Bamilus
Posts: 973
Joined: 4/30/2010 From: The Old Northwest Status: offline
|
As many posters have said, it depends on neutral. Now, neutral without lend lease (meaning TOTALLY neutral), I think the Soviets and the UK would have been in huge trouble. As many have said, the Soviets relied almost totally on Lend Lease for their jeeps and communications. Not to mention the US sent millions of boots, guns, ammo, tanks, planes, tools, etc. The UK was bankrupt and desperately needed US aid to continue the war. Now, I am not sure if the Germans would have won, but the war would've gone on a lot longer. During Churchill's birthday celebration in 1944, Alan Brooke said that the British were leading the war effort which led to Stalin to comment that it was a war of machines; and that since the United States supplied most of the machines that the US was leading the war effort. I hate these psuedo-communist collectivist revisionists on these boards and others who make it sound like the Soviets bore the brunt of the war. They totally disregard the three (or four or five) other theatres of war. They fail to mention that they got so much aid from the UK and the USA. They fail to mention that Allied troops in Italy, North Africa, and west Europe took pressure off of the East Front. They fail to mention that the Allied bombing campaigns (of which the Soviets did very little, until the end of 1944 to 1945) of 1942-1945 severly crippled the German war effort (if you disagree with this statement then read Albert Speer's, the Armament Minister from 42 onward, statements about how truly devastating the strategic bombing campaigns were.) And then they make the Soviets look like liberators, when really the NVKD killed millions of people, even from the start of Barbarossa when they deported tens of thousands of "dissidents" to the Gulags. I will say the Soviets fought, in some cases, very bravely and were of huge importance to the war effort. However, they lied, cheated, and stole, and hundreds of minorities suffered. Not to mention that the official Soviet military policy for the first three years threw away millions of lives for no reason. The effects of Stalin's Cold War still linger today. And I don't want to get into too much "what if's", but if the US stayed neutral while Japan quickly mopped up the Pacific (without the US the Pacific would have fallen easily, and in fact it did for the first year) then I could easily see the million plus man army in Manchukuo attacking the almost undefended Soviet eastern border. This two front war would have devastated the Soviets, especially after they moved so many Siberian troops to help during Operation Typhoon and in other campaigns. I'll finish by saying that every country that actively helped in the Allied cause should be thanked and remembered (sorry Turkey and Saudi Arabia and most of South America...you didn't really do anything). Poland is easily forgotten but their troops fought bravely on almost every front and were rewarded with Soviet domination and western betrayal. The Norwegians, Dutch, Belgian, and Free French troops also continued to fight. And of course all the Commonwealth countries selflessly sent troops to areas thousands of miles away to die and fight for others. EDIT: No offense to the Brits, but Wodin, I have to disagree. The British would not be able to sustain a SUCCESSFUL bombing campaign of the Reich. You guys tried from 40-42 but failed miserably with huge losses and almost no damage done to the Germans. I have so much respect for the British (I'm a descendant of William the Conqueror down to Edward III, and also related to Winston Churchill), but they were put in a very bad situation. Even though they won the Battle of Britain, they still suffered massive losses and without US supplies and aid it would be hard if not impossible to sustain a successful Reich bombing campaign along with homeland defense, convoy protection, the Pacific War, and the North African theatre. This is just a personal opinion thing but someone smarter and brighter than me will hopefully prove me wrong. I know the British did most of the Reich Bombing, but my comments are merely related to a Britain only war with no US aid and no US help. I just question how successful a solo bombing campaign in that circumstance would be. Regardless the Brits were top notch troops and did so much for the Allies.
< Message edited by Bamilus -- 6/28/2010 5:40:57 PM >
_____________________________
Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee
|