DDay

[Scutatus]

D-Day wasn't "required", per se, in the first place. The war would have been won on all fronts by the Soviet Union, regardless of D-Day or operation downfall.

The only reason we opened a second front was because the USSR was scraping the barrel with manpower, and also we knew that we wouldn't be best buddies with them for long after the war and didn't want a communist-dominated Europe.

If there is no eastern front (either because the Germans won it, never engaged in it, or allied with the soviets) then they've most likely nearly won the war at this point.

I don't know about the USSR "scraping the barrel". it seems to me that even without a third front opening (don't forget Italy), The USSR would have still won the war. It would have taken longer, and it would have been bloodier and more brutal than it was (and that's saying a lot) but yeah, they would have done it. Don't forget that as eastern European states were "liberated" by the Soviets, many of their forces would change sides. Which likely would have been enough (?). This would have ended with all of Europe right up to the English channel under Communist rule (or Fascist, in Spain). And Britain shortly after - with Soviet France just twenty miles away - would likely have had to become a Soviet puppet. So Yeah, D-Day was most certainly required to prevent THAT.

But I think for us Brits it was also a matter of pride; as worn out as we were - certainly by 1945 - we had begun the war to oppose Germany, we'd hung on through all the long hard years, despite all that was thrown at us (hell, there wouldn't have even been a D-Day if we hadn't), and damn it we were going to see it through to the end.

 

[agentgb]

The only reason we opened a second front was because the USSR was scraping the barrel with manpower, and also we knew that we wouldn't be best buddies with them for long after the war and didn't want a communist-dominated Europe.

hmmmm i thought it was because Stalin refused to advance any further unless the allieds opened up another front? but yeah there was a race to Berlin that we for the most part let the russians win.

 

[Jongmaster]

I have trouble finding the point of threads like these, it always goes down to the US was either vastly incompetent and the British did all the heavy lifting against the Germans and the Japanese, or the US did nothing of importance and the USSR is the sole responsibility of the defeat over Germany.

 

[agentgb]

I have trouble finding the point of threads like these, it always goes down to the US was either vastly incompetent and the British did all the heavy lifting against the Germans and the Japanese, or the US did nothing of importance and the USSR is the sole responsibility of the defeat over Germany.

we did though, and its nice to get some recognition, to be fair we ran up a pretty big debt with the US, could have stepped in a bit earlier if the US wanted a share of britains glory.

 

[Scutatus]

I have trouble finding the point of threads like these, it always goes down to the US was either vastly incompetent and the British did all the heavy lifting against the Germans and the Japanese, or the US did nothing of importance and the USSR is the sole responsibility of the defeat over Germany.

I don't believe I said any of these things. I believe the USSR would have won without a D-Day - but that's not to ignore all the arms, supplies and support they received from the west. And the Brits and US were doing their thing in Africa and Italy, D-day or no. Furthermore, only the most delusional could possibly imagine Britain could have done much against Japan without America - that was most certainly a U.S victory!

 

[jamesd]

I don't know about the USSR "scraping the barrel"

In 1941/42 the USSR was scraping the barrel. They mobilised everyone they could to ensure the country didn't go under. Then after the situation stabilised they were able to return upwards of 3 million men to industry.

 

[Scutatus]

In 1941/42 the USSR was scraping the barrel. They mobilised everyone they could to ensure the country didn't go under. Then after the situation stabilised they were able to return upwards of 3 million men to industry.

Thank you. I didn't know about that. Always pleased to learn something new.

 

[Axe99]

I have trouble finding the point of threads like these, it always goes down to the US was either vastly incompetent and the British did all the heavy lifting against the Germans and the Japanese, or the US did nothing of importance and the USSR is the sole responsibility of the defeat over Germany.

They're interesting enough to think things through while we wait for another WWW, dev diary and eventually the game, but they do get a bit repetitive after a while.

 

[Sharp163]

I don't know about the USSR "scraping the barrel". it seems to me that even without a third front opening (don't forget Italy), The USSR would have still won the war. It would have taken longer, and it would have been bloodier and more brutal than it was (and that's saying a lot) but yeah, they would have done it. Don't forget that as eastern European states were "liberated" by the Soviets, many of their forces would change sides. Which likely would have been enough (?). This would have ended with all of Europe right up to the English channel under Communist rule (or Fascist, in Spain). And Britain shortly after - with Soviet France just twenty miles away - would likely have had to become a Soviet puppet. So Yeah, D-Day was most certainly required to prevent THAT.

But I think for us Brits it was also a matter of pride; as worn out as we were - certainly by 1945 - we had begun the war to oppose Germany, we'd hung on through all the long hard years, despite all that was thrown at us (hell, there wouldn't have even been a D-Day if we hadn't), and damn it we were going to see it through to the end.

If the soviets controlled all of Europe (other than Italy, GB, the Nordic countries and Greece) then we might've seen a Russian take on Operation Unthinkable...

Don't forget that this was the same country that only 20 years earlier was trying to spread communism through Europe with wars, and was only halted by the failed invasion of Poland.

hmmmm i thought it was because Stalin refused to advance any further unless the allieds opened up another front? but yeah there was a race to Berlin that we for the most part let the russians win.

We let the Russians take Berlin because they would've had a hissyfit if we took it. They did do a lot of work, and sacrificed the most out of the allies (other than perhaps China). That didn't stop us from invading Italy, cutting them off from Denmark, and supporting the democratic side in the Greek Civil War. Once again, we knew we wouldn't be buddies with them forever, being opposing ideologies.

 

[PunkDanny182]

If the UK and Commonwealth are the only significant players against Germany, Italy and Japan, then I'd say they should knock over Japan first (something they can achieve by themselves, although if they made as many mistakes as they did IRL, I'd wager it would take them until 1950 or so). If Japan is in the war, the Commonwealth need to knock them out one way or another to have the resources to land in Europe anywhere aside from Norway and Sicily

I'm sorry but even if it's UK versus just Germany/Italy/Japan, UK doesn't have the resources or manpower to take out Japan first. If they were to dedicate what the U.S. had to dedicate to the Pacific Theater on top of what they were already fighting in SE Asia, the UK mainland would be lost because there just wouldn't be enough to defend it. It's not plausible, in my opinion, for the UK to defeat any Axis powers without either USSR or USA intervention.

 

[Axe99]

I'm sorry but even if it's UK versus just Germany/Italy/Japan, UK doesn't have the resources or manpower to take out Japan first. If they were to dedicate what the U.S. had to dedicate to the Pacific Theater on top of what they were already fighting in SE Asia, the UK mainland would be lost because there just wouldn't be enough to defend it. It's not plausible, in my opinion, for the UK to defeat any Axis powers without either USSR or USA intervention.

Yeah, sorry, I think I might have been off with the pixies there - if all Germany and Italy have to do is attack the UK, then it's highly unlikely they'd have the capacity to knock out Japan (and they'd probably be stretched to do anything but lose to them). Sorry about that, not sure what I was thinking - perhaps in my head I still had the USSR tying down Germany/Italy (although I clearly wrote it that they weren't in the picture). Argh, original post edit incoming! Thanks for the dose of sanity .