Topic: Why did Germany lose WW2?

perseus · January 10th, 2008

Rock45

I think we generally agree that the Med would have been a good strategy, however my emphasis was by involving Japan early in the war in the direction of East Africa and Ethiopia (already under Axis control) it would have sealed of the entire Middle East. Italian incompetence may have been irrelevant if the Japanese had helped. They usually fought adequately under Rommel, why not with a the help of a small Japanese force? the British had few forces to spare.

Would the axis have still succumbed to America if Eurasia was taken by 1943? First you are assuming that the US would have gone to war anyway, without Pearl or the UK to defend there have been little point and a sceptical US public to convince. You also assume that if they did go to war then US production would have been greater than the Axis. However, the Axis would hold the entire Euro-Asia continent reserves and Speer achieved some impressive production quotas without any of this whilst his country was being bombed to bits. Finally would the US have been able to invade an intact Eurasian continent with the competence of the German army defending with resources? It was hard enough when they were being kicked on both sides with their hands tied behind their back.

I think a more likely scenario would have been a stand off, with America with a few low strength Atom Bombs and Germany with the delivery systems. I doubt if it would have taken long for Germany to catch up in nuclear weapons without the stress of a full scale war, would the reverse have been the case?

January 10th, 2008
perseus Centurion	Rock45 I think we generally agree that the Med would have been a good strategy, however my emphasis was by involving Japan early in the war in the direction of East Africa and Ethiopia (already under Axis control) it would have sealed of the entire Middle East. Italian incompetence may have been irrelevant if the Japanese had helped. They usually fought adequately under Rommel, why not with a the help of a small Japanese force? the British had few forces to spare. Would the axis have still succumbed to America if Eurasia was taken by 1943? First you are assuming that the US would have gone to war anyway, without Pearl or the UK to defend there have been little point and a sceptical US public to convince. You also assume that if they did go to war then US production would have been greater than the Axis. However, the Axis would hold the entire Euro-Asia continent reserves and Speer achieved some impressive production quotas without any of this whilst his country was being bombed to bits. Finally would the US have been able to invade an intact Eurasian continent with the competence of the German army defending with resources? It was hard enough when they were being kicked on both sides with their hands tied behind their back. I think a more likely scenario would have been a stand off, with America with a few low strength Atom Bombs and Germany with the delivery systems. I doubt if it would have taken long for Germany to catch up in nuclear weapons without the stress of a full scale war, would the reverse have been the case? __________________ Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. Herman Goering Last edited by perseus : January 10th, 2008 at 07:40 AM.