SU remaining neutral?
:the SU allied with Germany?
:the SU conquered by Germany ?
And,when would the US joining the war?7 december 1941? Earlier ? Later ?
And,in these ATL,would the cash and carry still happen? And dito for LL?
And,is one assuming a German victory in may/june 1940 resulting in the elimination of France ?

[Trackhead M2]

Could some one explain ,what's the meaning of "ON THEIR OWN"?
Is this:The SU remaining neutral?
:the SU allied with Germany?
:the SU conquered by Germany ?
And,when would the US joining the war?7 december 1941? Earlier ? Later ?
And,in these ATL,would the cash and carry still happen? And dito for LL?
And,is one assuming a German victory in may/june 1940 resulting in the elimination of France ?

Dear l,
Nice cross examination questions. I think the one where you suggest the Molotov-Von Ribbentrof pact holds makes the need for the USA to get in the war earlier to prevent an Axis victory. A neutral USSR also presents problems as AH's oil problem could be solved.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

[glenn239]

Is this:The SU remaining neutral? – Yes. Japan is therefore either also neutral or is at war with the Soviet Union.
:the SU allied with Germany? – No, but the potential exists for such an alliance in both German and Allied calculations.
:the SU conquered by Germany ? – No.
And,when would the US joining the war?7 december 1941? Earlier ? Later ? - Later.
And,in these ATL,would the cash and carry still happen? And dito for LL? - Yes to both.
And,is one assuming a German victory in may/june 1940 resulting in the elimination of France ? – Yes.

The Soviet prices for their 'sales' to Germany were approaching extortion by June 1941.

The Soviets were bending over backwards up to the invasion to meet their obligations to the letter, ignoring the German failure to live up to theirs

there still would be a big(and after 1941,a even bigger) part of the army and the LW be tied on the eastern border .

I see no reason for why Germany, having just signed a new treaty with Stalin in 1941, would then require large forces to face east.

Germany can acquire resources from Stalin by some time, but still in insufficent quantity to challange the US and Britain.

But that’s up to Stalin, isn't it? We can't make up Stalin's mind for him. Ask yourself this; if the reward is the US and Germany killing each other into the 1950's, do you think Stalin will extend Germany a line of credit to keep the war going as long as possible?

Stalin would trade with Germany, but how Germany would pay? Germany was facing serious economic problems due to the British naval blockade, despite the Soviet help. How do you think Germany would pay Stalin to be able to sustain itself, occupied Europe, and still maintein massive garisons in the West and East, together with a massive wartime economy to at least aproch that of the US and the British Empire?

Germany can pay in four ways. First, by technology transfers. (Ie, how many tons of oil is the design blueprints and necessary tooling for a Type XXI submarine worth to Stalin?) Secondly, by barter for German goods. Third, by way of the Soviets extending a line of credit to Germany. Fourth, (and most significantly to the Allied war effort) in the way of what might be coined some sort of axis of evil lend-lease program. (ie, how many million tons of oil is it worth to Stalin to have the Soviet flag flying from bases at the mouth of the Bosporus?)

[glenn239]

The Luftwaffe HAD no retaliatory capacity, and no platform capable of delivering any plausible A-Bomb.

So Germany manufactured maybe 15,000 tons of nerve gas by the end of the war for show and tell?

Is it? and what retalitory capacity do you see the Luftwaffe having?

Call the Luftwaffe frontline strength doubled over historical in mid-1944. Maybe tripled. What, 2,500 medium bombers? Maybe 3,500 if they husband? Then, factor in the V-1’s for, perhaps, 10,000 sorties per month from bases in France when at full scale production. V-2’s – inconsequential.

[The_Enigma]

I see no reason for why Germany, having just signed a new treaty with Stalin in 1941, would then require large forces to face east.

Following the M-R Pact, the carving up of Poland, and further agreements on amennding what had been annexed etc. Just how many troops did Germany leave in Poland as a garrison and to watch over the eastern border while attention was turned west?

Lets not forget that Germany attacked the USSR after all these agreements had been reached, while both sides were co-operating, and if memory serves while both had a non-agression treaty signed. If one side so easily broke all these to attack, who is to the say the other would not when the opportunity arose? With the largest military power in the world sitting just across your border, having launched a war upon Finland, and Poland, annexed the Baltic States, and forced the Rumanians into coessions ... it is not like Germany had a peaceful, happy to sit around and do nothing, nonbelligerenat neighbour.

[edit]Scanning through some things, i not that Wilmot states that when Germany attacked France seven divisions were left to guard the rear while when they attacked Russia, 49 divisions were left to guard the rear. There is also this topic. In which hero. highlights that by the end of '39 there was 9 divisions stationed in the east, although that rose to 33 (if i have not miscounted) by September 1940, and he states the massive build up of forces then occured from the end of the year onwards for Barabarossa.

Without any further detail, it would seem that following the Battle of France forces were redistrubuted so that the entire weight of the German military was not sitting in France. While a small garrison appears to be kept in place initially (due to the N-A pact, it would seem), one notes the larger garrison Wilmot alludes to sitting in the west when Barabarossa was launched even though it was unlikley the British would invade. It makes one ponder, was the weak garrison kept in the east in '39 a temporary strategic move to employ the most forces agaisnt the west? Was the increase in units moved there by the end of the Battle of Britain, due to early preparation for Barabarossa or the real need to have forces on standby to watch over the border?[/edit]

So Germany manufactured maybe 15,000 tons of nerve gas by the end of the war for show and tell?

I do believe this was discussed further up the thread, someone mentioned it appeared the main strike capability was in field artillery. So just because they have 15,000 tons of nerve gas, does not mean they had the capability to deliver it via means of aircraft. The question therefore is did they have such a capability, not was the gas for show and tell.

[ljadw]

In june 1940,Germany was faced with a strategical dilemma :
1) A victory against Britain in the short time was excluded,and impossible in the long term
2)A war with the US was probable and nearing
3) The SU was not sure
Germany had to protect the occupied countries,was waging an offensive air and naval war against Britain,was making preparations for a war with the US,had to protect its cities against allied air attacks,AND had to protect its eastern border (the oil fields of Romania) and this while time was running against Germany:every day,its opponents became stronger .
As long as the SU was not sure,victory against Britain was out of the question,and,as long as Britain was fighting,victory against the SU was pout of the question .
Going back to the OP(could the USA/British Empire have won on their own?),my answer would be :yes for 66%:all would depend on 2 points
1) when would the US be committed ,when would there be a DOW (by the US/Germany)
2)How much of Germany's industrial and military capacity would be tied on the eastern border ?IMHO:more in 1942 than in 1941,more in 1943 than in 1942,etc
The longer the war,the bigger the chances for the US/Britain .

[Marcelo Jenisch]

Agree, ljadw.

How do you see the position of Japan in this scenario?

[ljadw]

if Barbarossa did not happen,a Japanese attack on the SU was excluded,and even with Barbarossa (which was the most likely German option),Japan would remain neutral .
Japan and the west :a war was inevitable(because of the oil embargo) and was,indirectly,influenced by the European war :Japan was hoping on a German DOW on the US,caused by :united,we have a chance,alone,we are doomed
What would happen in the ATL,is what was happening in the OTL:Germany attacking the SU in 1941,hoping to eliminate the SU in a short campaign which would force Britain to give up .
:Japan attacking the US,resulting in a German DOW on the US,with as reason:if Germany did nothing,this would make it easier for the US to defeat Japan,and than to intervene in Europe:the German POV was:united,we have a chance,alone:we are doomed .(as was the Japanese POV):Germany tying American resources was good for Japan (and viceversa)

[Marcelo Jenisch]

In short: Japan and Germany complemented each other militarily to try achive a new world order. Japan with it's Navy, and Germany with it's Army.