Why the Allies won

[Minty]

There's a new edition of a classic book called "why the allies won" by Richard Overy just out. It's published in the UK but is available on amazon. It covers everything and challenges some of the many assumptions we take for granted, especially regarding production and technology. Such as how incredibly fast american mobilization really was, That the german army wasn't modern at all, that german resources were actually very high but badly utilised and how stalin differed from Hitler by delegating. It uses a lot of new sources available since the fall of communism to show just how close the USSR came to collapse. It even finds time to praise Patton so Rambo will like it too! Vital reading for any SC2 allied player I think. Hope this isn't off topic too much but just thought people might like it. reading it made me realise how HC has got a lot of the aspects covered so well in the game.

[JerseyJohn]

I can't imagine how this could possibly be off topic, Minty. Thanks for posting it, sounds like a great item. I'll definitely be getting the book.

[jon_j_rambo]

Yes, thanks for the information. This is on topic. We need to take the Forum back from the fear mongers. Be able to communicate, share, & interact is the only way. Minty is a newbie, 12-posts, and somebody gave him the spirit of fear to discuss a WW-2 topic withing a WW-2 game. How can a game be historical, unless we talk about history?

"I'm talking about history" --- General Custer

"For we do not have the spirit of fear, because the spirit of love is greater" --- John

[TaoJah]

If the book contains more then three words, it's a waste of inkt.

The only words needed are "Russia" and "Pearl Harbor".

If Hitler would have kept peace with Russia, he could have knocked out the UK.

And if Pearl Harbor never happened, then chances are that the US would never entered the war.

[jon_j_rambo]

@ToJo --- Well, the "IFs" didn't happen, so read the book, you could use the information. Think before you type. "IF" you would have "THOUGHT", then I wouldn't have had to smack you.

-Legend

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo and TaoJah ,

A few months ago I was asking for opinions about an alternate history novel I've been thinking about, in which Guderian and Rommel deviate a little from the plan and Rommel's 7th Panzer Division moves northwest instead of west and takes Dunkirk before Rundstedt and Hitler could issue the stop order.

In my view, Rundstedt moves more quickly to the coast (otherwise the lone panzer division is probably overwhelmed) to cut the BEF & French elements off from evacuation. With it's BEF lost and no Miracle at Dunkirk to bolster UK morale, the British and French agree to a joint peace in late June -- Churchill having been toppled out of office and replaced by a moderate.

So, I'm halfway finished with the novel now, found a small press that is interested in publishing it in 2008, and am trying to figure how events proceed after that joint peace in with the Western powers.

In my scenario, Germany withdraws from Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France except for Alsace-Lorraine, which it keeps, along with all the territory containing the Maginot Line. Also kept by Germany would be Western Poland, Denmark and Norway. Iceland remains independent.

Hitler turns on the USSR on the historical date of 6/22/41. Everything follows according to history except, without a second front ciphoning manpower and resources and without a Mediteranean Theater, Germany, though mauled in the winter of 41-42, is able to extract itself from the Stalingrad fiasco and resume the Caucasus offensive in the Spring of '43.

Those are the altered events. Naturally the whole point of writing a novel is to have characters but I won't get into the plot as I'm still writing the stories.

Anyway, this book will be very helpful to me in terms of having a better idea of what would have been missing if the U. S. hadn't entered and if Germany could have fought the USSR without looking over it's shoulder.

One basic premise I've always believed in is that, regardless of it's military outcome, the Third Reich as it existed under Hitler would have fallen apart at some point from internal corruption and moral emptiness. One of the things I'm wrestling with is if, under these altered circumstances, there would have been the same sort of Holocaust. It seems to me that Hitler became more genocidal as Germany's fortunes dropped.

For the record, I'm not big on Alternate History, but after offering ideas for straight historical novels and getting no response I found that this what-if idea found an interested publishing house on the first try. Not complaining, just shaking my head.

[Retributar]

JerseyJohn !:

Check with 'Clint Eastwood' or some such actor, to see if they can help you find someone who might be interested into making your book into a movie!.

They can then show it,...on the 'Sci-Fi' Channel???.

[JerseyJohn]

Retributar,

Thanks, that would be great -- although I've got to finish writing first.

I don't think it would be the SciFi channel's sort of movie. I saw one of their movies where Germany had a supersoldier toward the end of WWII but it couldn't be controlled and would just as soon kill Germans as Americans. That was a pretty good idea but, unfortunately, it wasn't mine.

This wouldn't have anything spectacular in it, basically standard WWII fiction but with events slightly altered.

-- I've got Japan joining Germany in attacking the USSR instead of attacking the United States. But FDR applies pressure on the Japanese, same as he did historically, and trying now to figure on what would most likely have happened in the Pacific if it's 1943, Japan having taken some of Asiatic Russia but feeling the crunch from U. S. embargoes.

-- -- The closest thing to science fiction is in speculating on rockets and a-bomb research under these altered conditions. The Japanese were as interested in that as the Americans but, historically, lacked the resources. Naturally Germany had the head start on jets and rocket technology. They were also interested in atomic bomb research as were the British.

I'm trying to decide now on who'd have been going into those areas. Without being in an actual war I don't know if the U. S. A. would have gotten anything like the Manhattan Project off the ground considering the massive expense. I can see Germany negotiating peace with the USSR after taking Moscow, Leningrad and driving east through the Caucasus. At that point I think they'd have begun expanding their navy, replacing the older Luftwaffe aircraft with jets and also doing determined a-bomb and rocket research. I'm figuring that would have been about 1945 and Hitler might have died of natural causes about a year later.

[Edwin P.]

Most interesting, and I wonder what the Chinese are doing? Is Russia supplying arms to Mao - on the premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? As the Japanese advance in Russia do the Chinese advance into their rear, cutting off their only supply line - the Trans-Siberian Railroad?

[ October 02, 2006, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Retributar]

JerseyJohn !:

Well,...yes it's difficult to try to figure out what to do with the story, so, whynot try contacting some 'Military Historians' to get they're take on it!.

The only one i can think of, is from Canada, his name is, i hope that i have spelled it correctly, is 'Gwynne Dyer'. I did a search on Mr Gwynne and found his web-site, perhap's he can give you more direction/sources!.

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

That's an interesting idea. I hadn't given that angle much thought but went on the premise that the United States would be supplying Nationalist China with arms, as they did historically.

I believe historically Stalin sent weapons and supplies to the Communist Chinese, but not in sufficient quantities for them to do very much. As you probably know, Mao didn't do much fighting against the Japanese. Whenever possible he let the nationalists do the fighting while his people went in to help the locals and make themselves popular for later on. It was a great strategy, especially considering Chiang's brutal and corrupt methods.

The communists reaped the rewards immediately after the war ended with entire nationalist divisions defecting, along with all their weapons and supplies.

Retributar,

Thanks for the lead. I'll definitely look into it.

In all likelihood there would be a fee so I'll probably have to pass on using those services in this novel.

But if it gets off the ground I'll either write a sequel, or will be able to go ahead with the straight historical novels that I'm more interested in writing. Should that happen I'd be very interested in consulting experts and even paying fees -- they'd be tax deductable at that point.

[Wolfpack]

Without the pressures of war, and if the British allow passage through the Suez, Hitler may have opted for the Madagascar option rather than the full out holocaust. if he could get France to agree with it. There was serious discussion on it, but without a way to ship people there, it wasn't practical.

[n0kn0k]

JerseyJohn it sounds like a very nice story

Kinda reminds me of the movie Fatherland where Germany "won" the war.

[JerseyJohn]

Wolfpack,

That's an interesting idea and I think France might well have willingly gone along with it -- Madagascar was a hard place to colonize cosidering the mortality rate. Also, the Japanese wanted the Germans to allow the European Jews to immigrate to Manchuria to become Japanese citizens. In some quarters that was taken seriously but many rabbis didn't think the Japanese could be counted on to stay pro-Jewish after the province had been settled and developed. I think they would have held true to it, but that's only a feeling; not something I can back up with anything substantial.

Ironically, the Japanese are mentioned in Mein Kampf for having had (what Hitler called) the national resolve to not have a Jewish problem. I suspect that was typed in by Rudolph Hess, who inserted many of his own ideas into the two volumes.

n0kn0k

Appreciated. I'm glad you mentioned Fatherland. I saw part of the movie and liked the idea, but haven't read the novel yet. Have put it on my library list. That's exactly the type of novel I'm planning to write.

[Wolfpack]

Resettling them in Madagascar would be interesting, if for no other reason than that it would have been the Germans who would give the Jewish people their first national homeland in over a millenium. Granted, not the one they wanted. It would have changed the situation in the middle east greatly too. In general, the jewish people and Arabs got on respectably (Not much worse than most groups settled in the same area do at least) until Israel was created and extremists on both sides inflamed things.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

[back on topic] I already have edition one of this

book, so I guess I'll put this one on my Christmas

list.

[Blashy]

I still don't know why people even ask this question.

More people, 5+ times more oil, 5+ times bigger industries.

That's why, no need to get into the details .

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I still don't know why people even ask this question.

More people, 5+ times more oil, 5+ times bigger industries.

That's why, no need to get into the details .

Let's see...

The US has about... 15 times more people in Iraq, they captured the oil fields in Iraq and their industry is about, hmmm, 200 times bigger.

And they are still losing the war in Iraq.

Why ?

Not enough soldiers on the ground.

Why ?

Not enough support at home for more troops.

Imagine that Pearl Harbor never happened. Would the US have come to attack the Germans ? Perhaps, but more likely not.

The US did nothing when the Germans invaded Poland.

The US did nothing when the Germans invaded Luxembourg.

The US did nothing when the Germans invaded the Nethermands.

The US did nothing when the Germans invaded Belgium.

The US did nothing when the Germans invaded France.

The US did nothing when the Germans invaded Denmark.

The US did nothing when the Germans invaded the Balkan.

Would they have done anything when the Germans invaded the UK ? Read they above and take a gauss !

If Pearl Harbor never happened and the US would never have joined, then it doesn't really matter how many people, oil or industry they had compared to the Germans.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

Pretty small reasoning. Or, it's possible that you aren't looking at the same issue the rest of us are looking at. Maybe we're looking at different meanings to winning or losing.

To me, when people wonder if Germany could have won, they're speculating on the Third Reich dominating Europe and not being destroyed. That, in my opinion, means they never involved the United States in the war. Or, at least didn't involve the United States while they were also fighting in Russia.

Naturally it's easy to look back and throw everything into an adding machine and say the Allies had to win. But that's forgetting that everything involved, including men, had to be physically moved across an ocean in the case of the United States and Canada, and thrown into an assault on a Europe controled by the Axis. Could the Allies have won that if Germany wasn't tied down in the USSR? I don't think so. Conversely, could the USSR have won its war if there wasn't a second front in the west and Mediteranean? Again, I don't think so.

Anyway, there's plenty of room for speculation. It certainly didn't seem like a sure thing to the people involved at the time.

7K post

[Retributar]

Yeeeaaaahhhh!!!....so there!!!.

The 'Allies' probably only saw the very-likely probability that they would win, not that it was a for-sure thing, until?,...perhap's when the German Debacle at 'Stalingrad' had occured!

When that event had just taken place, then im sure that there was much more hope!.

It's just my 'wild guess'!.

[Retributar]

JerseyJohn !:

I was just thinking about your book, it need's to be just a little more than a documentary!. It can have a documentary background, but you will need character's in the book to help the reader's get into the shoe's of those poor soul's who were in that nightmare!.

That's why to some degree, a 'Writers' viewpoint or an 'Actors' viewpoint,...such as 'Clint-Eastwood' or 'Kevin Costner' or whom-ever, could assist you in adding that perspective!.

That would not only help the book [i think], but, as well any possible movie!.

I just don't know if there is a market for such a movie???. This is where someone in the 'Movie-Industry', might be quite helpful!.

[Blashy]

Even without USA's involvment the Germans would have lost.

Russia was outproducing them HEAVILY in 1941 and they had more manpower and were producing 4 times more oil. In 1942 it already had more manpower available for all that production.

Even UK was outproducing Germany as early as 1941, they lacked manpower but they had more planes and ships in 1941 and so where quite safe and could slowly starve Germany.

Germany bit off more than it could chew.

Any WW2 game should be how long can Germany hold on, not the possibility of Germany actually winning the war because that was simply an impossibility.

[ October 03, 2006, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Retributar]

Blashy , in essence, you are correct, but i don't think completely correct!.

It's been age's since i really knew this informaiton, but im quite sure that i remember, that the USSR in WW2 was finally at the breaking point of not being able to keep continuing to sustain the tremendous casualty level's that they had been absorbing for year's!.

If that is true at all, then yes, without the U.S. and allied involvement in Europe, the Russian's would have lost!.

Some-day, when im in the mood, i will try to search for that information!.

[Minty]

Looks like this wasn't off topic at all. I'm sick of the "we won simply because we had more oil" school of thought. Yes it was a vital factor but wihtout the resolve of so many men, plus some key strategic decisions and failures the war could have lasted for much longer,or been over sooner in a partial, if probably temporary Axis stalemate. Also simply the size of Russia's manpower means nothing. China had 20 times the population of Japan but no effective government or strategy. Had Moscow fallen then the soviets, whose one big advanatge was central control of all aspects of society,would have had a hell of time putting together the winter offensve of 42. That's why we play this game, to get some idea of the decisions and alternatives possible!

Blashy, I have to disagree.Without the USA then Axis germany would have survived.They may not have conquered the USSR but they wouldn't have fallen back to Berlin either. The Russians were given 200,000 trucks alone from the US! every soviet soldier wore US boots, they rode US trains, ate US spam etc etc. Without The RAF and USAF taking on 2/3 of the Luftwaffe over germany then the red army would have felt a lot more pain from the skies!

I'm no Rambo but without the US there would have been no happy ending for Europe, which I as a happy little brit now working in Germany am very grateful for. Likewise without the resolve of Churchill to hold out, the US could not have done it alone, and neither would have stood a chance wihtout Russia bleeding millions. It was an unlikely alliance that only held for one reason, the defeat of Hitler which is what it achieved.

As for Japan, yeah they were stuffed from the start and Yamamoto knew it. Best they could have hoped for was a few years of naval superiority but after Midway it was all downhill, and with the A bomb round the corner ... ouch.

[jon_j_rambo]

The Lord of Hosts was with the Allies.