World War II

[Little Mammoth]

I found a similar question in another forum and found it quite interesting.

What should the outcome of WWII have been? And who should have been the dominating force. I understand that many people will point out Russia as being the obvious dominate force, but I hope its not through any bias (I note this because it can also be argued that the war should not have even gone to the footsteps of Russia). This question is posed on basic military, economic, and overall strength of the State. To broaden the question this also includes the Pacific Theater, which many people forget about.

Is it possible that the War could have or should have ended another way? Did it end in the only plausible fashion?

[seraphim]

Simply the Nazis should have won they had overwhelming military might and a better economic situation, but the axis forces made 2 mistakes 1. (a mistake previously made by Napoleon) they invaded U.S.S.R wrong move cold wether, partisan forces, and an endless supply of cannon fodder comrades. 2. The Japanese bombed pearl harbour too early drawing the U.S into the war earlier than they would have liked. If they had pressed there forces onto the western front no matter how hard we Brits and our allies had fought we would have eventually simply run out of men to fight. Then the bombing of Pearl Harbour could have been orchestrated Drawing the U.S into a futile conflict which you would have lost because the Germans would have had the A bomb before you did. then using this new technology and the combined might of their forces the axis forces could have invaded U.S.S.R. This conflict would probably have ended in stalemate and we would now have a situation where half the world was facist (or whats left of it) and the other half communist.

[h&s]

The people of Europe should have won. If the people had risen up against Nazi occupation the revolution would have spread world-wide. However, that wouln't have been able to happen...


because the Germans would have had the A bomb before you did.
That would not have happened as the German scientist (deliberatly?) concluded that the ammounts of uranium needed for an A bomb would have taken decades to extract.

[seraphim]

But if it wasn't for the fissile matterial taken from the last german u-boat to be captured after the German surrender which was infact headed for Japan the U.S would never have had enough and the Japanese would.

[redstar2000]

I do not see any way World War II could have ended any other way than it did...though it could have lasted longer.

The United States, England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would have defeated the axis powers eventually...they had the edge in both population, resources, and scientific capability to create new weaponry.

Likewise, the USSR alone would have ultimately defeated the Nazis (and, if necessary, the Japanese as well) even without the edge in scientific capability.

An interesting work that discusses this question is Brute Force: Allied Tactics and Strategy in the Second World War by John Ellis.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Little Mammoth]

Simply the Nazis should have won they had overwhelming military might and a better economic situation

At the on set of the war France had the Military power in Europe and not Germany. They had more Tanks more Money and RAF air support, but the Germans had a couple major advantages over the French: Great Generals and being on the offensive. Not to bash the French but they made a number of key mistakes. They took their power and in fused it along the Maginot Line. When the Germans were done with Poland and heading for France those troops did not move. Also while the Nazi's were in Poland the French marched several miles into Germany and could have easily ended the war while the German military was pre-occupied with Poland. The French also Stretched out their tanks, troops, and supplies, as opposed to unifying in to a cohesive force which could handle the BlitzKrieg. And lets not forget their inability to realize the Belgian border was extremely susceptible to an attack.


Likewise, the USSR alone would have ultimately defeated the Nazis (and, if necessary, the Japanese as well) even without the edge in scientific capability.

I definitely agree with this point but only so far. One of the major reasons the Soviets could continue the War while Stalin was about to Catipulate, was due to the Lend-Lease act of 1941. It supplied the Soviets with over Half a million vehicles, the heart of the their motorised supply system. Also their eventual revolution in Radio Communications. Not to say the Russia would not have been able to overcome the Nazi's without these materials, but it sure did help.


An interesting work that discusses this question is Brute Force: Allied Tactics and Strategy in the Second World War by John Ellis.

I have yet to read that Book but I have read another book which discusses this as well: Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy. Great Read.

[Commie Rat]

then there is also the possibliity fo the nazi defeating the british and the french resistance then attacking america directly, and then forced america to an alliance with russia to defeat the nazi's

yes america was anti-communsit/russia but during the war they were more anti nazi then anti communist

[bolshevik butcher]

Had Hitler won the battle of britain then he probably would have won the war, but the ussr actually "won" the war the battle of briatain just prevented Hitler from winning .

[RedStarOverChina]

"All reactionaries are paper tigers. Was Hitler not a reactionary? Did he not fall?" ---Mao Zedong

The way i see it, Hitler was no where near a military genius some claimed him to be. His tremendous hatred towards France was one reason to his early success. He spent so long planning the the invasion of France, it had got to be successful to some degree.

However, Hitler was nothing but a opportunist, a gambler. His both diplomatic and military victories over the rest of Europe was merely because his willingness to risk Germany in his barginning.

But this relentless gambler's game did not work in the case of Britain and USSR. Hitler's major strategic mistakes led to the proper ending for a gambler. They showed that once the reactionaries and opportunists run out of luck, they will fail miserably. Thus, I doubt humanity will comply with someone with so little intellect and sense of reality.

[bolshevik butcher]

Hitler wasn't a military genius, he was a great organizer, he didn't actually do a lot of the actual invading adn planning himself, infact that was why the germans did so well, as time went by however hitler had more and more power, until he basically controled the whole command system, and practical adjustments could not be made.

[J-MAL]

The Nazi's should have won the war simply stated they controlled western europe,north africia, and had the jappeneese as allies in the pacific so the axis powers had a whole lot of territory... as far as regarding ground fighting the Nazi's made a lot of mistakes.. 1. They invaded Russia takeing pressure off of the British and the US the nazis diverted around 3 million troops toward russia for operation barbarrossa(invasion of russia)... this hence weakend france, and the rest of the atlantic wall defense atlanitc wall meaning the general coast of wester Europe 2. The Nazis made this mistake twice at stalingrad and lenningrad and probably cost them the war.... they sent whole Armies twoards the the cities, but they made the mistake of splitting them up EX:3 armies sent to take stalingrad all containiung around 250-300,000 men sent 2 of those armies south to try and take the caucauses for the huge amount of oil contained there which could have also saved them from losing the war had not russin troops set the fields ablaze, Russian resistance was heavy while pussihing for the fields because the russians wanted to keep it just as bad.... so while the 2 armies were fighting for oil the 1 army at stalingrad cause HUGE casualties both military and civlian wise...but after 7 months of "ratenkreig"(war of the rats in german) the germans were surrounded by 6 armies brought in from the urals area of russia..... you all can probably tell what happend now..... the same thing happened at lenningrad thus probably causing germany the war 3. the attack in the Ardeness against the american lines was a crazy attempt to prolong the war... the germans had enough gas for 3 days they didnt get the american fuel or get to antwerp they in turn got trapped and cut off and surrounded bye the american forces thus hitler lost 37 divisions of tanks and troops which could have been used to defend germany from all directions instead of ending up in a POW camp in france.... that is the major things that probably led to the end of Nazi Germany... o and clenched fist hitler did do a lot of planning battle of the bulge was edited and refined by him as many other operations.... the allies just got lucky that he was crazy thats the #1 reason they lost the war

[flyby]

hmmmm.

I have many thoughts:

If you want to understand the second world war, you have to understand that (in its nature) it was really several wars, with very different class content.

First war: an interimperialist war between two imperialist war blocs (the U.S.-British-Gaulists vs. the German-Japan-Italian alliance)

Second war: a socialist war for the defense of the Soviet Union (against the Nazi invasion)

Third War: the anti-colonial war of China against japanese invasion and occupation.

Fourth war: The struggle of the masses of people, and the proletariat, in Europe against the extreme oppression of occupation and war -- often aimed at the Nazis occupying all the neighboring countries, but also involving struggle against the major bourgeois forces of countries like France, Denmark, Hungary, etc. who were objectively still in power and working with the Axis.)

Often in the view of leftists, these different wars are confused and treated as one thing. so that there is a (false!) nothing that this was a war of "democratic countries" against 'fascist countries" -- and therefore Britain or the U.S. suddenly apprear as "progressive imperialists."

The world now knows of course that the U.S. is not some progressive new power... and its rise to world power (through world war 2) was deeply reactionary and oppressive for literally billions of people.

So it is worth grasping which "wars" were progressive (for example the Soviet fight against the Nazis, and the Chinese war of resitance against Japan.) And which wars were not (The interimperialist wars over who would win the imperialist redivision of the world.)

How could things have come out better?

well, if the indian communists had not chosen to ally with Britain, there might have been more powerful revolutonary struggle in India (while the british oppressors were weakened by german attack).

and the resitance movements in euroep could have been more revolutionary -- and not accepted a slice of electoral power in exchange for giving up their guns (italy and france) -- i.e. there might have been some important revolutoins there.

And the U.S. communists might not hav liquidated in such a shameful fashion, and given up any pretense of radicalism or rebellioin.

and if the Soviet Union had handled its occupation of eastern europe differently, the societies there might have been more popular, more radical, more socialist, and been part of a struggle against the rising conservatism in the "socialist camp' including the USSR itself.

so there are somethings that oculd have come out differently.

[Little Mammoth]

The theoretical conclusions of the communists are in no way based on ideas or princeples that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual realations springing from an existing class truggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.

Please keep in mind that what I am trying to say is not swayed by any political beliefs, but instead what I believe to be an objective point of view on the historical events discussed.


If you want to understand the second world war, you have to understand that (in its nature) it was really several wars, with very different class content.

Wrong. To view the nature of the war in terms of class struggle is a fallacy. Class struggle is ongoing, therefore, it presents no unique component to the war itself, but merely acts as the inherent nature of all historical progression. To understand the war itself, look at the war as a whole. By calling fourth "class content." You only seek to obfuscate the war, in total, with the single aspect of class struggle.

In doing this, it is impossible to seperate the war, aside from the context of the theaters; both Japan and Germany had their goals in mind before their alliance. You can not seperate what the British or Americans were fighting for, from What Russia was fighting for since it was ultimately all for survival.


First war: an interimperialist war between two imperialist war blocs (the U.S.-British-Gaulists vs. the German-Japan-Italian alliance)

The Axis powers were obviously Imperialistic in intent, this is to say they entered the war purely to gain land, money, and material goods. On the other hand, the allied powers (as stated), though ultimately Imperealistic, did not enter the war for this same reason. To claim that the Allied powers entered the war for the same reason as the Axis powers is purely asinine. In any historical perspective one can not relate the entrence of the Allies in this war to the Axis.


Second war: a socialist war for the defense of the Soviet Union (against the Nazi invasion)

This was a socialist war only because one of the nations fighting it was socialist. The other Allies entered this war because the same Axis powers, which invaded Russia, invaded and/or attacked them the same way. You cannot justify the defense of ones land purely through political belief, if this is done then history becomes blind. And to say that Russia had no other reason to fight is not accuate either. Out of the Allies the Soviet Union had by far the most to gain.


For the downfall of the bourgeoisie - one country's efforts are enough. History of our revolution shows us that. But for the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, efforts of one country - especially if it's a peasant country like ours - are not enough. To achieve this we need the effort of the proletariat of many developed countries.

Stalin realized the dependence the USSR would have on foreign economies, particularly that of advanced capitalist nations which could be turned socialist. In losing Germany as a socialist ally to the rise of fascism, the USSR needed, much like any capitalist nation, to seek out the means of sustainability. As much as the USSR, like all capitalist nations involved, was defending itself, it's economic gains were, at the least, as favorable.


Third War: the anti-colonial war of China against japanese invasion and occupation.

To seperate this from the United State's involvement is fleeting. The U.S. got involved in this war quite plainly, trying to protect the Chinese from the Japanese; this being what provoked Japan to attack the United States. And again, it can not be said that the defensive position that China held is much different then that of the Allies.


Fourth war: The struggle of the masses of people, and the proletariat, in Europe against the extreme oppression of occupation and war -- often aimed at the Nazis occupying all the neighboring countries, but also involving struggle against the major bourgeois forces of countries like France, Denmark, Hungary, etc. who were objectively still in power and working with the Axis.

Again, in viewing the war through the lense of class struggle, one ignores the very internal class struggle which would be cause for the war itself. It becomes a class struggle, because, not regardless, of the USSR's involvement. Remove it's invovlement, and the class struggle is now completely internal.

In addition, the proletariat remains unconscious of the struggle. To consider this a "separate war" or even an aspect of the total war is dependent on the condition of the USSR's involvement. The nature of it as a war between the bourgeois forces and that of the masses (the proletariat) dissolves in light of their unconsciousness of this struggle. You would have a much better argument, if all involved nations saw socialist revolution following the war -- without that, the proletariat remain pawns -- unconscious of this supposed fourth war, which indeed no one would presume exists without the luxury of Marxist hindsight.

[Wurkwurk]

It is almost a unanimous consent among historians that the Second World War was a war that the Axis had a serious chance of winning, indeed, a greater chance than did the allies (for the first three crucial years at least). In the first three years, with Germany sweeping Poland, France, the Balkans, Libya, and much of the Soviet Union, and Japan controlling a third of China, all of Indochina, Indonesia, and smashing the US fleet in Pearl Harbor, victory seemed certain. But what went wrong?

1. First and foremost is the firm resolution of the Russians. In December 1941, with the German armies seeing the steeples of Moscow, it was everybody's guess as to what kept the Soviet state together. Before long, with millions upon millions of draftees being sent to the front, the Russians answered the question. With a seemingly limitless pool of manpower and an enviable industrial capacity that dominated Germany's from the outset, the Soviets were the largest and most important factor in Germany's ultimate defeat. And of course, we all know that industrial capacity and limitless cannon-fodder is a communist specialty :D

2. Second was the massive industrial capacity of the US to sustain the war effort for many of the allies for almost the entire war, even before their entry after Pearl Harbor. Though America's industrial capacity was only a little bit larger that Russia's, it was a decisive 'oomph' factor that would soon smash the axis. American-made clothing, vehicles, and food poured into the embattled Soviet Union at a time where almost every available man was sent to the front. Even Stalin admitted that without American industrial support, the chances of victory in the crucial 1941-2 years would be almost impossible.

3. Third was the recognition of the importance of the bomber by the allies, a fact mostly fallowed by the British and Americans. While the Luftwaffe dominated the war's skies from 1939-42, Hitler managed to neglect bomber production for tank production in order to face the seemingly endless Russian tank divisions on the eastern front. As a consequence, bombs poured over Germany in the second half of the war, causing an estimated 8 million people to flee from their urban homes and onto the countryside as well as crushing production. A very small number of German planes came to meet the vast allied armadas in the sky, and with such a ravaging of his country it is little wonder why Germany capitulated soon after.

As for Japan, the key mistake in the first place was attacking America. What the hell where they thinking!! :o Reasons 2 and 3 where the main cause for their defeat in Asia.

Cheers,
Wurkwurk