3 ms·

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

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.

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.