You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
17 points

I mean, it was in 1944 that for the axis it went from “not going well at all” to “run for your lives”. And I mean, one of the main contributions of the US was A-mostly dealing with Japan, B-supplying half the world (including the soviets). The troops sure were important as hell, but not their main contribution

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

I mean by 1944 germany was done for. It was done for by 1943, but 1944 it was so obvious, i doubt that person (with historic background!) even looked at the eastern front.

Land lease was important, and people may downplay it a bit more than they should, but war stuff is incomprehensible to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

germany was done the moment it lost the battle of moscow imo

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

They were done the moment they didn’t finish off the British before invading the USSR

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*

On grand scale - when they failed were stopped at stalingrad/reaching oilfields, but like it requires a lot of whatifs and blahblah. By 1943 soviets were advancing 500 km a year, and germany industry couldn’t suddenly double its outputs, so war direction is fairly easy to see.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

yes, in hindsight they lost in like january of 1942, but because they refused to admit it, it took a few more years to explain it to them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I mean, even the western front was not going well by 1943. Africa had been dealt with by the end of it, and the Allies had successfully sent some huskys to Palermo

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

I mean by 1944 germany was done for.

By June of '44, they were proper fucked.

But the US was officially in the war from '41 and was sending troops into North Africa in '42, which cut into the supply lines of German industry. It isn’t impossible to see the Germans securing a peace deal before their Russian invasion went sideways, and there were certainly no small number of American Fascists who would have liked to see a DC/Berlin alliance.

Had the US entered the war on the side of the Germans, rather than the British, that definitely would have been it for the Western facing Allies. So, from an entirely Atlantic perspective, the US saved the British from Germany in the aftermath of 1940. And if all you’re talking to are Angloids glued to the History Channel, I guess its fair to say America won the war for Churchill and de Gaulle. The Nazis might still be a thing (at least as far as Fransisco Franco remained a thing) well into the 1970s and 80s, had Americans not backed the English and French up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

It isn’t impossible to see the Germans securing a peace deal before their Russian invasion went sideways

i don’t see why the UK would ever accept a unipolar europe while the royal navy & empire were still intact. the germans had no way to threaten the island besides bomber sorties and that campaign was a resounding failure

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

B-supplying half the world (including the soviets).

This phrasing makes it sound like Russia was running entirely or even mostly on what America supplied it when that is not the case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Of course not, but America did supply a lot of food and industrial equipment which was probably crucial for the war effort (of course the british were a lot more dependent on Lend Lease than the soviets, but the point remains)

permalink
report
parent
reply