Since other threads keep getting derailed, I figure we ought create a thread for discussion. So: Who do you think was the prime factor on the outcome of WWII? Feel free to copy your posts from other threads to get discussion started. The poll obviously lacks some of the shades of grey that will come out in discussion, but will hopefully be a good general indicator.
Poll
If the US hadn't entered WWII
| Europe would be speaking German | 33% | 33% - 67 | ||||
| Europe would be speaking Russian | 15% | 15% - 31 | ||||
| USSR would have liberated Europe | 16% | 16% - 33 | ||||
| World would be speaking German (eventually) | 15% | 15% - 31 | ||||
| World would be speaking Russian (eventually) | 3% | 3% - 6 | ||||
| Germany would share world with Japan | 8% | 8% - 17 | ||||
| Russia would share world with Japan | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| World would be speaking Japanese | 5% | 5% - 10 | ||||
| Total: 198 | ||||||
Germans would've been absolutely hammered by teh Russians. You can't fight a war of that size on two fronts.
Oh, right. Just saw the 'opinions' bit.
I think that NO country should get any special mention.
Russia: If they hadn't held up against Op. Barbossa, and pushed the Germans back, massive (and I mean massive) sections of the German military would've been freed. You had a hard enough time as it was - I think you wouldn't have stood a chance at a double (or even triple) strength Germany.
Britain. If THEY hadn't held up, well, then, Hitler's achieved his goal. And freed up units for Russia. PLUS, the US wouldn't have had a decent base from which to attack. You can't attack from the US, because no Britain = total domination by the German Navy + U-Boats. Your armies would be sleeping with the fishes - what was left, of them, anyway.
US: Their convoys were instrumental in helping Britain survive - mostly because of their sheer industrial power. Armies certainly helped.
Australia - We provided a 'base' for the US armies to push from?
Germany: They had the brilliant idea of waging a war on two fronts, and in the process, greatly weakened themselves.
Oh, right. Just saw the 'opinions' bit.
I think that NO country should get any special mention.
Russia: If they hadn't held up against Op. Barbossa, and pushed the Germans back, massive (and I mean massive) sections of the German military would've been freed. You had a hard enough time as it was - I think you wouldn't have stood a chance at a double (or even triple) strength Germany.
Britain. If THEY hadn't held up, well, then, Hitler's achieved his goal. And freed up units for Russia. PLUS, the US wouldn't have had a decent base from which to attack. You can't attack from the US, because no Britain = total domination by the German Navy + U-Boats. Your armies would be sleeping with the fishes - what was left, of them, anyway.
US: Their convoys were instrumental in helping Britain survive - mostly because of their sheer industrial power. Armies certainly helped.
Australia - We provided a 'base' for the US armies to push from?
Germany: They had the brilliant idea of waging a war on two fronts, and in the process, greatly weakened themselves.
Last edited by Spark (2006-07-10 18:06:44)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
defitnantly russian, the russians had a lot of manpower, russia would never let europe by itself, look how even after WW2 it sucked up a lot of states and turned them into soviet blocs.
spark: he said if the US didnt enter the war, i doubt the germans would be fighting 2 fronts. but nevertheless the russians would dominate europe
spark: he said if the US didnt enter the war, i doubt the germans would be fighting 2 fronts. but nevertheless the russians would dominate europe
Last edited by cyborg_ninja-117 (2006-07-10 18:02:14)
you didnt include the same thing... it could have happened eventually
That would be "Russia liberates Europe". Sorry, I just can't see Britain making an invasion of mainland Europe. They lack the manpower.
I do think that Germans would still have lost, and they would have fought on more than one front. Britain, Canada and the rest of the commonwealth were there since '39 and they were not going to give up Europe to the Germans. The German defeat at the hands of the Russians had very little, if not nothing to do with the Americans entering the war. Stalingrad would still have happened if the Americans were in it or not.
Alright, who voted German and didn't pipe up? C'mon, it's not like we can neg you
Germany would of won if he haddent took on everyone at once. He said that he wanted to take on the US last, but he was pushed into it with us.
Europe would be speaking German, then after that it could be the world.
Europe would be speaking German, then after that it could be the world.
Last edited by TwistedX (2006-07-10 18:14:03)
How would he have defeated Russia?
I think if Germany had taken out Britain first then attacked Russia with 100% of its forces they wouldve taken down Russia with ease. But they decided to do the exact opposite of that and we know how that turned out. I personally think if I had to choose a German owned Europe or a Russian one, I would choose a German one. There never wouldve been a Korean War, Vietnam or a Cold War. But at the same time i'm sure we would have eventually gone to war with Germany and who knows how many conflicts that wouldve started.
but think about it, how much man power does russia have? even when russia was losing the war stalin was killing his own officers by the thousands! russia alone has already pushed the germans out of stalingrad and the caucasus.TwistedX wrote:
Germany would of won if he haddent took on everyone at once. He said that he wanted to take on the US last, but he was pushed into it with us.
Europe would be speaking German, then after that it could be the world.
heres what would happen if japan broke the peace treaty between russia.
germany holds eastern front, then japan takes the whole china and invade russia from the south w/ banzai infantry and tanks. russia will lose since russia is too poor economically to fight 2 powerful nations
Thank god for the Russians during WWII. The US definitely helped in the Pacific but I think Europe would be speaking German if not for the Russians.
It is a pity that the Cold War made Western society paint the Soviets in such a bad light for so many years.
It is a pity that the Cold War made Western society paint the Soviets in such a bad light for so many years.
with america completly out of the war europe would be germany today, as he europe part of russia, maybe whole russia. no america means no industrial support for russia and britain (which was huge even before december 41), no japan bound by america and an german-japanese high command means a second front in the back of the russians, and so no reinforcements in the 41/42 winter battle. there finally would be a peace treaty, or even the capitulation of the russians. america also provided military training for the russian officer corps, which suffer heavy losses during stalins cleansings in the 30s.
britain alone would have been too weak to start an invasion in a scale of the d-day, and this means europe still in german hands.
hey this would still meaning something good: italy would not be world champion
britain alone would have been too weak to start an invasion in a scale of the d-day, and this means europe still in german hands.
hey this would still meaning something good: italy would not be world champion
well if the russians and germans were allies WW2 might of fallen into the hands of the axis. but sadly that would never happen why? coz the nazis hated the commies more than any1 else in history, they viewed the communists evil, filthy etc.VspyVspy wrote:
Thank god for the Russians during WWII. The US definitely helped in the Pacific but I think Europe would be speaking German if not for the Russians.
It is a pity that the Cold War made Western society paint the Soviets in such a bad light for so many years.
edit:
Germany and japan would never get along... if germany takes europe they will invade japan since they think asians are sub-humans.
Last edited by cyborg_ninja-117 (2006-07-10 18:27:21)
I think Germany would have occupied Europe and Britain would have been forced to negotiate peace with Germany because Hitler actually liked the British so they eventually would have co-existed. Germany would also occupy large amounts of western Russia, if not control the whole country. Japan would probably control much of the south pacific, but would have stopped short of Australia and New Zealand to appease Britain and the Third Reich. The US would probably get richer trading with these two large empires. The US may have gone south to Mexico and maybe even beyond to build it's own empire. But this of course is pure conjecture. The only thing that we know for certain is that Palestinians would be a lot happier group of people.
And as for the survey, I don't think anyone would be forced to speak German, only if you wanted to work for the government, otherwise I think people would be able to speak their native languages. It would have made Germany's and Japan's occupations easier.
And as for the survey, I don't think anyone would be forced to speak German, only if you wanted to work for the government, otherwise I think people would be able to speak their native languages. It would have made Germany's and Japan's occupations easier.
Last edited by Point&Shoot (2006-07-10 18:28:57)
*cough*Tobruk*cough*Spark wrote:
Australia - We provided a 'base' for the US armies to push from?
The question I'd have re. a Japanese invasion of the USSR is whether they have the numbers. Also, whether they'd be able to cross the permafrost regions.
there are too many variables to say if japan can do it but remember japan is kinda cold as well, and they might be able to pull it offBubbalo wrote:
*cough*Tobruk*cough*Spark wrote:
Australia - We provided a 'base' for the US armies to push from?
The question I'd have re. a Japanese invasion of the USSR is whether they have the numbers. Also, whether they'd be able to cross the permafrost regions.
lol...
agreed. I think Germany was smart enough to not try and convert the occupied countries to speak German.Point&Shoot wrote:
I think Germany would have occupied Europe and Britain would have been forced to negotiate peace with Germany because Hitler actually liked the British so they eventually would have co-existed. Germany would also occupy large amounts of western Russia, if not control the whole country. Japan would probably control much of the south pacific, but would have stopped short of Australia and New Zealand to appease Britain and the Third Reich. The US would probably get richer trading with these two large empires. The US may have gone south to Mexico and maybe even beyond to build it's own empire. But this of course is pure conjecture. The only thing that we know for certain is that Palestinians would be a lot happier group of people.
And as for the survey, I don't think anyone would be forced to speak German, only if you wanted to work for the government, otherwise I think people would be able to speak their native languages. It would have made Germany's and Japan's occupations easier.
yeah but what about young kids? dont u think nazi germany would teach the kids of europe to speak german? and how great nazism is?[DETX] arabeater wrote:
agreed. I think Germany was smart enough to not try and convert the occupied countries to speak German.Point&Shoot wrote:
I think Germany would have occupied Europe and Britain would have been forced to negotiate peace with Germany because Hitler actually liked the British so they eventually would have co-existed. Germany would also occupy large amounts of western Russia, if not control the whole country. Japan would probably control much of the south pacific, but would have stopped short of Australia and New Zealand to appease Britain and the Third Reich. The US would probably get richer trading with these two large empires. The US may have gone south to Mexico and maybe even beyond to build it's own empire. But this of course is pure conjecture. The only thing that we know for certain is that Palestinians would be a lot happier group of people.
And as for the survey, I don't think anyone would be forced to speak German, only if you wanted to work for the government, otherwise I think people would be able to speak their native languages. It would have made Germany's and Japan's occupations easier.
But if you're considering the US not entering the war, are you saying they didn't send their army, or are you including all the aid and supplies they send before the war. Although the aid was a fair amount of profit for the US, if it wasn't sent, it would have made for a very short war.
Yea I guess they wouldve tried that at some point.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
yeah but what about young kids? dont u think nazi germany would teach the kids of europe to speak german? and how great nazism is?[DETX] arabeater wrote:
agreed. I think Germany was smart enough to not try and convert the occupied countries to speak German.Point&Shoot wrote:
I think Germany would have occupied Europe and Britain would have been forced to negotiate peace with Germany because Hitler actually liked the British so they eventually would have co-existed. Germany would also occupy large amounts of western Russia, if not control the whole country. Japan would probably control much of the south pacific, but would have stopped short of Australia and New Zealand to appease Britain and the Third Reich. The US would probably get richer trading with these two large empires. The US may have gone south to Mexico and maybe even beyond to build it's own empire. But this of course is pure conjecture. The only thing that we know for certain is that Palestinians would be a lot happier group of people.
And as for the survey, I don't think anyone would be forced to speak German, only if you wanted to work for the government, otherwise I think people would be able to speak their native languages. It would have made Germany's and Japan's occupations easier.
Europe would be speaking german, as if the US had not entered, the UK would have been lost much earlier without the constant US re-supply (I'm taking this to mean that the US didn't get involved at all, combat or supply), the western and southern fronts would have been "handled" between Italy and Germany, freeing up the Axis' not inconsiderably resources, both material and intellectual, to focus on Russia, I doubt they would have wanted to go past the Western part of russia, as the part lying in Asia would have been relatively useless. True, the Russians killed alot of Germans, but then look at the amount of Russians lost for each German soldier claimed, they could not have kept that up without the US involvement tying up the Axis in the West, and as for Russia's rise to greatness immediately afterward being brought up as a reason that they could have defeated Germany alone, as in Cyborg's post, Russia's rise in the post war era was directly related to their pilferage of Nazi technology once Berlin was taken. Literally every single jet that Russia had in the 50's and even their nuke program is based upon Nazi tech.
And dammit, I thought there was a typo and this was about nintendo Wii
And dammit, I thought there was a typo and this was about nintendo Wii
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-10 18:37:07)
Really, I don't know. I just notice that a number of threads turn to "Yeah, well we saved your ass in WWII" followed by "No, you didn't" and so on and so forth. This is to distract from that.
ninja: Kinda cold is different to permafrost. Russian lost the Russo-Japanese War due in no small part to difficulties getting troops and supplies eastward.
Point&Shoot: I didn't mean speak whatever literally (it just seems to be a common line among those who emphasise the US' role). Having said that, virtually every occupying power in history has attempted to convert the local culture.
ninja: Kinda cold is different to permafrost. Russian lost the Russo-Japanese War due in no small part to difficulties getting troops and supplies eastward.
Point&Shoot: I didn't mean speak whatever literally (it just seems to be a common line among those who emphasise the US' role). Having said that, virtually every occupying power in history has attempted to convert the local culture.
Good point, later generations would have been encouraged to speak German. If it was really pushed to try and establish the German culture as the only one accepted, it probably would lead to an unsettled society and possibly to revolution. Assuming the third Reich would have survived until today, I think they would have to allow for regional diversity to keep the dominated people content. You don't want to revolt against a government that is tolerant. Kids could be taught German at school, learn their native language at home, but if they were forced to speak German they would resent their government.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
yeah but what about young kids? dont u think nazi germany would teach the kids of europe to speak german? and how great nazism is?
I would almost imagine the third Reich to be more like the EU, except fascist, dominated by Germany, and Jew free for almost 60years. And gay marriage wouldn't even be a question.