3 ms·

The USSR might have lost if not for US supplies, but the Allies would definitely have lost if not for the Red Army. Technology has come a long ways since the 30

The USSR might have lost if not for US supplies, but the Allies would definitely have lost if not for the Red Army. Technology has come a long ways since the 30s, yet even contemporary wars again emphasize that in the end it all just comes down to manpower. And this is extremely remarkable if you think about it. Germany basically declared war on the world, and very nearly won.

bee_rider 2y ago
Germany was not in a position to hit the US. They weren’t a great naval power. They needed to cross the Atlantic, but the English Channel was too big a hurdle. Eventually the fact that the war was happening in their land would grind them down. Plus, the US had nukes and aircraft carriers by the end, which would have presented a challenging situation.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Well you're making a huge shift without accounting for it. The land war picture would have been radically different without the Soviets. In total they deployed more than 34 million soldiers during WW2 [1]. That's substantially larger than the contribution of every other ally, combined. The second largest force was the US with a total of 12.2 million soldiers (by the end of the war). [2] So what would have happened in this scenario is difficult to even imagine, because Germany would have been under far less pressure. They were already working on the development of 'Projekt Amerika' [3]. It went nowhere, but without the pressures of the Red Army they would have had vastly more resources to expend on such ventures. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army [2] - https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    But you said the Allies definitely would have lost without the Soviet Union. Is it hypothetically possible that the Nazis might invent some mystery weapon without less pressure? Maybe… but it isn’t a sure thing. Getting a plane across the Atlantic with the limited bomb and fuel load that entails might not have accomplished much. If only a couple bombs could have done the job, I guess allies wouldn’t have been building all those bomber fleets, right? And they didn’t build a serious surface navy before the war, or in the first year-or-so when they were still trading partners with the Soviet Union. It seems there was something beyond manpower pressure holding them back.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      A mystery weapon would not have been necessary. You're talking about a Nazi army that would now be facing an enemy force missing the majority of its soldiers, in a war that was already very close. The Nazis clearly would not have fallen, or even really come close to falling, without the Soviets. Now I think your argument is basically the same, but for America. In that the Nazis were in no position to invade and occupy America - which I fully agree with. But victory in a war doesn't require you occupy every single enemy nation. The most common way wars end is in settlement. And I see no possible path where the Nazis would not have been able to achieve a favorable settlement.
kranke155 2y ago
I didn’t say it was either or. It was a symbiotic relationship. The Soviets were willing (and in a position they were forced to) lose millions. It was a tragedy. Americans were in position to fund and aid it. Both Stalin and Khrushchev acknowledged that American material help was of great importance.

bee_rider 2y ago

Germany was not in a position to hit the US. They weren’t a great naval power. They needed to cross the Atlantic, but the English Channel was too big a hurdle. Eventually the fact that the war was happening in their land would grind them down. Plus, the US had nukes and aircraft carriers by the end, which would have presented a challenging situation.

somenameforme 2y ago
Well you're making a huge shift without accounting for it. The land war picture would have been radically different without the Soviets. In total they deployed more than 34 million soldiers during WW2 [1]. That's substantially larger than the contribution of every other ally, combined. The second largest force was the US with a total of 12.2 million soldiers (by the end of the war). [2] So what would have happened in this scenario is difficult to even imagine, because Germany would have been under far less pressure. They were already working on the development of 'Projekt Amerika' [3]. It went nowhere, but without the pressures of the Red Army they would have had vastly more resources to expend on such ventures. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army [2] - https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber
- bee_rider 2y ago
  But you said the Allies definitely would have lost without the Soviet Union. Is it hypothetically possible that the Nazis might invent some mystery weapon without less pressure? Maybe… but it isn’t a sure thing. Getting a plane across the Atlantic with the limited bomb and fuel load that entails might not have accomplished much. If only a couple bombs could have done the job, I guess allies wouldn’t have been building all those bomber fleets, right? And they didn’t build a serious surface navy before the war, or in the first year-or-so when they were still trading partners with the Soviet Union. It seems there was something beyond manpower pressure holding them back.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    A mystery weapon would not have been necessary. You're talking about a Nazi army that would now be facing an enemy force missing the majority of its soldiers, in a war that was already very close. The Nazis clearly would not have fallen, or even really come close to falling, without the Soviets. Now I think your argument is basically the same, but for America. In that the Nazis were in no position to invade and occupy America - which I fully agree with. But victory in a war doesn't require you occupy every single enemy nation. The most common way wars end is in settlement. And I see no possible path where the Nazis would not have been able to achieve a favorable settlement.

kranke155 2y ago

I didn’t say it was either or. It was a symbiotic relationship. The Soviets were willing (and in a position they were forced to) lose millions. It was a tragedy. Americans were in position to fund and aid it. Both Stalin and Khrushchev acknowledged that American material help was of great importance.