Fat Trudeau becomes unglued when a Canadian doesn't support his corrupt war in Ukraine

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2/26/2023 at 5:40 PM, CdnFox said:

 Well....  depends how you want to score ww2.  They won against germany for sure, but they very clearly would not have if it weren't for the allies both in direct support and by opening a second front

I think Russia would have won without a Western Front. The Germans were crumbling in the East by then and knew they had lost. It was always a minor part of the war for Germany and the progress made was slow. The best thing about it was that Western Europe wasn’t overrun by Russia. 

[Moonbox]

You're 100% right.  The last German offensive in the East was in the summer of 43, and it was a complete failure.  By that point the Russian advantage in weapons, manpower and logistics was overwhelming. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

You're 100% right.  The last German offensive in the East was in the summer of 43, and it was a complete failure.  By that point the Russian advantage in weapons, manpower and logistics was overwhelming. 

And where did they get the weapons and such?

As is often the case with you, the answer is far too simple.  Had there not been a western front that would have freed up a lot of additional resources for the eastern offensive. And if the allies were out of the picture then russia would have been very hard pressed for materials.

Especially if one asks 'why' was there no western front.  Presumably that would mean that some sort of peace or agreement was reached with the British and that threat was neutralized. The resources that would have been set to fight in france and spain would have been available for russia.

A number of the turning point battles were lost by a very small margin. Even a small difference in manpower and material could have forced it to go the other way. It might not have, but there's a strong chance it would have.

I don't think the russians would have won in the end without western help. I think without western help they most likely (not guaranteed) would have fallen.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think Russia would have won without a Western Front. The Germans were crumbling in the East by then and knew they had lost. It was always a minor part of the war for Germany and the progress made was slow. The best thing about it was that Western Europe wasn’t overrun by Russia. 

I disagree, building and manning the Atlantic wall, North Africa, the Italian campaign, garrisoning and fighting partisans in occupied countries, the allied bomber offensive and Battle of the Atlantic tied up vast German resources long before D Day. If those resources could have been used on the Eastern Front, the outcome might have been entirely different. Historians have debated that Barbarossa starting a month later than planned because Hitler had to invade the Balkans and Greece to bail out Mussolini, could have resulted in the Germans winning in 1941. But we will never know.

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

I disagree, building and manning the Atlantic wall, North Africa, the Italian campaign, garrisoning and fighting partisans in occupied countries, the allied bomber offensive and Battle of the Atlantic tied up vast German resources long before D Day. If those resources could have been used on the Eastern Front, the outcome might have been entirely different. Historians have debated that Barbarossa starting a month later than planned because Hitler had to invade the Balkans and Greece to bail out Mussolini, could have resulted in the Germans winning in 1941. But we will never know.

I’m talking Normandy and thereafter. Definitions differ on what the Western Front was. That’s how I’m defining it. For example, few would include the Tyrol in the Western Front of WWI. I’m also excluding US assistance to the Soviet Union which was vital. The allied land assault on Germany through France was a relatively small part of the war, dwarfed by the slaughter in the East. At the end, it represented salvation for Germans in the western part of the country. In that sense, it did really matter and in the best way possible. Just my random opinion. I’ve zero knowledge of the subject. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[Moonbox]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As is often the case with you, the answer is far too simple.  Had there not been a western front that would have freed up a lot of additional resources for the eastern offensive. And if the allies were out of the picture then russia would have been very hard pressed for materials.

As is usually the case with you, you're arguing a strawman.  The question was whether the opening of the Western Front tipped the scales in Russia's favour, as you seemed so certain. 

The "western front" never opened up until June 1944, or in the summer of 1943 if you want to count the relatively small Sicily or Italy campaigns.  The Germans had already lost in the east by then.  

If you're arguing that Germany could have defeated the USSR if the UK etc were never involved, it doesn't matter, because that conflict predated the Eastern Front so it's pointless to hypothesize about it.  

Edited May 18, 2023 by Moonbox