What decided WWII?

[Guest]

@El:

I’d say it was the restrictions and burden placed on Germany at the end of WWI. All the other points are icing on the pie…I mean cake.

Yes… I agree whole heartedly… But that is just saying that the allies have as much fault in in starting WW2 than the Axis…
Not what decided it…

[Yanny]

The Battle of Britain decided the war. After that, the Western Allies would forever have air supremecy over Germany, pounding the damn place to the stoneage.

Of your choices, well the Economic Capacity of the United States was staggering. Also, the lack of key natural resources on the parts of the Germans and Japaneese played a huge part. Hitler would of lasted longer if he didn’t have a lack of oil. The Japaneese, even more so.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

Rommel and other generals actually warned that the allies would come through normandy, but hitler in his wisdom decided that that was an allied plan of distraction. that why he didnt allow the germa army to use its tank forces against the normandy beaches.

Well actually, the Allied plan of distraction involved creating a fake army commanded by Gen. Patton that was supposed to land at the Pas de Calais (i think). So in this case, Hitler could have been forgiven (or whatever) for his mistake.

[Guest]

I think the big mistake was Germany deciding to attack the Soviet Union when they did. Maybe I don’t see something from the historical record, but opening a 2nd front before the UK was on the ropes was a bad choice in my opinion, and it led to the eventual allied victory.

[Janus1]

The Battle of Britain was significant, but not the cause. Like I already said earlier, there was no one cause. It was a contributing effort of many things, including the Battle of Britain. To some extend, any one event could have been changed, with the outcome of the war remaining the same. But in the same way, all the key events that have been pointed to as the cause were instead just major contributers.

[El Jefe]

The poll is not clear as to whether it refers to starting or ending the war.

I would say the deciding factor ending the war was
that the Allies beat Italy, Germany and Japan! :wink:

I just thought of a new A&A variant/house rule. Gotta post it…

[TG Moses VI]

I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

[Janus1]

Yea, those Russians. Everything they do is in mass numbers. Whenever they lose people, its in the millions of casualties. I guess it gets pretty cold up there. :wink:

[TG Moses VI]

Americans too. Where do you think all of those 10 Shermans vs 1 Panzer fight came from? :)

[Janus1]

Well thats because comparatively, shermans sucked. I mean, there were cases where shells from shermans bounced off panzer armor. thats crap! but the russians seem to have less sensitivity. i mean, they are true masters of the meat grinder tactic, send wave after wave of troops to their death to overwhelm the enemy. meanwhile, the americans take 5 casualties, and the public cant stand it anymore. damn americans!

[TG Moses VI]

Well thats because comparatively, shermans sucked. I mean, there were cases where shells from shermans bounced off panzer armor

That’s not what I meant; I’m trying to say that production numbers (economy) was a determining factor in the war. Hell I don’t care if Germany had all King Tigers, US still would’ve defeated them in numbers alone.

[EmuGod]

@TG:

I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.

[El Jefe]

@EmuGod:

@TG:

I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.

I don’t think so. Shrek :) , maybe, but Mayo :D just used Stalin and his toys to do things the ChiCom way.

And it depends how big the production #s are.
Besides the Rooskies had to figure out that they needed to get
behind the Nazi tanks for the best shot.

[EmuGod]

Actually, that’s not true. Mao Zedong did not get aid from Stalin. He used guerilla warfare to wear down the Nationalist troops which outnumbered him 5 to 1 and slowly began to win the sympathy of the people and ruined Chiang’s popularity or lack thereof among the people. Chiang’s soldiers began abandoning him and sided with Mao. Chiang also got aid from the United States, but even with that he failed.

Another example is the French in Indo-China. Though 75% their war costs were paid for by the Americans, they still lost to the guerillas which they outnumbered and outgunned. But then again, the French in wars are never a good example since the last time they won a war was in the French Revolution when they fought each other.

[Guest]

@El:

@EmuGod:

@TG:

I don’t care how good your leaders are, you just can’t beat production numbers. Stalin was a horrible leader and a poor military strategist, yet how did he beat Hitler? Sheer numbers.

Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise.

I don’t think so. Shrek :) , maybe, but Mayo :D just used Stalin and his toys to do things the ChiCom way.

And it depends how big the production #s are.
Besides the Rooskies had to figure out that they needed to get
behind the Nazi tanks for the best shot.

or Invent the T-34 and teach em a lesson :wink: …

[TG Moses VI]

Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong would argue otherwise

They were underequipped and undersupplied :-? Notice when I talk about economy I said numbers AND production. If the Chinese nationalists were better equipped, no doubt they would’ve bleed the Japanese (Zeros vs. nothing does not make for a very good arguement)

[Guest]

If you cannot create 85% of the war “business” (logistics) your stupid…regardless of your genereals (especially if they outnumber you by aircraft by about 8:1(conservative)

[Guest]

Like Janus has bin saying there are multiple factors contributing to the end of WW2. i sine what agree with Falk about the Anti Semitism and Racism. if that was not Present Russia would have fell like a Stack of Bricks, there man power would have bin jacked up. but if you look at it WW2 happend because the Third Reich set out on a Crusade to rid Europe of the Jews.

as far as Strategic mistakes go…. Adolf spliiting up AGC during Barborossa. had he not done that Moscow would have fallen in weeks. and the Soviet state and Coms would collapse. If the Soviet Union fell the Allies would have no hope of Defeating the Third Reich unless they got lots and lots of Nukes.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

I think splitting AGC was a major tactical mistake, but I think eventually the Third Reich would have fallen in the end anyway. The fall of Moscow probably would have slowed the Russian counterattack, but I doubt it would have completely destroyed Russian morale, especially when they had plans of giving up anyway…also, the more of Russia Germany conquered, the harder it was to supply their armies. Eventually, the Germans would have run out of supplies and the Russians would have been able to counter their offensive.

[Guest]

If moscow had fallen who care…just retreat Stalin and his Cronies into Sibirea…I hear they have nice Geo thermal pools there… if germany made it that far there pop. would probably not support the army throwing them into a tailspin… one way or another from 1939 on most economsts said they couldn’t have won with what they had despite there technology…