Seems to me that a “victory” resulting in a communist and Soviet-dominated Europe isn’t much of a victory. Without the US, it seems to me you wind up with either fascism or communism dominating continental Europe.
Actually, Siam was already called Thailand during World War II. Siam was changed to Thailand in June 1939, shortly before the outbreak of war, changed back to Siam in 1945, then back to Thailand in May 1949, which it’s been ever since.
Hmm… :dubious:
Weeeell, to be a bit weaselly, the RCN operated HMS Puncher (except for the airmen, who were British) and HMS Nabob on behalf of the RN during the war.
Additionally, of the 250-odd Flower class corvettes build during WWII, about half were built in Canada (some originally for the USN, but by the time they were built, U.S. ship-building had reached the point that they were no longer needed). Similarly, about half of the 150 River class frigates build during the WWII came from Canadian shipyards. Smaller numbers of destroyers were also built in Canada, particularly those destined for RCN usage.
Not really-- everyone was in on the genocide game. c/f American Indians.
As has been touched on here, my understanding is that the US trucks to the USSR had as big a part to play in the war as any munitions that they sent. That is, the trucks allowed for the relatively easy movement of Soviet troops.
One must also consider that had the Soviet’s and the Germans gotten into a stalemate then there very well could have been a coup against Hitler at some point which could have radically changed things.
Interesting thread, though I don’t see a real factual answer here. And I see a lot of the same Super Soviet thinking from similar threads in GD. Myself, I don’t see how anyone could believe that without any aid at all the allies (or just the Soviets) could have possibly won the war. At best we are probably talking about some kind of cease fire truce while both sides rebuilt. The UK? They would have been out of the war by '41, tops. Churchill knew this, which is why he pushed so hard to get the US in the war. Without any aid from the US at all they wouldn’t have survived even as long as they did…and this isn’t a dig at the UK, btw. They put up a valiant fight and I’d have to say without them the allies wouldn’t have won either. But face facts…even with the US giving them aid they were on the ragged edge. They probably wouldn’t have been invaded or needed to surrender, but I think they would have been forced to sue for some kind of unfavorable peace with Germany (which is exactly what Hitler wanted).
As for the Soviet’s, there is no way they could have beaten Germany by themselves…and this leaves off the real possibility that, without the US involved at all (including, presumably, our embargo of Japan and acting as a threat against their expansion in the South Pacific Rim or China), Japan probably WOULD have gotten involved in the war against Russia. Even without that, however, I don’t see any way the Soviet’s could have survived long enough to become the unstoppable Juggernaut they eventually became. Without materials from the US they would have had to focus a lot more of their thinly stretched resources on food and supply and less on armor production. Also, Germany would have been more closely focused on Russia…they wouldn’t have been distracted having their factories bombed, by fighting in Africa, or attacks on their logistics in Western Europe, giving them both more time to consolidate their gains early in the war and more combat power to focus against the Soviets. I seriously doubt the Soviet’s would have survived, but even if they managed to halt the Germans, they, like the Brits, would have been forced to sue for peace on terms more favorable to the Germans. At a minimum I think the Germans would have gotten all of Eastern Europe completely, and probably parts of Western Russia as well…and there is a real possibility that the German’s would have been able to completely knock the Soviet’s out of the war.
These little ‘what if’ games are interesting, but the reality is that each of the allies was absolutely vital to the end victory…and that each of THEM knew that, without the others, the war would probably be lost. Stalin certainly knew, and he pushed nearly as hard as Churchill to get the US in the war, and to get the US more and more heavily involved. Roosevelt knew that he HAD to keep the Brits and Russian’s in the war, and he did so even at the risk of possible impeachment. Churchill, never a fan of communist Russia, knew that it was vital to keep them engaged…as he knew he MUST get the US into the war, if Britain were to survive. Without any one of the major allies (as well as large contributions from the other allies like Australia and Canada, for instance) Germany and Japan would almost certainly have won. Anyone saying that the US was the one completely responsible for victory, or the USSR or the Brits is attempting to revise history, IMHO.
-XT