How Germany could have won the second world war

[rightwinger]

Mostly, I agree

Germany could have had total victory on one front but not both.

that's still a stretch--many ifs

If Germany had captured France, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway and stopped there....they would have been hard to dislodge

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

 

[gipper]

"FDR loved Uncle Joe" you know why? koba had mentality of Georgian thieves in law, very attractive for "friendship" . + USA wanted British empire down. but you have a point here FDR administration was badly infected with commies

FDR loved Uncle Joe

He loved that the Soviets did all the fighting and dying while we waited for the “right time” for us to invade

He loved that eighty percent of the German divisions were dedicated to fighting the Soviets

He loved that the Soviets had the Germans on the ropes by the time we executed D Day

He loved that we got the best territory after the war was over

Yes he was an imperialist, which you ignorantly admire.

FDR loved Stalin so much that he agreed to imprison half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Leading to decades of Cold War, which we were very lucky not to have destroyed the world.

FDR had no choice on who got Eastern Europe
It was occupied by the Red Army and Stalin was not about to give it up. He had already given millions of lives for that territory

Forcing him out would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives

Silly as usual. Had we not entered the war and not given Stalin unlimited war material, he and Hitler likely fight to a stalemate. Thus saving lots of American lives.

FDR, like most tyrants, loved war.

A stalemate leaves Western Europe in German hands. The Soviets did the fighting and dying while we waited years to launch an invasion .....providing supplies to Russia kept us from having to bear the burden

FDR understood war and built a strong alliance
He also turned us into a Superpower

He was an extraordinary and prolific liar. In the election of 1940, he lied repeatedly to the American people. Telling them no American boys would be sent into foreign wars. All the while covertly trying to incite Japan and Germany, to attack the USA. Excepting Dishonest Abe, he was our worst POTUS. A scumbag all the way. Too bad you’re too stupid to see the truth.

 

[rightwinger]

FDR loved Uncle Joe

He loved that the Soviets did all the fighting and dying while we waited for the “right time” for us to invade

He loved that eighty percent of the German divisions were dedicated to fighting the Soviets

He loved that the Soviets had the Germans on the ropes by the time we executed D Day

He loved that we got the best territory after the war was over

Yes he was an imperialist, which you ignorantly admire.

FDR loved Stalin so much that he agreed to imprison half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Leading to decades of Cold War, which we were very lucky not to have destroyed the world.

FDR had no choice on who got Eastern Europe
It was occupied by the Red Army and Stalin was not about to give it up. He had already given millions of lives for that territory

Forcing him out would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives

Silly as usual. Had we not entered the war and not given Stalin unlimited war material, he and Hitler likely fight to a stalemate. Thus saving lots of American lives.

FDR, like most tyrants, loved war.

A stalemate leaves Western Europe in German hands. The Soviets did the fighting and dying while we waited years to launch an invasion .....providing supplies to Russia kept us from having to bear the burden

FDR understood war and built a strong alliance
He also turned us into a Superpower

He was an extraordinary and prolific liar. In the election of 1940, he lied repeatedly to the American people. Telling them no American boys would be sent into foreign wars. All the while covertly trying to incite Japan and Germany, to attack the USA. Excepting Dishonest Abe, he was our worst POTUS. A scumbag all the way. Too bad you’re too stupid to see the truth.

FDR is our greatest modern president

Got us through the Republican Depression and led us through WWII. He made us a modern democracy as well as an economic and military super power

 

[Litwin]

"FDR loved Uncle Joe" you know why? koba had mentality of Georgian thieves in law, very attractive for "friendship" . + USA wanted British empire down. but you have a point here FDR administration was badly infected with commies

FDR loved Uncle Joe

He loved that the Soviets did all the fighting and dying while we waited for the “right time” for us to invade

He loved that eighty percent of the German divisions were dedicated to fighting the Soviets

He loved that the Soviets had the Germans on the ropes by the time we executed D Day

He loved that we got the best territory after the war was over

Yes he was an imperialist, which you ignorantly admire.

FDR loved Stalin so much that he agreed to imprison half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Leading to decades of Cold War, which we were very lucky not to have destroyed the world.

FDR had no choice on who got Eastern Europe
It was occupied by the Red Army and Stalin was not about to give it up. He had already given millions of lives for that territory

Forcing him out would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives

Silly as usual. Had we not entered the war and not given Stalin unlimited war material, he and Hitler likely fight to a stalemate. Thus saving lots of American lives.

FDR, like most tyrants, loved war.

A stalemate leaves Western Europe in German hands. The Soviets did the fighting and dying while we waited years to launch an invasion .....providing supplies to Russia kept us from having to bear the burden

FDR understood war and built a strong alliance
He also turned us into a Superpower

Soviets were Koba´s slaves, they have done many other stupid thing for Georgian tyrant

 

[gipper]

Yes he was an imperialist, which you ignorantly admire.

FDR loved Stalin so much that he agreed to imprison half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Leading to decades of Cold War, which we were very lucky not to have destroyed the world.

FDR had no choice on who got Eastern Europe
It was occupied by the Red Army and Stalin was not about to give it up. He had already given millions of lives for that territory

Forcing him out would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives

Silly as usual. Had we not entered the war and not given Stalin unlimited war material, he and Hitler likely fight to a stalemate. Thus saving lots of American lives.

FDR, like most tyrants, loved war.

A stalemate leaves Western Europe in German hands. The Soviets did the fighting and dying while we waited years to launch an invasion .....providing supplies to Russia kept us from having to bear the burden

FDR understood war and built a strong alliance
He also turned us into a Superpower

He was an extraordinary and prolific liar. In the election of 1940, he lied repeatedly to the American people. Telling them no American boys would be sent into foreign wars. All the while covertly trying to incite Japan and Germany, to attack the USA. Excepting Dishonest Abe, he was our worst POTUS. A scumbag all the way. Too bad you’re too stupid to see the truth.

FDR is our greatest modern president

Got us through the Republican Depression and led us through WWII. He made us a modern democracy as well as an economic and military super power

Now for the truth.

He prolonged the Great Depression with his idiotic Soviet style central planning. Causing a decade of mass suffering, leading to a world war we easily could have avoided, if not for him. He turned a pacifist great nation into a imperialist warmongering one, entirely controlled by a small wealthy elite.

 

[harmonica]

Mostly, I agree

Germany could have had total victory on one front but not both.

that's still a stretch--many ifs

If Germany had captured France, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway and stopped there....they would have been hard to dislodge

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

 

[rightwinger]

FDR loved Uncle Joe

He loved that the Soviets did all the fighting and dying while we waited for the “right time” for us to invade

He loved that eighty percent of the German divisions were dedicated to fighting the Soviets

He loved that the Soviets had the Germans on the ropes by the time we executed D Day

He loved that we got the best territory after the war was over

Yes he was an imperialist, which you ignorantly admire.

FDR loved Stalin so much that he agreed to imprison half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Leading to decades of Cold War, which we were very lucky not to have destroyed the world.

FDR had no choice on who got Eastern Europe
It was occupied by the Red Army and Stalin was not about to give it up. He had already given millions of lives for that territory

Forcing him out would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives

Silly as usual. Had we not entered the war and not given Stalin unlimited war material, he and Hitler likely fight to a stalemate. Thus saving lots of American lives.

FDR, like most tyrants, loved war.

A stalemate leaves Western Europe in German hands. The Soviets did the fighting and dying while we waited years to launch an invasion .....providing supplies to Russia kept us from having to bear the burden

FDR understood war and built a strong alliance
He also turned us into a Superpower

Soviets were Koba´s slaves, they have done many other stupid thing for Georgian tyrant

It was actually extreme patriotism

Their country was being invaded. They were fighting for Mother Russia
They lost ten percent of their population

 

[rightwinger]

Mostly, I agree

Germany could have had total victory on one front but not both.

that's still a stretch--many ifs

If Germany had captured France, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway and stopped there....they would have been hard to dislodge

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

 

[harmonica]

that's still a stretch--many ifs

If Germany had captured France, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway and stopped there....they would have been hard to dislodge

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

hold it--if he loses on one front--the war is over

 

[harmonica]

that's still a stretch--many ifs

If Germany had captured France, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway and stopped there....they would have been hard to dislodge

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

1. there is still resistance all over with Britain and the US helping them
the Italian partisans were very effective
2. the US was developing/did develop the Abomb = war over
3. once the P51 was in service = air superiority =:
--A.-much greater destruction on Germany
--B.-much greater transportation problems for Germany -=
--a. much harder for German troops/manufacturing war supplies/transporting war supplies/etc
--b. much more difficult to keep the population fed/etc
C.US war making potential almost 3 times Germany and Japan combined = war over
....war is just not amount of troops you have--but logistics--logistics is THE critical factor in a total war
..Germany has to feed/supply/transport/etc these troops AND the civilians
etc
Grim Economic Realities

 

[rightwinger]

If Germany had captured France, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway and stopped there....they would have been hard to dislodge

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

hold it--if he loses on one front--the war is over

The point is

Hitler only fights on one front

 

[rightwinger]

If Germany had captured France, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway and stopped there....they would have been hard to dislodge

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

1. there is still resistance all over with Britain and the US helping them
the Italian partisans were very effective
2. the US was developing/did develop the Abomb = war over
3. once the P51 was in service = air superiority =:
--A.-much greater destruction on Germany
--B.-much greater transportation problems for Germany -=
--a. much harder for German troops/manufacturing war supplies/transporting war supplies/etc
--b. much more difficult to keep the population fed/etc
C.US war making potential almost 3 times Germany and Japan combined = war over
....war is just not amount of troops you have--but logistics--logistics is THE critical factor in a total war
..Germany has to feed/supply/transport/etc these troops AND the civilians
etc
Grim Economic Realities

The French Resistance were helpful with the invasion. They did little to dislodge the Germans. Let alone 100 divisions

An invasion would still require boots on the ground and the allies would have faced six times the resistance they faced on D Day

Agree, once the A Bomb came out, it is all moot

 

[harmonica]

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

hold it--if he loses on one front--the war is over

The point is

Hitler only fights on one front

...he cannot win against the Russians--Russia too big/over double the population and hitler stabbed Russia in the back--Russia will not surrender
...Russia can't beat UK and the US
--it's a looooooong stretch to think Germany could win either front by itself

 

[harmonica]

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

1. there is still resistance all over with Britain and the US helping them
the Italian partisans were very effective
2. the US was developing/did develop the Abomb = war over
3. once the P51 was in service = air superiority =:
--A.-much greater destruction on Germany
--B.-much greater transportation problems for Germany -=
--a. much harder for German troops/manufacturing war supplies/transporting war supplies/etc
--b. much more difficult to keep the population fed/etc
C.US war making potential almost 3 times Germany and Japan combined = war over
....war is just not amount of troops you have--but logistics--logistics is THE critical factor in a total war
..Germany has to feed/supply/transport/etc these troops AND the civilians
etc
Grim Economic Realities

The French Resistance were helpful with the invasion. They did little to dislodge the Germans. Let alone 100 divisions

An invasion would still require boots on the ground and the allies would have faced six times the resistance they faced on D Day

Agree, once the A Bomb came out, it is all moot

again logistics
...there are only so many railroads/roads/etc for supplying troops on the coasts/etc--and the Allies bombed the crap out them
..if there is six times the force, they have to supply six times the amount--there are only so many roads to put so much transport on
.....it was very hard for Germans to move because of the tactical and strategic bombing/French resistance/etc
..and the US and UK have naval superiority --they can land in Normandy or Southern France--so Germany has to divide her forces/etc

 

[harmonica]

so the US is not involved??
even without the US, he's not beating Russia

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

1. there is still resistance all over with Britain and the US helping them
the Italian partisans were very effective
2. the US was developing/did develop the Abomb = war over
3. once the P51 was in service = air superiority =:
--A.-much greater destruction on Germany
--B.-much greater transportation problems for Germany -=
--a. much harder for German troops/manufacturing war supplies/transporting war supplies/etc
--b. much more difficult to keep the population fed/etc
C.US war making potential almost 3 times Germany and Japan combined = war over
....war is just not amount of troops you have--but logistics--logistics is THE critical factor in a total war
..Germany has to feed/supply/transport/etc these troops AND the civilians
etc
Grim Economic Realities

The French Resistance were helpful with the invasion. They did little to dislodge the Germans. Let alone 100 divisions

An invasion would still require boots on the ground and the allies would have faced six times the resistance they faced on D Day

Agree, once the A Bomb came out, it is all moot

....for every ''if'' the OP comes up with, I can come up with a ''counter if''--so the arguments are ridiculous

 

[rightwinger]

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

hold it--if he loses on one front--the war is over

The point is

Hitler only fights on one front

...he cannot win against the Russians--Russia too big/over double the population and hitler stabbed Russia in the back--Russia will not surrender
...Russia can't beat UK and the US
--it's a looooooong stretch to think Germany could win either front by itself

What if Hitler only concerned himself with defeating Russia ?
Would the west intervene to save communist USSR?
What if after defeating France and driving the Brits off the continent, Hitler had made peace and agreed to a disarmed France and an agreement that England stay out of future conflicts?

Then he can leave the Western Front undefended and use all his forces against USSR without the allies bombing his factories

 

[harmonica]

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

hold it--if he loses on one front--the war is over

The point is

Hitler only fights on one front

...he cannot win against the Russians--Russia too big/over double the population and hitler stabbed Russia in the back--Russia will not surrender
...Russia can't beat UK and the US
--it's a looooooong stretch to think Germany could win either front by itself

What if Hitler only concerned himself with defeating Russia ?
Would the west intervene to save communist USSR?
What if after defeating France and driving the Brits off the continent, Hitler had made peace and agreed to a disarmed France and an agreement that England stay out of future conflicts?

Then he can leave the Western Front undefended and use all his forces against USSR without the allies bombing his factories

see post #115 for the answer

 

[rightwinger]

Like I said
Hitler could have won on one front .......not both

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

1. there is still resistance all over with Britain and the US helping them
the Italian partisans were very effective
2. the US was developing/did develop the Abomb = war over
3. once the P51 was in service = air superiority =:
--A.-much greater destruction on Germany
--B.-much greater transportation problems for Germany -=
--a. much harder for German troops/manufacturing war supplies/transporting war supplies/etc
--b. much more difficult to keep the population fed/etc
C.US war making potential almost 3 times Germany and Japan combined = war over
....war is just not amount of troops you have--but logistics--logistics is THE critical factor in a total war
..Germany has to feed/supply/transport/etc these troops AND the civilians
etc
Grim Economic Realities

The French Resistance were helpful with the invasion. They did little to dislodge the Germans. Let alone 100 divisions

An invasion would still require boots on the ground and the allies would have faced six times the resistance they faced on D Day

Agree, once the A Bomb came out, it is all moot

....for every ''if'' the OP comes up with, I can come up with a ''counter if''--so the arguments are ridiculous

OK

Let’s look at the A bomb
What if the US was not concerned with fighting the Nazis who were fighting Russia only
The US would have used its entire military night to defeat Japan
If we defeated Japan by late 1943, would we have continued the Manhattan project?

 

[harmonica]

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

1. there is still resistance all over with Britain and the US helping them
the Italian partisans were very effective
2. the US was developing/did develop the Abomb = war over
3. once the P51 was in service = air superiority =:
--A.-much greater destruction on Germany
--B.-much greater transportation problems for Germany -=
--a. much harder for German troops/manufacturing war supplies/transporting war supplies/etc
--b. much more difficult to keep the population fed/etc
C.US war making potential almost 3 times Germany and Japan combined = war over
....war is just not amount of troops you have--but logistics--logistics is THE critical factor in a total war
..Germany has to feed/supply/transport/etc these troops AND the civilians
etc
Grim Economic Realities

The French Resistance were helpful with the invasion. They did little to dislodge the Germans. Let alone 100 divisions

An invasion would still require boots on the ground and the allies would have faced six times the resistance they faced on D Day

Agree, once the A Bomb came out, it is all moot

....for every ''if'' the OP comes up with, I can come up with a ''counter if''--so the arguments are ridiculous

OK

Let’s look at the A bomb
What if the US was not concerned with fighting the Nazis who were fighting Russia only
The US would have used its entire military night to defeat Japan
If we defeated Japan by late 1943, would we have continued the Manhattan project?

.....there you go again---you can only put so many troops/airplanes/etc on ships/tiny islands/etc
...then you have refuel the many naval and merchant marine ships...ships take time to travel/etc--the refueling ships need to refuel....the fuel needs to be shipped
etc
....
...the big problem was not the battles in 1943--but the logistics/lack of troops/EXPERIENCED troops
plus we DID NOT have the military might/EXPERIENCE [ in island fighting/strategy/weapons/etc ] in late 1943
..they just started getting the F4U Corsair in late 1942--not operational until 1943
we are NOT going to defeat Japan in late 1943!!!!!!!! even with all the military we had in 1943
....jesus christ--the US didn't have that many carriers in early 1943/etc
ridiculous

not with the US involved
....also, even after he defeated France, there were resistance groups all over-France, Balkans, Norway, even Italy---with Britain supplying/helping them....it would've been very hard to hold on to these areas FOREVER

ALSO--if he loses the Russian front--he loses the Western Front!!
he he loses the Western Front, he loses the Russian Front
--if he loses on one front--he loses the WAR
so if you say he could win on one and not the other, that is ridiculous

How much was the US willing to sacrifice for a war in Europe? As it was, we lost 400,000 in both theaters. Would we be willing to lose a million?

Take Russia off the table and Germany has 100 divisions in Western Europe. Would the US still invade France or would we settle on defending England?

1. there is still resistance all over with Britain and the US helping them
the Italian partisans were very effective
2. the US was developing/did develop the Abomb = war over
3. once the P51 was in service = air superiority =:
--A.-much greater destruction on Germany
--B.-much greater transportation problems for Germany -=
--a. much harder for German troops/manufacturing war supplies/transporting war supplies/etc
--b. much more difficult to keep the population fed/etc
C.US war making potential almost 3 times Germany and Japan combined = war over
....war is just not amount of troops you have--but logistics--logistics is THE critical factor in a total war
..Germany has to feed/supply/transport/etc these troops AND the civilians
etc
Grim Economic Realities

The French Resistance were helpful with the invasion. They did little to dislodge the Germans. Let alone 100 divisions

An invasion would still require boots on the ground and the allies would have faced six times the resistance they faced on D Day

Agree, once the A Bomb came out, it is all moot

....for every ''if'' the OP comes up with, I can come up with a ''counter if''--so the arguments are ridiculous

OK

Let’s look at the A bomb
What if the US was not concerned with fighting the Nazis who were fighting Russia only
The US would have used its entire military night to defeat Japan
If we defeated Japan by late 1943, would we have continued the Manhattan project?

again--LOGISTICS
we are not going to defeat Japan late 1943 even with all our military
we don't have that many troops/EXPERIENCED troops/ships/carriers/etc
the F4U just got operational in early 1943

....these '''ports''/anchorages in the Pacific could only handle so many ships--some were very crude--very small---we are not transporting supplies and troops like you do on a map!!!!!!!!!!!!!
etc etc

...the farther you get away from your ''main'' supply base, the more resupply ships are needed--to supply not only the forward troops, but also the resupply troops and ships

....so if you need to transport ''''all'''/more of US troops, you need more ships=more oil=more ships for more oil---on and on the circle goes

....you are NOT landing more troops easily on these shithole islands--there's only so much space for troops and supplies...swamps/forests/jungles/ravines
..you can only put so many aircraft on these islands--
B17s take a lot of room and airstrip/fuel/supplies/maintenance crew/etc--

...the big problem wasn't the battles before Iwo/Okinawa, but the TRAINING/organizing/transportation of troops/supplies/etc
...troops need to be trained/organized--then moved to a shipping point in the US--then shipped to someplace in the Pacific--then shipped to the combat area--
...the Naval ships and airpower need to be coordinated with these troops

n November 1943, our forces were undertaking the final phase of the Solomons campaign,

HyperWar: Building the Navy's Bases in World War II [Chapter 27]

you are ''winning'' the war using a map--not reality

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was using the idiot posters words against him.

I see. So you don't think FDR was imperialist. Got it.