Jeff,
We all know the Russians took the brunt of casualties. No one disputes that. Let’s face it they had a direct front with III Reich. GB had the channel, we had an ocean on both sides and the French surrendered.
I realize that in your world a winner is a loser and vice versa, and that everyone gets a trophy for showing up, but to suggest the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and the SS would NOT have crushed Russia without “interference” from the Allies is simply ludicrous.
It would have ended just like in the real WWII except that the Nazis would have completed their heavy water experiments and used an FW 200 to drop a nuke on Moscow and Stalingrad.
Winner is a loser and vice versa? Everyone gets a trophy for showing up? Why are you spouting right wing nonsensisms during a debate -- well, a lesson actually as it is clear you, Randy and Al are woefully ill informed - on WWII history?
What I said above is a historical fact. The Soviet Union was primarily responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. It's such an accepted truism it's pretty much the lead of the Wiki article on the Eastern Front:
The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of the European portion of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for the defeat of Nazi Germany.[9][10][11]
The Allies never committed enough resources to North Africa, Italy and ultimately France to be more than a distraction. The scale and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front dwarf many times over those on the Western Front.
I fully acknowledge US material aid to the Soviets was important. Was it outcome determinative? Up for debate at best. Certainly early post-war Soviets felt it was. But it was still only bullets and steel and trucks and aluminum. The Soviets beat the Germans with production, manpower, tactics and sheer force of will.
And no, the Germans would not have won the war in 45/46/47 with nuclear weapons. Ron's post is accurate, and has more detail than I remember EXCEPT that it is 100% correct the Germans lacked the raw materials necessary to make sufficient weapons grade uranium, and shifted their efforts in 1942 to using the nuclear program to produce energy. There were not going to be any German nuclear weapons by 45/46/47.
Which leads to another point you appear ignorant of. The conflict on the Easter Front was essentially decided in 1942, and was likely predetermined by supply and logistics. The Germans really needed to knock the Russians out of the war in 41 to have Barbarossa succeed. They were not able to do that -- in fact probably never would because the Soviets were simply not going to negotiate a peace like the Tsar had in 1917.
By the end of 42 with the failure of the siege at Stalingrad, and the Soviets preparing for large scale counteroffensives against Army Group Center, the die was cast. Say no Lend Lease delays the defeat of the Reich by one year? No change in the outcome.
And thank God the Soviets stopped in 1945. Unlike Churchill and Patton and others who had insane ideas about rearming the Wehrmacht and attacking the Soviets, the Soviets wanted no more conflict. Nor did the US and British strategic studies services, who quickly realized how outnumbered and outgunned the Allies were -- and the reason for that was the Russians were always fighting 70-80% of German military strength.
Check out the map here:
Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia
I call that "Patton dies in a week: the Portrait."
Note also that the Soviets by 1945:
1. Had a huge advantage in tanks, both numerically and in quality. The IS series of tanks, the SU tank destroyers and assault guns, and even the T34/85 were all significantly better than the common types of American and British tanks and and tank destroyers. Most Allied tanks still had short barrel 75 or 76 mm guns, and barely adequate armor. the American 90mm gun and the M26 Pershing were just arriving. The Soviets had thousands of 85 mm and 100mm and 122mm tank weapons mounted on tanks and assault guns.
2. the Soviets had a huge advantage in artillery and rocket artillery.
3. The Soviets were the equal of the USAF and Royal AF when it came to tactical ground support and air superiority at low and medium altitudes.
4. The Americans and Brits certainly had the advantage with strategic bombers and high altitude fighters, none of which mattered as strategic bombing deep into Russia was not going to feasible and even more likely to fail than the US/Brit campaign against Germany.
Anything else you'd like to learn?