Re: LOTR and 20th Century Western European Prejudices

"MasterDebater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Jordan179" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > al-Daoud al-Bedlami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > On 15 Nov 2003, Jordan179 wrote:
> > > to the Soviets you may be right -- but I think stalemate rather than
> > > victory as the USSR had gobs more warm bodies with cheap guns.
> >
> > "Warm bodies with cheap guns" are simply cannon fodder. Absent the
> > proper equipment, they could have been killed by the Axis troops
> > faster than they could have been trained and armed.
> 
> I think that the Soviets could possibly have achieved a stalemate without
> American involvement. Up to and including the time that the Soviets turned
> the tide (Stalingrad), US and UK lend-lease had not yet had a significant
> effect on the Soviet fighting effort. It would have been very close.

I actually think that without American involvement, the German part of
World War II is totally decided on the Eastern Front (because Britain,
alone, is too weak to serve as more than a slight distraction,
especially if the Japanese still jump her in Asia as per OTL). I also
think that it could go pretty much any way, with the likeliest
outcomes being either a stalemate or a Russian partial victory
(Russians retake their country and part of Eastern Europe, but run out
of resources before being able to conquer any part of Germany save for
Eastern Prussia).

Remember that absent the Lend-Lease aid the Germans probably do better
at the equivalents of Stalingrad and Kursk (which might or might not
be fought in the same places as OTL). Absent a large truck fleet, the
Russians can't pull off the surprise attack that won Stalingrad and
doomed the German 6th Army; absent the huge logistical support the
Lend-Lease shipments were giving Russia, the Germans might very well
have broken the main Russian army at the Kursk-equivalent.

In OTL, the Soviet army was near exhaustion at the point of victory in
April 1945. In the ATL, this means that the exhaustion point would
come earlier, probably around mid to late 1944.

The Soviets reaching exhaustion doesn't necessarily mean that the Axis
win, of course. What it means is that the Soviets might be amenable at
that point to a truce or even peace treaty, which might be a more
favorable outcome for the Nazi regime than the total defeat of OTL.

This treaty might actually be honored, because once the Soviets pull
out, with no American involvement Britain and the Commonwealth are
under immense pressure to pull out as well. This might involve the
Germans pulling out of Occupied France, or it might involve the
British accepting the humiliating reality of defeat in the West.

If neither America nor Britain are still at war with Germany, then the
Germans are free to import material from overseas -- and to sell
material from their empire for hard currency. The infusion of cheap
material, coupled with a German industry NOT subjected to
round-the-clock strategic bombardment, give Germany the resources to
build an army capable of holding the Soviets to whatever line was
agreed on -- possibly, even one strong enough to resume the war at a
later date resulting in a German ultimate victory.

Among Great Powers, Britain is the big loser here. Britain has still
exhausted herself, and has nothing to show for it. She loses her
empire and declines into an _inglorious_, rather than glorious,
second-class status.

Soviet Russia hasn't done so well: she's exhausted herself in a
colossal bloody war with _nothing_ to show for it, except possibly the
Baltic States, Bessarabia, and part of Poland.

Nazi Germany has survived and gotten to keep at least some of her
conquests. She is the dominant power in Europe. She's also, by the
way, probably succeeded in exterminating European Jewry.

Fascist Italy has survived, but probably lost Ethiopia for good. She
may have kept some Balkan conquests to compensate, though.

Vichy France survives, and probably regains control of her northern
territories (minus, of course, Alsace-Lorraine) in the final peace
settlement. The French Empire is doomed. But this isn't _that_ much
worse than what happened to her in OTL, after all.

I'm not sure about American, Japan, and China. It's probable that
Japan attacks America and gets thoroughly beaten, possibly by 1944 as
America does not have the major distraction of a European War.

I'm not sure who first develops the bomb, or when, and under what
circumstances it is probably used. America, Britain, and Germany are
the likeliest candidates.

> If the Allies had not invaded Europe and shortened the war, then consider
> the following:
> A. Your estimate of 'a few months' is by no means certain. I believe that
> the final defeat of Germany would have taken the Soviets longer than a few
> months - let us say 6 months to a year.

Right. If the Soviets win alone, it's probably in late 1945 to mid
1946.

> B. The Germans were working on quite a number of special weapons which were
> nearing a workable stage. This could potentially have wreaked a great deal
> of havoc upon the Soviets.

Nerve gas, for one.

> C. The French would have even less reason to be ungrateful to the US.

Heh, yes they could instead be ungrateful to the Soviets -- and
regarding _them_, they'd have a point.

(The moment of true comedy would come when Stalin shot all the French
Communist intellectuals, who in OTL sung his praises, for
"deviationism.")

> But I agree that the USSR would still have had a reasonably likely (not
> certain) chance of defeating Germany without the invasion of Europe. The
> Allies did the smart thing, of course. It was in their best interest to
> allow the Germans and Soviets to kill as many of each other as possible,
> then to move in at the end and grab as much of western Europe as possible.
> Nothing wrong with that.

Yes. And plus, we really weren't ready to invade France until 1944.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan