Posts made by Octospire

@ABWorsham:

The U.S help in Europe allowed for a secend front. Had the U.S not got involved the U.S.S.R would have ‘liberated’ all of Western Europe. This would have caused a situation that would have led to a 3rd World War.

Would it of led to world war 3 though? its quite the interesting scenario. Post 1945 Communism conquered a large part of Asia, including China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia as well as Stalin’s aquisitions in Eastern Euripe and that didnt cause WW3 so i’m not really sure that the U.S would of got involved especially given the possibility of facing off on two fronts against both in the Pacific and Europe. Most likely the islationist policies would of continued as well as the anti- communist operations in Latin America, but beyond that I dont think they would of been willing to commit they’re entire armed forces for something that for the majority wasnt their war.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Is it true that the British were working on the A-bomb in Canada?

Quoted From http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKOrigin.html

“Britain was the first country to seriously study the feasibility of nuclear weapons, and made a number of critical conceptual breakthroughs. The first theoretically sound critical mass calculation was made in England by Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls in Feb. 1940. Inspired by this finding the MAUD Committee (a code name chosen from the first name of one member’s nanny) was founded. Headed by Sir Henry Tizard, from 10 April 1940 to 15 July 1941, this committee worked out the basic principles of both fission bomb design and uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion. The work done by the MAUD Committee was instrumental in alerting the U.S. (and through espionage, the USSR) to the feasibility of fission weapons in WWII. A high level of cooperation between Britain, the U.S., and Canada continued through the war, formalized by the 1943 Quebec Agreement. Britain sent the “British Mission”, a team of first rank scientists to work at Los Alamos. Among the scientists who made this journey were the pioneer of shock wave physics Geoffrey I. Taylor and a protege - William G. Penney. The mission made major contributions to the Manhattan Project, and provided the nucleus for British post-war atomic weapons development effort.”

So given that the British mainland was under the threat of possible invasion moving a nuclear weapons program to Canada would of been a likelyhood as to not let the technology end up in Nazi hands. So even without American involvement it is quite possible that Britain could of obtained an atomic weapon and ended world war 2 in Europe with a bang.

@calvinhobbesliker:

To clarify, I’m asking if the UK and the USSR could have survived(not necessarily won) without the US’s help.

Definetly, they both could of survived without American intervention. Like I said in my previous post, the USSR had the massive manpower and industrial advantage over Nazi Germany. And Britain had its isolation on its island and of course its empire to keep it supplied with both food and arms for the the future. Eventually the industrial might of the British empire would of faciliated aerial superiority over the skies over northern France and southern England. Nazi Germany just could not match the industrial output of the entire British Empire, nor did they have the manpower pool the British have access to in Canada, Australia, India in particular and the rest of the empire. So Britain would of triumphed in the air war against Nazi Germany. Eventually a peace would of been forged, so Britain definetly would of survived.

If by save you mean save them from defeat I would say no. If you mean save by them saving them from a long drawn out war against the Nazi’s then yes definetly.

If we are talking about pre December 7, 1941 the Soviet Union was on the back foot but considering the Germans failure to consider a long drawn out war, long song supply lines and inadaquate equipment for winter battles they were still a way aways from victory. It was definetly an acheivable victory but considering the failures of Hitler to listen to senior generals and military advisors that handicapped the German war effort. Stalin made the same mistakes, but considering the sizeable pool of Soviet manpower and the war making ability of Soviet industry they were mistakes he could afford to make.

In late 1941 the war was Germany’s to lose but a series of wrong decisions from the Nazi leadership doomed their war effort. If Nazi Germany had of mobilised all of their industry for the war effort in 1938 we would of seen a very different Wehrmacht in 1941, a much larger and much more well equipped army that would of crushed the Soviet Union underfoot. Another mistake Hitler and the Nazi government made was not mobilising the women to work in the factories so the men could be freed up to join the army like the Allies did. With the factories working at 100% cranking out tanks, guns and aircraft coupled with the extra manpower of millions of soldiers the Germans could very well of won.

But I suppose thats missing the point of the thread. The German navy in late 1941 was in no posiiton to take on the might of the Royal Navy head on, nor was the Luffwaffe in any state to destroy the RAF, so the invasion of Britain would of been impossible. The British people would of fought on, with the help of their empire in both man power and industry Britain could of fought on more or less indefinetly. With the Canadians cranking out hundreds of Corvette’s a year to escort the Atlantic convoys, Britain would not go hungry. The empire would of fought on and like Churchill so famously said “Never Surrender”. Without the German invasion of the Soviet Union or the involvement of the United States in WW2 there probably would of been some sort of negeotiated peace down the road, because for the forseeable future it was a war neither side could win.

A German general wrote in his diary “after six weeks of war we have inflicted 3 million casualties on the Soviets, in both loss of life and prisoners. If they can afford to keep going with that sort of loss of manpower and life we are going to lose this war” (just for the record that is paraphrasing I cant remember the exact words)

And that was exactly the case, the Red army abosrbed those casualties and kept on going, the factories kept making machines of war day and night. The Soviet war machine was probably the largest war machine in all of human history, when we are talking about ground and airforces the number of men and machines they could bring to the battlefield they could of brought any country they could get to by road to its knees.

What people forget about WW2 is the fact that at any given time no more than 25% of German forces were fighting on the Western front against the Anglo-American alliance, the rest were all on the Eastern front fighting the Russians. So without any American intervention the Soviets would of eventually prevailed.

@Dylan:

@Octospire:

@Dylan:

At the end of WW2, what was the top 10 list of each army at the end of the war.

I was thinking it was kind of like

1. USA
2. USSR
3. UK
4. China
5. France
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. New Zealand
9. Netherlands
10. :?

It depends if you mean in terms of man power or military power (as in manpower + technological capability + number of tanks aircraft etc)

Just FYI, in my mind this based on ground combat and aerial combat not including naval power.

In terms of true military power it would be (not including atomic weapons)
1. USSR - by far the largest army in the world, most tanks, most aircraft by far
2. United States - second largest land army in the world, brillaint air and ground force intergration
3. British Empire - In 1946 they still had access to the largest man power pool of any of the great powers. Also the number of aircraft and tanks provided by the USA made them a force to be reckoned with.
4. Canada - I remember reading that at the end of WW2 the Canadians had the 4th largest army in the world
5. China - They would come about here if in 1946 you could consider them a country considering the civil war at the time. Plenty of man power, mostly useless equipment and training though.
6. Australia - In 1946 the RAAF was the 4th largest airforce in the world and could mop the floor with most of the countries in the world at the time. Also combat hardened troops who saw action in North Afria and the South Pacific would be of a great advantage.

I am not including the Japanese, French and Germans as they were defeated nations with not a great deal of military power in 1946. If we think in terms their armies at the time of their surrender the Germans and Japanese could easily be 4th maybe even 3rd.
The rest is more or less just a hodgepodge of smaller nations mainly controlled by the European powers.

So most other countries were dead, or just wannabes.

At the very end of WW2 I would say so, people mention the free French forces but they were still in shambles trying to repair what remained of their nation. Not to mention the mass demobilzation of forces after VE Day. It would of been hard if not impossible for the French to equip and feed an army of 1.2 million by their own accord, their country was in ruins and French agriculture was still labouring just to feed the civilian populace. Add to that the fact that the French were practically bankrupt and were in no position to fund a war either.

French forces fighting in Indo China in the late 1940’s and 50’s were a perfect example and they got their asses handed to them. Also the long suffering French public had more than their fill of wars and would not of been in any mood to fight in any protracted conflict, all these things have to be factored in when assessing the strength of army, an army is only as strong as the will of the general public to fight the war.

The likes of Canadians could of mopped the floor with the French in late 1945, even Australia could of with its massive airforce, you wouldnt of been able to walk a mile as a French soldier without feeling the might of Australian airpower, while the French airforce was in ruins so Australian aircraft would have total air superiority.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

The Axis powers would NEVER cooperate with a communist anything.  Hitler HATED communists nearly as much as he hated jews.  I doubt Japan would have been down with a philosophy where everyone was equal peasant and samuri with was no room for the emperor.

Japan might have been able to invade Washington state if about 100 things were different.  But to trek across a few 1000 miles of territory with rather well armed and hostile natives to get to DC?  Or the other choice to launch an invasion fleet and have it sail 10,000 miles (or more?) around south america to come up on the east coast or invaded panama first to gain control of the canal to shorten the invasion fleet trip?

The allies prepared and built up for D-Day for 2 years.  They had an unsinkable aircraft carrier 25 miles from shore about the same size as Great Britain from which to launch the invasion from.  Only with sh@* luck and the incompetence of Hitler was D-day successful.

Japan had no technology to force a US surrender and for ‘old-school’ military…by 1943 the US was producing in a month as many machine guns as Japan produced in the entire war.

The ONLY way the US was going to lose is if Germany got nukes first and they were NOWHERE even close to deploying a nuclear bomb.
God I hate these text boxes, why is it that when I hit the bottom of the screen the text in the box jumps up and down when I type, friggin annoying to have to use a text editor to creat the post then copy and paste it in here…ugh!

I think the real question is, if Sea lion and Barbarossa were successful and the Nazi’s defeated both Britain and the Soviet Union. In addition to the Japanese defeating the Chinese and the European powers in South East Asia.

There would of been a reasonable chance of them turning their agression on the Americans sooner or later after they crushed the last of the guerilla resistance, this would of been especially successful if the Germans and Japanese were more friendly to the peasantry and civilians of both China, Russia and Ukraine. With the manpower on your side from both the ruins of the USSR and China you could outnumber the Americans in battle 3 to 1 at the very least.

Add to that the power of the IJN if they hadnt gone to war with the USA and only the European powers in South East Asia it would of been a match for the US Navy especially if the Americans thought they were safe from the Eurasian war and maintained their isalationist policies. Within a decade of the defeat of the British, USSR and Chinese, the Kreigsmarine and IJN could of launched a naval and aerial assault on the United States first taking Hawaii and the strategically important Carribean Islands. Then begin the Strategic bombing of US shipyards, Industrial centres and a blockade of US ports.

Also inspire an uprising amongst the long suffering Latin Americans who have been slaves to American interest since the end of the Spanish-American war of 1898 who would be more than willing to see there brothers in arms marching down Pennsylvania avenue. All the Axis would of had to of promised was Texas, New Mexico, Arizon and maybe a few other choice bits of real estate back to the Mexicans and they would of had allies as long as they had support from the German Armoured divisions and Luftwaffe as well as the Japanese airfoce they would of been able to overrun the border states quite quickly and the government in Washington may very well of sued for peace right then and there or fight to the bitter end.

One of the biggest variables in all of this would of been would the Manhattan project of gone ahead without American involvement in WW2? If it hadnt and the Axis had of won I would not want to be an American facing down a Tiger Tank fresh of the boat in New Orleans with a Tommy gun and Colt .45 or worrying about a Stuka dive bombing the factory where you work. The Industrial giant that was 1940’s America could of been toppled but only with the manpower and industrial power of the Soviet Union at Axis disposal.

@Dylan:

At the end of WW2, what was the top 10 list of each army at the end of the war.

I was thinking it was kind of like

1. USA
2. USSR
3. UK
4. China
5. France
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. New Zealand
9. Netherlands
10. :?

It depends if you mean in terms of man power or military power (as in manpower + technological capability + number of tanks aircraft etc)

Just FYI, in my mind this based on ground combat and aerial combat not including naval power.

In terms of true military power it would be (not including atomic weapons)
1. USSR - by far the largest army in the world, most tanks, most aircraft by far
2. United States - second largest land army in the world, brillaint air and ground force intergration
3. British Empire - In 1946 they still had access to the largest man power pool of any of the great powers. Also the number of aircraft and tanks provided by the USA made them a force to be reckoned with.
4. Canada - I remember reading that at the end of WW2 the Canadians had the 4th largest army in the world
5. China - They would come about here if in 1946 you could consider them a country considering the civil war at the time. Plenty of man power, mostly useless equipment and training though.
6. Australia - In 1946 the RAAF was the 4th largest airforce in the world and could mop the floor with most of the countries in the world at the time. Also combat hardened troops who saw action in North Afria and the South Pacific would be of a great advantage.

I am not including the Japanese, French and Germans as they were defeated nations with not a great deal of military power in 1946. If we think in terms their armies at the time of their surrender the Germans and Japanese could easily be 4th maybe even 3rd.
The rest is more or less just a hodgepodge of smaller nations mainly controlled by the European powers.