ive read several historical takes that still say the US/Allies beat Japan/Italy/Germany even without Russia's existence. the only way we lose if if the soviets joined on the other side.

Ah so beat by facts both historical on past and scientific on present, feels butthurt if butt is something you can locate on that sack of trash you call" body", so he gets down to copy pasting same reply which made no sense in the first place.
Damn, only thing that can be lower than that is typing "who asked" and if you're not in high school, then you're seriously in need of a supervision while using internet.


Russia turned against germany after their existing agreement broke, which caused hitler to send majority of troops towards russia.
It was always said hitler didnt remember history well, cos if he did, he wouldn't repeat napoleon's mistake and send troops in russia to die to russian winter.
This was used by forces of allies to attack weakened Germany and end the war.



This post was edited by SylvesterStallone on May 2 2022 01:35pm

yes 100%, what im saying is if Russia was an ocean rather than a country we'd have still won in the long run according to what ive read. would have been a nasty war though and require nukes in Europe most likely.

ah that's what you mean.
yeah i've never been reading too much into what would've happen if X was an Y and if anything was done differently.

i imagine it would possibly be the same outcome with half of europe being erased from maps

I'm not sure about that, I think in the west we want to elevate our role in the war and minimize USSR's. In reality the eastern front had 2/3 of all German forces engaged and the eastern front had more fighting and deaths versus all other theatres combined. I'm not sure how the war would of turned out but it's pretty much speculation to think we would of for sure won anyways.

Well its american propaganda used to increase braindead patriotism, for sure.
But I'm not sure if germany had any nuclear power at that time, and we for sure know what america did to Japan.

So what he's saying is, with use of nuclear bombs war would still be won after a while, but at a massive cost. But its just a speculation of course.
Also there's a chance french would help. germans would eventually get bored and tired of 50 mil french people bent over with nothing but asses sticking out like a massive bike parking waiting to be nailed. Hitler would possibly give up being grossed by such cowardly behaviour.

This post was edited by SylvesterStallone on May 2 2022 03:41pm

the article i read did a pretty good job postulating where the theaters of war would have moved to and what would have resulted. Germany was spreading the theater of war and making enemies wherever they went. Russia was a particularly bad enemy but if they instead spread to other areas they'd have found resistance there too. in order for the US to lose, with a nuke in our back pocket, we'd have to be invaded by Germany and we all know how that would have ended. even attacks from the east and west on our coasts wouldn't batter us into surrender. Germany lost as soon as the US joined the war effort, just as much as they lost as soon as they made an enemy of Russia. the US cannot be invaded, the US cannot be defeated on our soil, no country is large enough to do this in 1945 or now. Nukes are the only game changer. Germany and Japan had no out. we were always going to defeat japan in the pacific, and as soon as we did we'd have filled the gaps against Germany in Europe. in a prolonged war the history books would read Hiroshima and Dresden and they'd have surrendered.

the core question is less "could the allies win without Russia" and more "could the Axis have won".

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 3 2022 07:08am