How much did Britain really win WW2?

[Mrk]

Britain 'won' the war in as much as without Britain remaining at war with Germany after the fall of France a complete victory would have been impossible. The US wouldn't have (and couldn't have) engaged Germany in Europe if Britain had signed an armistice with Germany, and the USSR couldn't have beaten Germany on their own (indeed, Germany would have been able to throw everything at the USSR in 1941 if Britain had signed an armistice and probably would have succeeded in defeating the USSR).

So did Britain win? No. But could the war have been won without Britain? No.

 

[bluerobert]

Nobody wins in war

 

[MrPerfectNot]

Britain 'won' the war in as much as without Britain remaining at war with Germany after the fall of France a complete victory would have been impossible. The US wouldn't have (and couldn't have) engaged Germany in Europe if Britain had signed an armistice with Germany, and the USSR couldn't have beaten Germany on their own (indeed, Germany would have been able to throw everything at the USSR in 1941 if Britain had signed an armistice and probably would have succeeded in defeating the USSR).

So did Britain win? No. But could the war have been won without Britain? No.

So, amongst the three, it seems they were each necessary but not sufficient by themselves.

Hence the success of an alliance.

 

[bluerobert]

Russians killed about 75% of the German soldiers that died in WW2. But Russia weren’t at war with Germany until the Germans marched into their lands. The German top Brass thought they’d be done before Christmas and didn’t prepare its troops for the brutal Russian winters. It got bogged down and its equipment wasn’t suited to the weather and conditions.

Edit. Oh and Stalingrad

 

[Bedfordblue]

Russians killed about 75% of the German soldiers that died in WW2. But Russia weren’t at war with Germany until the Germans marched into their lands. The German top Brass thought they’d be done before Christmas and didn’t prepare its troops for the brutal Russian winters. It got bogged down and it’s equipment wasn’t suited to the weather and conditions

At great cost to themselves though, wasn’t it something like 27m (11m red army - rest civvies and due to disease and famine) vs 5.7m Wehrmacht of Ze Germans…..
Edit

World War II Casualties by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[bluerobert]

At great cost to themselves though, wasn’t it something like 27m (11m red army - rest civvies and due to disease and famine) vs 5.7m Wehrmacht of Ze Germans…..
Edit

World War II Casualties by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Yer but that was their tactics, they threw wave after wave of men at them knowing their superior numbers would keep them at bay and the weather would take the rest. Then as they pushed them back to Germany any of the men in the lands the Russians took were absorbed into their army replenishing their numbers

 

[PhilM]

Russians killed about 75% of the German soldiers that died in WW2. But Russia weren’t at war with Germany until the Germans marched into their lands. The German top Brass thought they’d be done before Christmas and didn’t prepare its troops for the brutal Russian winters. It got bogged down and it’s equipment wasn’t suited to the weather and conditions

This isn't entirely correct - well, more it isn't that simple. Barbarossa was delayed by over a month, which (only conjecture) could have influenced the outcome.

Even if you consider that the offensive panned out as it did, this extra month could have helped reach Moscow. But, that alone is often not seen as pivotal.

You can also argue that the OKW clearly didn't prepare enough due to the logistic problems and lack of winter equipment, however it missed the Hitler element.

The original OKW plan was to drive to Moscow and take the capital; from there, Russia may have fractured, and the armies in the north and south focused on.

But, Hitler changed the plans on numerous occasions for what could be argued as vanity - taking Leningrad (the name) and sweeping up some armies.

These meant delays, with the drive to Moscow only starting again in October. If they had kept to their original objectives, rather than Leningrad, Crimea...

... and the Donbas, the outcome of the war may have been hugely different.

 

[bluerobert]

This isn't entirely correct - well, more it isn't that simple. Barbarossa was delayed by over a month, which (only conjecture) could have influenced the outcome.

Even if you consider that the offensive panned out as it did, this extra month could have helped reach Moscow. But, that alone is often not seen as pivotal.

You can also argue that the OKW clearly didn't prepare enough due to the logistic problems and lack of winter equipment, however it missed the Hitler element.

The original OKW plan was to drive to Moscow and take the capital; from there, Russia may have fractured, and the armies in the north and south focused on.

But, Hitler changed the plans on numerous occasions for what could be argued as vanity - taking Leningrad (the name) and sweeping up some armies.

These meant delays, with the drive to Moscow only starting again in October. If they had kept to their original objectives, rather than Leningrad, Crimea...

... and the Donbas, the outcome of the war may have been hugely different.

Ha I was trying to simplify it without getting into the technical strategy and Hitler factor. But yer what he said

 

[bluerobert]

My Nan grew up in the same town as Goebbels, she had some great stories about life there

 

[PhilM]

Nobody wins in war

Agreed, but from WWII you could argue that Germany and Japan emerged stronger in many ways, even though defeated. The US and USSR thrived as victors.

Whereas, the UK and France dwindled. The cost, however, were millions and millions of deaths, and even more suffering - was it worth the cost?

 

[bluerobert]

Agreed, but from WWII you could argue that Germany and Japan emerged stronger in many ways, even though defeated. The US and USSR thrived as victors.

Whereas, the UK and France dwindled. The cost, however, were millions and millions of deaths, and even more suffering - was it worth the cost?

I’d say it’s probably the one war I can think of that was worth the cost. The cost of him winning far outweighs those that died. But i think people who say “we won the war” haven't got a clue what they’re talking about

 

[Old Blue 2]

This isn't entirely correct - well, more it isn't that simple. Barbarossa was delayed by over a month, which (only conjecture) could have influenced the outcome.

Even if you consider that the offensive panned out as it did, this extra month could have helped reach Moscow. But, that alone is often not seen as pivotal.

You can also argue that the OKW clearly didn't prepare enough due to the logistic problems and lack of winter equipment, however it missed the Hitler element.

The original OKW plan was to drive to Moscow and take the capital; from there, Russia may have fractured, and the armies in the north and south focused on.

But, Hitler changed the plans on numerous occasions for what could be argued as vanity - taking Leningrad (the name) and sweeping up some armies.

These meant delays, with the drive to Moscow only starting again in October. If they had kept to their original objectives, rather than Leningrad, Crimea...

... and the Donbas, the outcome of the war may have been hugely different.

I thought the change in German strategy to putting much more into Army Group South was due to a desire to capture the oilfields, the benefit of which was of great value to the German forces in terms of what oil meant to the continued prosecution of the war.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Agreed, but from WWII you could argue that Germany and Japan emerged stronger in many ways, even though defeated. The US and USSR thrived as victors.

Whereas, the UK and France dwindled. The cost, however, were millions and millions of deaths, and even more suffering - was it worth the cost?

Just imagine what the world would have looked like If Hitler was sane and had been happy enough after the Sudetenland campaign, with all the extra population and resources and not fighting a war how successful they could have been. Of course that would have probably just kicked the can down the road but I like to think just before he put the gun to his temple that his last thought was 'what if I hadn't invaded Poland?'

 

[PhilM]

I thought the change in German strategy to putting much more into Army Group South was due to a desire to capture the oilfields, the benefit of which was of great value to the German forces in terms of what oil meant to the continued prosecution of the war.

Ish - it would open the door to advance towards the Caucasus (e.g. Baku and the oil fields), but the key target for AGS was Kyiv and the Donbas.

The bread basket of Europe and the coal-rich plains were always the primary objectives for von Rundstedt, and it looked like they'd be achieved as per the plan.

So why did Hitler take precious resources from Barbarossa's primary target (Moscow) for these attacks? There were lots of armies out there, and Hitler liked this.

From a few accounts, he became fixated with swallowing up Russian armies with large pincer movements, and in the south they defeated six armies.

But, by taking precious resources from the drive to Moscow to do so, alongside supporting the attack on Leningrad, they fell short on the main target.

It wasn't until 1942 that they actually pushed for the oil fields, although you could argue that by taking Moscow it would have facilitated this much later.

 

[LostLegend]

Ish - it would open the door to advance towards the Caucasus (e.g. Baku and the oil fields), but the key target for AGS was Kyiv and the Donbas.

The bread basket of Europe and the coal-rich plains were always the primary objectives for von Rundstedt, and it looked like they'd be achieved as per the plan.

So why did Hitler take precious resources from Barbarossa's primary target (Moscow) for these attacks? There were lots of armies out there, and Hitler liked this.

From a few accounts, he became fixated with swallowing up Russian armies with large pincer movements, and in the south they defeated six armies.

But, by taking precious resources from the drive to Moscow to do so, alongside supporting the attack on Leningrad, they fell short on the main target.

It wasn't until 1942 that they actually pushed for the oil fields, although you could argue that by taking Moscow it would have facilitated this much later.

The Stalingrad siege delayed them as well didn’t it? I know they didn’t realise what an utterly prolonged bloodbath taking the city would turn out to be.