What Would Have Made The Allies Lose WWII?

Discussion in 'History' started by Omega133, May 19, 2010.

  1. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    We always look at what made the Axis lose. What, hypothetically, would have made the Allies lose?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    If Japan did not draw America into the war, then chance are, they would have done very well.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    I think that was the deciding factor, but what about battles?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    Easy peasy: the Axis winning.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Given Germany's economy it would have been pretty hard for them to win (if we take "win" to be the conquest of Europe and Russia - let's leave the US as an objective out of it).
    I mean, bearing in mind they didn't even switch to war production rates until mid-'43 they didn't have a chance of catching up, let alone beating the Allies.
    The U-boat war was close-run (and could have crippled Britain), but again Germany was late with producing the numbers required by which time we'd got anti-U-boat tactics and technology working quite well. Maybe the Type XXIs could have made a difference if they'd been introduced much earlier, but...
     
  8. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Manpower and resources, the Axis didn't have the manpower of the allies nor the resources.
     
  9. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    You don't say?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    True, but the had the help of the Japanese who had access to quite a few resources in te Pacific.

    [OTE]I mean, bearing in mind they didn't even switch to war production rates until mid-'43 they didn't have a chance of catching up, let alone beating the Allies.
    The U-boat war was close-run (and could have crippled Britain), but again Germany was late with producing the numbers required by which time we'd got anti-U-boat tactics and technology working quite well. Maybe the Type XXIs could have made a difference if they'd been introduced much earlier, but...[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, depth charges can really rip up a sub.

    But, what about battles? Which ones could have turned the tide?
     
  10. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Guadalcanal, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Stalingrad, Normandy.....
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    Resources don't mean much if your factories aren't running to capacity.

    It's not so much the depth charges as knowing where and when to put them. Hedgehog was better. Radar helped, as did ASDIC/ Sonar, the convoy system and long-range aircraft.
     
  12. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Well Hitler learned that the hard way.

    Well I could well imagine that Sonar helped. It's pretty much the only thing that can find submarines. Unless ofcourse they're running atop.
     
  13. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Radar helped in Allied air superiority.
     
  14. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    U.S wouldn't have been as muc on the offensive if we lost here.

    Didn't we lose Pearl Harbor? And obviously it didn't hamper our war efforts, so I question this choice.

    Debateable. In fact there's a thread on it.

    Well if they took Stalingrad it would have just been Moscow and Leningrad. The forces would have been shifted North. Russia could have lost, maybe.

    Debateable. I'm sure we would have tried again/a different strategy.
     
  15. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    I mean, lose it worse then we did

    Turning point and influential are two different concepts, Midway was not the turning point.

    Then they would have been clear in the East and gained access to more resources

    The loss of allied forces and morale would have been huge
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    One way of looking at Pearl is that it gave the US Navy a faster fleet: the majority of the ships sunk at pearl Harbour were older, slower types that maybe wouldn't have been as effective, and also maybe would have delayed the introduction of the newer ships if they hadn't gone down and stayed in service.

    If we hadn't got ashore at Normandy it would have
    A) lost us a lot of men and equipment
    B) affected Allied morale badly
    C) set back any further attempt at invasion until we'd regrouped. Maybe another year...
    That would have given Germany time to bolster their forces while we were replacing losses.
     
  17. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Well then we might have met a bump or two. But overall we probably would have continued on.

    I think if that happened the world would ofhad an even harder time. Good things the Russians can't be beat in the winter.

    True. But remember Operation Market Garden failed and we still managed to win the war.
     
  18. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    A) We did lose alot of men at Omaha. 75% of man in the first wave died. But, we took the beach.
    B) How come the same didn't happen after Market Garden?
    C) Yeah, that really would have made the war tough.
     
  19. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Would have cost the US a great deal, due to the ships lost.


    The forces deployed was as nearly as great as Normandy, and MANY nations participated. The schedule setback would have gave the Germans more time.
     
  20. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Well I was talking about morale. We lost, horribly, and we still fought on.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    Omaha was one beach, we still had Gold, Juno... and they got ashore at Omaha anyway, in numbers sufficient to hold it. That's what counted.
    Market Garden? Because, despite the size of the operation, it was seen as a (worthwhile) long shot to start with. (Incidentally I actually knew two separate guys who were in the paras for that op).
     
  22. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Yes, but that wasn't a giant offensive ( as in Normandy size ). The morale would have been so low if Normandy was lost that there won't be any will to fight. There is a certain limit of when people will break.
     
  23. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    True.

    Well sure, who wouldn't be home by Christmas? Too bad it failed.
     

Share This Page