aussie

Also Australia was involved in two major turning points in world war 2.

They held off and defeated a well trained Japanese army in their specialty of the jungle in Port Moresby. Also Australia was involved in the battle of the coral sea where the Japanese fleet was badly defeated.

Australia , Britain and the USA were all involved.

But we have to say Australia had realy 10 million people at the time and to be directly or indirectly (u decide?,) involved in two major turning points of world war 2 is OUTSTANDING!!!

__________________
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein

Officer of Engineers

You have to get around MacArthur's big ego in order to notice Australia's involvement.

__________________
Chimo

smilingassassin

Canada has you beat with three (that I can think of) The landing at Deippe despite being a failure gave the allies valuable lessons on how big a true commando raid should be and what kind of forces were truely needed for a REAL landing. Canada had a major role in D-day at Juno beach and subsequent operations around Caen fighting some of the worst the Germans had to offer such as the 12th SS, Panzer lehr and 21st Panzer divisions. As a result of hitting the Germans hard in this area the Americans gained more ground while the British and Canadians stired up the hornets nest in the east.

Arguably Canada's biggest contribution was in the Battle of the Atlantic taking on German U-boats.

All this being said and done you really can't atribute any one nation as winning the war, it was a team effort.

Officer of Engineers

The Canadians have the advantage of being under our own command and our own HQ. And thus, we were able to concentrate our efforts where it is noticeable. Australia and India (which included Pakistan back then) made substantial contributions to the ETO but were under British HQ and thus were dispersed where no single effort was noticed.

I do not and will not do this kind of comparison between the countries. We had an advantage they didn't have (our HQ) and they have a disadvantage we didn't have (MacArthur).

antelope

I think you are missing the main point of my post. Germany fought a large number of nations during World War II that go far beyond the few we mentioned (to include France). My main point is that you can't take on the "world" and expect to win. The question of the thread is COULD Germany win not DID they win.

France was a powerful country before 1939 but was a non-factor once they were defeated. It is certainly possible to conceive that if after the fall of France the war was only a British (add Canada or whatever other commonwealth country you want) versus Germany War that Britain may well have in time been defeated or simply agreed to an end to hostilities. From what I read Germany would have been perfectly fine with simply not fighting Britain if given a choice.

If Britain was not in the war and the war moved to A Germany versus the USSR phase is it not conceiveable that Germany could ultimately triumph? The USSR was not the loved friend of Britain and America it was showcased as during World War II. The USSR was an expansionist regime feared for invading Finland and Poland. If the war in Finland lasted another week or so the Western allies may well have been fighting the USSR. Although not popular today many Western Europeans supported the war against the USSR.

With America and Britain neutral and more worried about their business interest in Western Europe the full might of Germany could have been used against the USSR. The long term war would have been very different. We did see large numbers of non-Germans more than willing to fight the Russians. German industry and supply unmolested by Western air attacks would have been significantly better than what we really saw. Without the stranglehold of the American and British Navies I doubt precious metals and oil would have been an issue either. As time went on if the war lasted German advances in jet aircraft, missiles, and other technology would do even more to favor them.

Bottomline: Germany made many strategic and tactical mistakes during World War II, but it is possible that a truncated version of the war COULD have been won by Germany. Neither Germany's defeat nor the USSRs victory was preordained in 1938.

Officer of Engineers

Germany did quite a convincing job at the beginning of the war. They got most of Western Europe and it was a Herculean effort to dislodge them. Hindsight is 20/20 but from all perspective, the idea of laying waste to Berlin was far from anyone's mind in 1939.

War is about personalities as well as military forces. The personalities of Chruchill, Hitler, and Stalin left no choice but war.

I think it was. The Soviets were safe at the Urals and again, I cannot think of anyway the Wehrmacht could have marched to the Urals without taking Stalingrad and Stalingrad was an impossible OPOBJ. The Soviets kept more than enough force in reserve and when they counter-attacked, they attacked two army groups (Army Group North and Army Group Central). Stalin just let Chuikov enough men to bait Paulis in Stalingrad. While the Germans might think they could have taken Stalingrad, the Soviets were never afraid that they were going to lose that city.

Anon

"Bad idea leaving a fully functional and an intact enemy army in your backyard."

Worked great on the blitz through France, and extremely well during Operation Desert Storm.

An isolated, surrounded, cut-off enemy army with no mobility is only a legitimate local threat. They're not a theater threat, and they can't stop your spearhead.

Officer of Engineers

Sucked for the Afrika Korps at El Alamein and for the Wehrmacht in general at Bastonge

That would be the point. Stalingrad was not isolated and could not be isolated. Too much leakage either way. The Red Army had mobility in form of boats and some local made trucks.

Then, there's the Hitler angle. There was no way Hitler could leave a pocket of resistence named Stalin in his Empire.

Anon

"Then, there's the Hitler angle. There was no way Hitler could leave a pocket of resistence named Stalin in his Empire."

That was the only angle in my opinion.

The garrison at stalingrad was no more than a political threat.

Officer of Engineers

You're also forgetting Chuikov. That man was dangerous, without a doubt, a pioneer in MOUT. He chewed up Army Group Central when cornered. You think he would be less dangerous if left alone?

Anon

On open terrain with a mostly leg infantry force lacking heavy supporting armor and air power?

Yeah.

lemontree

Very true, however, the Americans were not in a hurry to loose more men. Besides the Yalta Conference had decided the division of Germany. The Soviets ended by with 70,000 casulties in the Battle of Berlin. The Germans fearing Russian reprisals fought to the bitter end.
A lot of allied lives were saved by not joining the race to Berlin.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Officer of Engineers

A few things. Despite the Wehrmacht's success with mechanized warfare, they were still mostly leg infantry, more reliant on rails for transport than trucks in the USSR. The Luftwaffle was already stretched beyond the breaking point while the Red Air Force was ramping up.

On paper, the two armies were pretty equal. Just that the Wehrmacht exploited their equipment and knowhow much better.

Which essentially means that you've left Chuikov in place against a very vulnerable LOC.

Now, that I am thinking through this. You might be able to get away from not taking Stalingrad but you would still have to leave Paulis in place to bottle the place up (or as much as possible) ... which still means that you're in the exact same position when Zhukov made his counter-attack.

Anon

Except that you havn't wasted so many men's lives trying to assault into stalingrad.

Cordon and bypass baby.

Anon

"The Soviets ended by with 70,000 casulties in the Battle of Berlin."

I believe that figure is 300,000 Lemon.