Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Really? Sir, you need to learn your military bases

You mean like this I suppose

Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford,
Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom,
Eindhoven in Netherlands,
Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main in Germany,
Istres and Avord in France.
Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain,
Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica di Mare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi in Italy,

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

50% was an exaggeration, but it's still plenty.

Does England or any ally of the United States need a military, Id say yes we don't always see eye to eye. Two aircraft carriers doesn't seem like much, especially when you think about rotations an upgrades. It's always good to have one ready. It's not like England is Mexico or Canada, love the Canadian armed forces, but are they really necessary? Probably not

Andrew1975 wrote:50% was an exaggeration, but it's still plenty

Question: How many US Troops are Stationed Overseas?

Answer: Less than 30% World Wide, including active combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many Troops were stationed overseas that aren't in Iraq, Afghanistan, and related regions? 12% of the total force, and that's 12% of the DoD I might add, not the armed forces.

You can cherry pick Germany if you like but "most" is about the worst word you could use other than "all." We're hardly preparing for WWIII. If you're reading that anywhere I suggest you dump the documents from the 1950's and pick up with some more current information as to why we have troops in Europe

Please, please, please read more history books. Please.

Also, try not to conflate America's power with your own personal power. You are not powerful.

Sure I am! I should have specified insurgent rebellions though. My bad. We've managed to put down rebellions as well, theres a difference thats pretty stark between that and putting down one that draws it's recruits from a generally resistive population with access to explosives. Coin warfare was far easier when everyone just had swords or when guns had to wait a while to shoot a second person.

Sorry, you'll have to excuse me - I was just imagining how the USA would have dealt with Northern Ireland.

Depends on when. Civil war times? Bayonet. Modern times? Failure. WW2? Nuke.

In case you haven't noticed, the British no longer control the Indian subcontinent - but The Empire managed to keep on top of it (as well as Persia, most of Africa...) for 100+ years. How long did it take for the US to give up on Vietnam? Iraq? Your smugness is misplaced, as usual.

We're still working on getting puerto rico, but ours isn't a colonial empire. It's just one titanically powerful state.

Yeah, it's waaaaay easier to rule 100s of millions of people than it is to eliminate a handful of insurgents with a knack for DIY explosives. Poor you.

It is actually. The American nation consists over over 300 million people and we're having problems with roadside bombs. Russia's got the same problems. You do too actually! Just without having to manage a large country at the same time.

Erm, not really. If that were the case Al Meghrahi would never have been released.

You can let him go. Just don't let thatcher anywhere near us.

Albatross wrote:At it's height, the British Empire's naval power made it the most powerful military force in the world by a significant margin - it's navy was three times the size of it's nearest competitor, IIRC. The British and American empires are comparable in terms of their relative position in the world - though for a time The British Empire was unparalleled.

Hmm, but right now the US accounts for about half of all worldwide military expenditure, which is not a thing the British could have ever claimed. You make the point that it was a measure of British naval dominance that their fleet was three times the size of their nearest competitor, but the US fleet is greater than everyone else combined... and the US isn't even a purely naval power.

That's never been the case in terms of the USA, as there's always been a rival with comparable levels of military and financial muscle.

You think so? From about the 70s onwards the Soviets had a fraction of the strength of the US, it was only because it suited both the Soviets and the Americans to pretend otherwise that everyone kept talking about them in equal terms.

Right now China is a growing power, but nowhere near the scale of the US.

Albatross wrote:Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion. At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people. That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China. America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.

It's a different world, man. Politics and nationalism have meant colonisation just doesn't work like it once did. If you doubt that think about the relatively small number of troops initially brought in to gain control of India, and now think about how many troops any country would need to try such a thing today.

Nor were we talking about relative sizes of the empire. Yes, the British had a big empire, and this was reflected in their powerful military. But the conversation was on military expenditure, and the possibly unique historical position of the US right now... has one nation ever represented almost half of all military expenditure?

sebster wrote:Nor were we talking about relative sizes of the empire. Yes, the British had a big empire, and this was reflected in their powerful military. But the conversation was on military expenditure, and the possibly unique historical position of the US right now... has one nation ever represented almost half of all military expenditure?

It's both impressive and disturbing that a country can afford to do what the US does militarily while spending a comparable % GDP as other developed nations

It's a different world, man. Politics and nationalism have meant colonisation just doesn't work like it once did. If you doubt that think about the relatively small number of troops initially brought in to gain control of India, and now think about how many troops any country would need to try such a thing today.

Also consider technology. At the time Colonialism began, Western Europe was light years ahead of everyone else. The West still is in many ways, but not quite to the same degree. Used to be you could go in with guns and a well trained and organized army, and find people still fighting in mob formations using swords and spears. Not anymore.

LordofHats wrote:It's both impressive and disturbing that a country can afford to do what the US does militarily while spending a comparable % GDP as other developed nations

It's not an equivalent percentage, the US spends about 4% of GDP on it's military, compared to China spending about 2% and the UK spending 2.5%, France 2.3%, Germany 1.3%, Japan 0.9%. The average expenditure across the globe is around 2.5%.

Put another way, the US has 24% of the world's GDP, and 42% of the world's military expenditure.

Also consider technology. At the time Colonialism began, Western Europe was light years ahead of everyone else. The West still is in many ways, but not quite to the same degree. Used to be you could go in with guns and a well trained and organized army, and find people still fighting in mob formations using swords and spears. Not anymore.

Yeah, this is a big part of it. I'm not sure it was technology exactly, anyone could get their hands on a rifle, and rifles were often given to local forces but they still weren't as effective. I think a lot of it was training and organisation, a disciplined rifle platoon was the dominant unit of war, and even though they could get their hands on rifles it took training to make them really effective, and training took a level of organisational capacity that didn't exist among the native populations.

Nowadays a 14 year with an AK-47 can put out an equivalent level of fire, it doesn't take organisational capacity to be devestating.

sebster wrote:It's not an equivalent percentage, the US spends about 4% of GDP on it's military, compared to China spending about 2% and the UK spending 2.5%, France 2.3%, Germany 1.3%, Japan 0.9%. The average expenditure across the globe is around 2.5%.

That's somewhat more disturbing. I could have sworn the US expenditure was 3%, but maybe the figures I saw were old or I'm mixing them up with something else.

Still. Just 4%? To equal everyone else combined? Yeah, impressive and disturbing...

Nowadays a 14 year with an AK-47 can put out an equivalent level of fire, it doesn't take organisational capacity to be devestating.

And you can make a bomb with the stuff under your kitchen sink and find instructions on the internet. That certainly doesn't help.

LordofHats wrote:
That's somewhat more disturbing. I could have sworn the US expenditure was 3%, but maybe the figures I saw were old or I'm mixing them up with something else.

It was 3% under Clinton.

LordofHats wrote:
And you can make a bomb with the stuff under your kitchen sink and find instructions on the internet. That certainly doesn't help.

Soon enough, that bomb will have a reasonable chance of containing fissile material.

LordofHats wrote:

Nowadays a 14 year with an AK-47 can put out an equivalent level of fire, it doesn't take organisational capacity to be devestating.

Oh yes it does...

Just because that 14 year old has an AK, dont mean he will hit with it. Judging by some recent pics of young Afghan fighters with AK-47s fitted with AKM magazines, the chances are he will probably injure himself first, thats if his gun works...

Taking any person and turning them into a viable military asset takes time and organisation. Its part of the reason contemporary insurgent groups rely on IEDs and VBIEDs. Personnel resources are minimal and you will always find martyrs.

Part of the reason the Taliban are still around is that they are organised. They have a core of experienced, seasoned fighters who then utilise poor quality local assets as they are needed. It worked for the Viet Cong and it still works now. Add in the abilty to vanish into the local populace, where even carrying a gun is no certainity of them being hostile, makes the job very hard. Then include the freeform borders and its a nightmare. Given the situation, I think ISAF is doing the best it can in a place that simply will never accept outside influence in its involvement.

Insurgencies are heavily organised. Their ability to source and use upto date weaponary shows the level of capability and when tied with usual insurgency abilities of resourcefulness and initiative, it makes for a dangerous enemy.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Sure I am! I should have specified insurgent rebellions though. My bad. We've managed to put down rebellions as well, theres a difference thats pretty stark between that and putting down one that draws it's recruits from a generally resistive population with access to explosives. Coin warfare was far easier when everyone just had swords or when guns had to wait a while to shoot a second person.

Yet another generalisation with no basis?

Most actions by the British in India were not strictly COIN warfare. If we take the fighting that occured in Afghanistan from 1840 - 1919 then it is generally one of attempting to subdue a country to protect India's border and curtail Russian influence. There was no 'insurgency' simply a hostile population.

As for 'guns having to wait to shoot a second person' do you have any idea of the weapons in use during the period?

The introduction of the Martini-Henri and the Schnider rifles gave breech loading weapons that vastly increased firepower rates. By 1879, at the time of the Second-Anglo Afghan War the Afghan Army had large numbers of such weapons, having bought them from varying sources and as well as breech loading rifles, they also possessed up to date modern artillery. What it came down to was lack of adequate training and leadership, not the weapons that made a difference. Ironically these rifles are still in use today among the Afghans.

There was even an 19th century equivalent of the suicide bomber - The Ghazi. A religious zealot hellbent on scarificing himself in order to kill the enemy. In Afghanistan they utilised assasins to sneak into British camps at night armed with pistols and swords who would creep into officers tents and hack them to death in their sleep before being killed by other soldiers. The weapon may have changed but the mentality is the same.

Those men with 'swords' that you dismiss so readily often taught the British Army lessons in complacency. The Zulus slaughtered an army at Isandalawana, the Afghans massacred an entire army in the 1840s, and again caused a heavy defeat on the British at Maiwand in 1880. The British Army generally spent the first weeks/months of a campaign being over confident and under estimating the enemy until a massacre took place, after which it relearnt its methods and went on to win. This was repeated over and over again throughout the lifetime of the Empire.

The fact that the British and Indian forces managed to hold control of the Afghan-India border for the best part of 100 years with few major incursion is remarkable considering the times they fought in, but it was done only through sheer hardwork and the spilling of much blood.

One thing the US military is learning is to no longer underestimate the 'man with a sword'...

What I find the most sad is the difficulty of some, both US and British, to actually understand anything in history and accept that both the US and British have highly effective military forces that work very well together. They dont seem to indulge in points scoring, except for some good natured competition, yet armchair generals seem to love rubbing each other up the wrong way. Daft really and it denigrates the wonderful work that US and British servicemen have undertaken together over the years.

Just remember neither the US or the British won WW2... The Allies won it (well actually the Russians won it, we all just helped out).

Very true p, all the actual servicemen get on great, train together, live together and work together well and with great effect, but this is the internet... and real life doesn't count for much here.

Have you heard how people speak to each other in general? It's nothing like a real discussion at all, I mean, if everyone talked as big as this lot Di, nobody would survive an interaction with another man without getting brained!

Just one thing to point out in relation to "Saving money to spend on hospitals":

UK Government Spending in 2007/2008 (sorry, don't have a detailed source)

Welfare: 177bn (NOT including housing & comminity services!!)
Health and Social Services: 103bn
Education: 79bn
Defense: 34bn
Public Order: 33bn
Debt Interest: 31bn
...
..
.

Huh... just found a more recent one:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_defence_spending_30.html

Here is another fun fact... You don't have to go back all that far to find a time when UK defense spending was WELL over 10 percent of GDP...

sebster wrote:Thing is, you're making the assumption that the MoD is just given a flat amount of cash, and then told what they have to do with that money. So that if nukes were taken away from them and put into another department, the MoD would get the same amount of money and be able to buy more tanks and stuff. Government budgeting doesn't work that way, department budgets are built with funding allocations towards specific requirements. If the nukes were shifted out of the MoD, the attached funding would be shifted as well.

Believe me on this, I've spent most of my working life dealing with government budgeting.

Not the British one! Central Gov want to shift the responsibility for funding the nuclear deterent without the funding, thats why the MoD are so unhappy about it. And the MoD isn't given a flat amount of cash, they like every other dept have to put forward a spending plan and based on that plan they are allocated funds. If its not in the plan, they can't buy it.

Whenever you want to make an amphibious landing in another country, or provide air support to any ground operations where you don't have ground based runways nearby. The odds of that happening without being an joint US operation (so you could then rely on their carriers, as they have more than enough for everybody) is the big question. I honestly have no idea.

Short of war, there is no reason for us to support such an operation.

You have the sixth biggest economy in the world, and the third biggest defence budget. I really don't understand why so many people are so keen to diminish the place of their country in the world.

I'm not diminishing our place, we have the finest trained body, that is our armed forces, anywhere, bar none. Qualitively we outrank anybody. Quantatively we don't, and we need to recognise that.

Andrew

sebster wrote:

That's never been the case in terms of the USA, as there's always been a rival with comparable levels of military and financial muscle.

You think so? From about the 70s onwards the Soviets had a fraction of the strength of the US, it was only because it suited both the Soviets and the Americans to pretend otherwise that everyone kept talking about them in equal terms.

Right now China is a growing power, but nowhere near the scale of the US.

Yes, but China is effectively underwriting the USAs huge national debts, meaning that on purely financial terms China has a certain amount of parity. There's also the (in my opinion pretty remote) possibilty that China will overtake the USA as the world's largest economy. It's when an Empire stops being financially independent (and dominant) that it begins to decline. That's what did for the British Empire.
Also, although the Soviet Union might not have had parity with the USA for very long, it was (and is arguably still) capable of destroying the USA several times over. That isn't something the The British Empire had to contend with.

Albatross wrote:Yet the US struggles to succesfully prosecute policing actions and bring them to anything even approaching a peaceful conclusion. At it's peak, The British Empire formally controlled a quarter of the worlds surface and ruled a comparable amount of people. That's not to mention de facto vassal states such as Brazil, Argentina and China. America simply doesn't have that sort of power, shiny toys or not.

It's a different world, man. Politics and nationalism have meant colonisation just doesn't work like it once did. If you doubt that think about the relatively small number of troops initially brought in to gain control of India, and now think about how many troops any country would need to try such a thing today.

Exactly. It IS a different world. That's why The British Empire was more powerful in real terms - it was able to exercise it's power with relative impunity for a fairly lengthy period of time. The USA can't do that, for all it's military might.

Nor were we talking about relative sizes of the empire. Yes, the British had a big empire, and this was reflected in their powerful military. But the conversation was on military expenditure, and the possibly unique historical position of the US right now... has one nation ever represented almost half of all military expenditure?

No, fair enough. But military power is only one measure of power. My point, I suppose, is that the power of a nation can also be measured in the relative power of those it seeks to dominate. The fact that a relative handful of insurgents armed with IEDs is enough to provide a significant obstacle to American interests is an illustration of this. There are no American 'Omdurmans'. The Empire didn't have such problems and thus was able to exercise it's power more readily. Massive military power is worthless if you can't actually use it - it's just implied power, which is only marginally less useless than no power at all. In my opinion, American military power is just a sideshow - the USAs TRUE power comes from being a financial hegemon. But as most of us now accept, that period of unparralleled financial power is starting to draw to a close.

Edited for spelling mistakes due to distraction of a bed being delivered!

What I find the most sad is the difficulty of some, both US and British, to actually understand anything in history and accept that both the US and British have highly effective military forces that work very well together. They dont seem to indulge in points scoring, except for some good natured competition, yet armchair generals seem to love rubbing each other up the wrong way. Daft really and it denigrates the wonderful work that US and British servicemen have undertaken together over the years.

What I find sad is that you would post so much that had truly so little with any of my posts concerning the subject and then decry my lack of historical knowledge.

Most actions by the British in India were not strictly COIN warfare. If we take the fighting that occured in Afghanistan from 1840 - 1919 then it is generally one of attempting to subdue a country to protect India's border and curtail Russian influence. There was no 'insurgency' simply a hostile population.

Yes, I know. Thats why the post you were quoting was seeking to separate the two.

As for 'guns having to wait to shoot a second person' do you have any idea of the weapons in use during the period?

IT was a long period, there were quite a few with many varying capabilities. The empires decline coincided with the increased prevalence of more deadly personal weapons. You're not exactly arguing against what I'm talking about here. You're just arguing.

There was even an 19th century equivalent of the suicide bomber - The Ghazi. A religious zealot hellbent on scarificing himself in order to kill the enemy. In Afghanistan they utilised assasins to sneak into British camps at night armed with pistols and swords who would creep into officers tents and hack them to death in their sleep before being killed by other soldiers. The weapon may have changed but the mentality is the same.

The mentality is the same, but it's still quite different. That same zealot can load up a ford truck with C4, drive it up to a checkpoint, and kill 80 people and wound 250 others. I'd like to see an afghan assassin pull off a similar feat. Intentons aren't relevant, only capability.

One thing the US military is learning is to no longer underestimate the 'man with a sword'...

We aren't fighting people with swords, and we didn't exactly have to fear them in Japan.

Big P wrote:Just because that 14 year old has an AK, dont mean he will hit with it. Judging by some recent pics of young Afghan fighters with AK-47s fitted with AKM magazines, the chances are he will probably injure himself first, thats if his gun works...

Why do you think their casualties are so much higher than ours? The problem is that there's so many of them.

Part of the reason the Taliban are still around is that they are organised. They have a core of experienced, seasoned fighters who then utilise poor quality local assets as they are needed. It worked for the Viet Cong and it still works now. Add in the abilty to vanish into the local populace, where even carrying a gun is no certainity of them being hostile, makes the job very hard. Then include the freeform borders and its a nightmare. Given the situation, I think ISAF is doing the best it can in a place that simply will never accept outside influence in its involvement.

It's not really a matter that they're organized. The Taliban like most insurgent groups are horribly unorganized, but they want it that way. Breaking organization on purpose and leaving themselves loose makes them flexible. Other than that you're right.

There was even an 19th century equivalent of the suicide bomber - The Ghazi. A religious zealot hellbent on scarificing himself in order to kill the enemy. In Afghanistan they utilised assasins to sneak into British camps at night armed with pistols and swords who would creep into officers tents and hack them to death in their sleep before being killed by other soldiers. The weapon may have changed but the mentality is the same.

Except now the tools available to that mentality are vastly more effective at getting the job done.

One thing the US military is learning is to no longer underestimate the 'man with a sword'...

They aren't fighting with swords.

(well actually the Russians won it, we all just helped out).

The Russians won it? That's funny .

Albatross wrote:Yes, but China is effectively underwriting the USAs huge national debts, meaning that on purely financial terms China has a certain amount of parity.

China has no economy without the US. They don't get to count that in their favor

There's also the (in my opinion pretty remote) possibilty that China will overtake the USA as the world's largest economy. It's when an Empire stops being financially independent (and dominant) that it begins to decline. That's what did for the British Empire.

Apply that theory to Rome. Let me know if that works out. Empires collapse for multiple reasons, not just economic ones, though economy is a telling sign. Britain's Empire collapsed because of struggles in Europe tying up resources. People in foreign lands growing increasingly difficult to control and better at fight them too. And frankly, Britain overextended itself. It did an awesome job at building its empire. One of the largest in history. But it was too large. As they lost the technological advantage and trouble in Europe increased, they fell behind and eventually lost.

Also, although the Soviet Union might not have had parity with the USA for very long, it was (and is arguably still) capable of destroying the USA several times over. That isn't something the The British Empire had to contend with.

The Russians like to talk. Doesn't mean they can or would do it. Their nuclear arsenal is as old as their navy and it's falling apart just as quickly.

Exactly. It IS a different world. That's why The British Empire was more powerful in real terms - it was able to exercise it's power with relative impunity for a fairly lengthy period of time. The USA can't do that, for all it's military might.

I would agree that in relative terms, at it's height the British Empire was superior. But then in relative terms so were the Roman and Mongol Empires. In relative terms Alexander's Empire was probably the greatest mankind has ever known (Depending on how we determine which were the greatest).

The Russians won it? That's funny

You do realise we could have suspended the bombing campaign against Germany in 1943, never launched D-Day, never invaded Italy, and the Russians would still have beaten Germany, right?

I wouldn't even try and argue that one, I actually have the facts and figures at my fingertips if necessary. Truth is, we launched D-day in order to stop the Russians from gaining complete control of mainland Europe. In doing so, we sped up the demise of Nazi Germany by a year or two, but the fact remains that the Russians ultimately had that one in the bag.

Ketara wrote:You do realise we could have suspended the bombing campaign against Germany in 1943, never launched D-Day, never invaded Italy, and the Russians would still have beaten Germany, right?

Likewise, Russia could have never have been involved in the war, and it would have likely ended the same way. Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe. Had Germany pushed harder early in 1943, they could have taken Russia out of the game because they'd killed off almost all of Russia's army.

Anyone claiming any one nation won the Second World War (Russia of them all) shows little understanding of the war itself. If we were to pick one country and claim they won the Second Word War, it would be Germany. Germany won WWII for the Allies because frankly, they sucked at logistics and were strategically led by a mad man.

Big P wrote:Oh yes it does...

Just because that 14 year old has an AK, dont mean he will hit with it. Judging by some recent pics of young Afghan fighters with AK-47s fitted with AKM magazines, the chances are he will probably injure himself first, thats if his gun works...

You're missing the point of my statement over the specifics of the quality of an AK47. My point is that destructive capability that once took a platoon (and therefore required the funding and organisational capacity to keep a platoon of troops in the field) is now achieveable by one person. It doesn't have to be one guy with an automatic rifle today compared to a platoon of riflemen in times gone by, it can be an IED today compared to a team of engineers a hundred years ago.

The point is that you can now put out considerably greater destruction without needing that great a level of resourcing or organisation. While the level of organisation in Western militaries is even greater than it has been in the past, it isn't so decisive because you can now bring a lot more destruction without it.

Part of the reason the Taliban are still around is that they are organised. They have a core of experienced, seasoned fighters who then utilise poor quality local assets as they are needed.

They sure are. It makes me laugh when people talk about civilian owned guns being the thing that keeps government in check. To run a successful insurgency you need a very sophisticated cell structure, that provides mutual support without allowing the compromise of one cell to compromise the whole organisation. If you can achieve that, getting your hands on guns is easy.

AndrewC wrote:Not the British one! Central Gov want to shift the responsibility for funding the nuclear deterent without the funding, thats why the MoD are so unhappy about it.

Ah, fair enough then.

And the MoD isn't given a flat amount of cash, they like every other dept have to put forward a spending plan and based on that plan they are allocated funds. If its not in the plan, they can't buy it.

Yeah, that's what I was saying before. But from what you've said it sounds like this is a plan to remove funding from the MoD by stealth.

Short of war, there is no reason for us to support such an operation.

That's exactly when you'd need it, yes. Thing is, you never know what's around the corner. It is a dangerous game to start removing capabilities from your defence force based on what you'll probably be doing in the future.

I'm not diminishing our place, we have the finest trained body, that is our armed forces, anywhere, bar none. Qualitively we outrank anybody. Quantatively we don't, and we need to recognise that.

Quantitatively you come in third in the world, or possibly fourth behind France, depending on how you rank different capabilities. You're a mile behind the US, but that doesn't make your capabilities negligible.

Albatross wrote:Yes, but China is effectively underwriting the USAs huge national debts, meaning that on purely financial terms China has a certain amount of parity.

Not really. The debt is an issue but the current Chinese economic model is as dependant on the US as the US is dependant on China.

There's also the (in my opinion pretty remote) possibilty that China will overtake the USA as the world's largest economy.

If China can achieve a level of GPD/capita roughly equivalent to Mexico then it'll be the world's biggest economy, that's just how it works given their immense population. But achieving that level of productivity is a long way off for China, their planned economy is excelling at the early stages of industrialisation, as most planned economies do, but it's the next stage that they'll need to move into to sustain growth, and planned economies do not innovate.It's a near impossibilty.

It's when an Empire stops being financially independent (and dominant) that it begins to decline. That's what did for the British Empire.

True, and a fair point. I would argue though, that the British decline began when the colonies themselves stopped being profitable - the world moved on from colonisation and the British domination ended with that. I think the US model is still the best model, their financial problems are due to poor decision making. It's a much more solveable problem, though the jury is out on whether the US will be able to resolve the issue.

Exactly. It IS a different world. That's why The British Empire was more powerful in real terms - it was able to exercise it's power with relative impunity for a fairly lengthy period of time. The USA can't do that, for all it's military might.

No, but no empire was built on military successes alone. It's the economic model that really builds the empire. Think about it, you guys had to go and put a colonial government in place, ship troops over and start building infrastructure. The US just signs a trade deal with the foreign government and watches the corporate sector start building its own factories there.

Massive military power is worthless if you can't actually use it - it's just implied power, which is only marginally less useless than no power at all.

That's a fair point.

But as most of us now accept, that period of unparralleled financial power is starting to draw to a close.

It is by no means certain, but the last decade has been a very poor one for the US, and it is certainly possible that they will not be the dominant power within our lifetimes.

LordofHats wrote:Likewise, Russia could have never have been involved in the war, and it would have likely ended the same way.

It's basically impossible to consider a WWII without Russia. The German expansion was always geared towards expanding into Russia.

I think it's an interesting hyopthetical to consider what would have happened if Russia had stayed out of the war. How would the Western allies have done? I don't know, personally.

Thing is, I've been quite vocal on this board for arguing that Russia beat the Germans, and could have done it by themselves. You only have to look at the casualty rates (85% of all German casualties were suffered on the Western front) to realise who did the heavy lifting in the war. The point is not that Russia is best and the Western allies are weak, the point is that the Western Allies never approached anything like the level of total war of Germany and the Soviets.

People talk about handing in spare buttons, certain foods becoming scarce, that's nothing compared to what the Germans and the Soviets undertook.

Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe. Had Germany pushed harder early in 1943, they could have taken Russia out of the game because they'd killed off almost all of Russia's army.

The only point where greater German pushes could have knocked Russia out of the war was at the end of the first stages of Barbarossa. If the Germans had managed a greater level of operational planning and completed their encirclements they could have taken another two hundred thousand Russian troops captive, but they weren't that capable, those Russians were used in the defence of Moscow and any hope of German victory was done.

But I do agree that we should all be thankful for Germany's many strategic errors. At the start of the Barbarossa campaign they had the entire industrial capability of continental Europe behind them, but they lost because they made some incredibly blunders. Thank God for that.

Sebster wrote:It's basically impossible to consider a WWII without Russia. The German expansion was always geared towards expanding into Russia.

It would have been a completely different war without Russia. The Axis powers were always doomed to lose in the long term, but Russia hastened the defeat of Germany greatly.

That said a WWII without Russia would make only a fun to talk about hypothetical. German and Japan needed the same thing desperately; Oil. Knowing that, a WWII that didn't involve the post war super powers is impossible. The US and Russia were destined from the start to be involved in WWII no matter how you slice it.

I think it's an interesting hyopthetical to consider what would have happened if Russia had stayed out of the war. How would the Western allies have done? I don't know, personally.

A question worthy of volumes. So many ways the Germans could have redeployed those forces. We can make educated guesses but I guess we'd never really know without a time machine... and maybe messing with the out come of WWII wouldn't be the best idea in human history

Thing is, I've been quite vocal on this board for arguing that Russia beat the Germans, and could have done it by themselves.

Don't get me wrong. They could have. I just disagree with the notion that they were solely responsible for victory in WWII as we know it. Conflicts in other regions greatly aided Russia in surviving long enough to launch a counter attack in the way it did. Without the War in North Africa, Germany's supplies could have been more focused.

The only point where greater German pushes could have knocked Russia out of the war was at the end of the first stages of Barbarossa. If the Germans had managed a greater level of operational planning and completed their encirclements they could have taken another two hundred thousand Russian troops captive, but they weren't that capable, those Russians were used in the defence of Moscow and any hope of German victory was done.

In early 1943, most of Russia's army was pretty much vehicles and equipment with no man power. The initial push into Russia didn't win it for Germany, but it bleed Russia's already weakened military dry. Another strong push could have won the Eastern Front. But instead of attacking, Hitler, in his infinite genius (yeah, thank god the crazy ones are, well, crazy) decided to prepare for a battle in Kursk instead.

Like many moments in WWII, I think the Germans showed overt aggression when a degree caution would have been better, and too much caution when it came time to be aggressive, usually at key critical moments. Compound that with constant supply troubles, and Russia lived long enough to bounce back. Without other campaigns in Europe and North Afirca distracting German attention, the Eastern War may have ended very differently (Likewise of course, the war in North Africa could have ended very differently had Russia lost or never entered the war).

German planning honestly did suck. They had some good leaders, good disciplined troops, but their logistics were just horrible, and the head hanchos were none to bright.

LordofHats wrote:It would have been a completely different war without Russia. The Axis powers were always doomed to lose in the long term, but Russia hastened the defeat of Germany greatly.

Germany wasn't destined to lose, unless you start talking about the instability of extremist empires but that's really besides the point. They certainly weren't destined to lose a US/UK alliance, as while the US had the industrial capacity to match the German war machine it's very dubious to think the political will was there to completely reform the economy on that scale. Seriously, while the changes in the US economy were very impressive, they were still miles short of what happens under total war.

Stalemate is a much more likely circumstance.

Don't get me wrong. They could have. I just disagree with the notion that they were solely responsible for victory in WWII as we know it.

They didn't do it alone, I'm not arguing that they did. Everyone who fought contributed and deserves to be recognised. And in fighting as they did the Western powers certainly protected Europe from Soviets occupation, which is something to be very thankful for.

Conflicts in other regions greatly aided Russia in surviving long enough to launch a counter attack in the way it did. Without the War in North Africa, Germany's supplies could have been more focused.

Sure, but the point I'm making is that people don't realise how focussed they were on Russia already. The other theatres were tiny in relation to the Eastern Front, 85% of German casualties were suffered there.

In early 1943, most of Russia's army was pretty much vehicles and equipment with no man power. The initial push into Russia didn't win it for Germany, but it bleed Russia's already weakened military dry. Another strong push could have won the Eastern Front. But instead of attacking, Hitler, in his infinite genius (yeah, thank god the crazy ones are, well, crazy) decided to prepare for a battle in Kursk instead.

That's a pretty different view of things, where are you getting that from? By the time of Kursk the Soviets had achieved a marked superiority in men and material, having executed Operation Uranus and inflicting immense casualties on the Germans. There was no thinking among the German high command of being able to break the Soviets, Kursk itself was limited in scope, planned as an effort to delay the Soviet offensive. That was all the Germans were capable of against what had become an incredibly powerful Soviet war machine.

Like many moments in WWII, I think the Germans showed overt aggression when a degree caution would have been better, and too much caution when it came time to be aggressive, usually at key critical moments. Compound that with constant supply troubles, and Russia lived long enough to bounce back.

I think the primary issue was the inability for the Nazis to think in operational terms. They had terrific officers up and down the ranks, but the nature of war at the time, that they themselves blundered into in their victory over France, required a level of understanding between the tactical and strategic level. They didn't have this, and so were unable to support their offensives in the early days of Barbarossa. The Soviets did understand this, and so their breakthroughs were consistantly more complete.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yes, but China is effectively underwriting the USAs huge national debts, meaning that on purely financial terms China has a certain amount of parity.

Not really. The debt is an issue but the current Chinese economic model is as dependant on the US as the US is dependant on China.

LordofHats wrote:

Ketara wrote:You do realise we could have suspended the bombing campaign against Germany in 1943, never launched D-Day, never invaded Italy, and the Russians would still have beaten Germany, right?

Likewise, Russia could have never have been involved in the war, and it would have likely ended the same way. Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe. Had Germany pushed harder early in 1943, they could have taken Russia out of the game because they'd killed off almost all of Russia's army.

Anyone claiming any one nation won the Second World War (Russia of them all) shows little understanding of the war itself. If we were to pick one country and claim they won the Second Word War, it would be Germany. Germany won WWII for the Allies because frankly, they sucked at logistics and were strategically led by a mad man.

Hang on. You're actually tell,ing me you think Germany had begun it's decline by 1942?

Hooboy. I didn't want to do this, but to quote a certain cartoon, 'Someone is wrong on the internet!'

Okay. Let's break this down into steps.

The point of view I shall be advocating here, is that compared to the Russians, the Allies were a very minor drain on Hitler's resources up to 1944, and that Germany would have collapsed against the Soviet Union even if the UK had declared peace in 1940, and the US had never entered the war. I shall do this by summarising the various allied fronts, and exactly how minor a toll they took on Hitler's resources until the very end.

Let's start by summarising the number of US/British fronts in World War II. The first would be the aerial campaign to bomb Germany, and knock out it's infrastructure. The second would be the Northern African campaign, culminating in the invasion of Italy, and the southern push towards Germany. The third would be the front opened up in Western Europe after the D-Day landings in Normandy.


So, the bombing campaign against Germany....

'From 1940 to 1942, the actual effect that Allied bombing had on Germany was negligible. Most of the damage done by bombing was done to the civilian economy, and thus, was easily absorbed.
In virtually all cases, German production increased, as the German war economy was scaled up, in order to better accommodate the needs of the war machine. In 1942 alone, in the war economy, overall production rose by 50%. Added to the fact that Germany still had considerable reserves of oil, chemicals, metals, and many other raw materials stocked up before the wars beginning, it quickly becomes evident that that initial Allied bombing caused little to no damage at all. For example, the German estimate of oil losses due to bombing up from the start of hostilities up until the end of 1943 was a mere 150,000 metric tons. Whilst this may sound substantial, when it is realised that in the Year of 1940 alone, a total of 4,578,000 metric tons were produced, it quickly becomes apparent that the scale of loss was irrelevant to the German economy. '

'By the end of 1942, it is estimated that the combined Allied Bombing was accounting at best for a mere 2.5% loss of production in the Reich. And this figure includes civilian production for non-essential consumer goods, building, and so on. So the actual damage done to the German war economy itself would be much smaller. Whilst you could consider this a substantial figure when considering the amount of production lost or destroyed, this was clearly a failure to achieve the main objective set down, which was to cripple or destroy the German war effort. As Germany was consistently raising it's production of all war essentials throughout this period, from raw materials to finished goods, Allied Bombing during this period was most clearly ineffective. '

'The situation begins to change however in 1943. As Albert Speer, the former Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production said in his interrogation in 1945,' The first heavy attack on Hamburg in August 1943 made an extraordinary impression. We were of the opinion that this type of attack upon another six German towns would inevitably cripple the will to sustain armaments manufacture and war production.....the raids on the ball bearing industry at Schweinfurt in July 1943 evoked a renewed crisis'. Both of these attacks were on a massive scale, involving hundreds of heavy bombers, yet the failure to repeat them consistently, and regularly meant that German industry had time to begin to disperse, and set up additional AA defences. The still constantly increasing overall production rate in Germany meant that the war machine was able once again to absorb the damage taken through bombing without showing too much adverse effect. Yet regardless of the additional measures taken by Germany, their war industry did begin to show signs of wear and tear. There was an estimated 9% loss of production in Germany in 1943.'

'From 1944 onwards, the Allied bombing began to fulfil its main objective, as American bombers joined English ones, and large scale raids took place all over Germany. Indeed, Albert Speer regards 1944 as the period in which the bombing began to have an effect all across the board, 'Up to the year 1944 neither the air attacks nor the defence measures taken to meet them disturbed armaments production....with regard to the year 1944, on the other hand, it may be assumed that on average there was a fall in production amounting to 30/40%, for had it not been for the air attacks, the projected output programme would certainly have been achieved...' The Allies had also steadily increased raids against German oil, and fuel production sites, which resulted in severely incapacitating the German war machine. The Luftwaffe was short of fuel from September 1944 onwards, and the Army suffered serious shortages from December 1944 onwards. Indeed, it was one of the key reasons for the failure of the winter offensive in Dec 1944, as many of the tanks had no fuel. There were also shortages of coal from Autumn onwards, although steel production continued to climb. The elimination of transport capability however, meant that even in cases where production might not have been falling, it was increasingly difficult to move resources, and finished products to where they were most urgently needed. This breakdown in the rail network proved decisive to the failure of the Ardennes offensive. The lack of coal distribution also meant that power networks across Germany began to run short of fuel. The loss of the upper Silesian Coal mines and industry in January 1945 tolled the death knell for the final collapse of armaments and war production.'


That pretty much summarises the Bombing campaign against Germany, and is extracted from a 4000 word essay I wrote on the topic including academic citations. I shall provide a few of them now, just so you can double check my facts and figures if you really so desire.

(The Luftwaffe War Diaries-Cajus Becker-Corgi Books 1969)
(History of the Second World War, The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany 1939-1945, Volume 1 to 4,-Sir Charles Webster & Noble Frankland)
(Royal Air Force 1939-1945, II The Fight Avails-Denis Richards-Her Majestys Stationary Office)

Examining these facts, it becomes clearly apparent, that until the latter period of the war, Allied bombing was ineffectual. Certainly, by the time it began to make a noticeable impact, the Russians were already 'knocking on the front door'. From that, we can conclude that even had the Allied Bombing Campaign been halted altogether, it would have made little difference to the outcome of the the fierce fighting in Russia, and the reversal of German fortunes on land.

So, our next point of examination must be Northern Africa, and noting what kind of a drain on resources that provided for the German military machine....

'When on the 22nd of June 1941, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the German Army fielded some 3 million men in 146 divisions. German strength in the desert peaked at about 50,000 men in four divisions. The Wehrmacht committed less than 2 percent of it's strength to the desert war.Had it committed 3 percent at the right moment, it could have won.' (~Alamein, Stephen Bungay~)

From that one simple figure, it is more than possible to establish that the desert was nothing more than a sideshow for Hitler, a very minor concern at the edge of his ambitions. Had he bothered to actually dedicate a serious amount of his resources to the African war, he would have swept the British out of North Africa in the same way he did Greece. Until the Allied troops began landing in Italy, and Hitler was forced to divert the Tenth Army to fight off the Allies, the Northern Campaign was relatively irrelevant to deciding the outcome of the war raging on mainland Europe. It had no impact on the resources Germany used to fight in Russia for the first two to three years, and by the time it began to be enough of a problem for Hitler to divert the Tenth Army, German forces were already in disarray and falling back from the might of the Soviet Union.

The third front would be the D-Day landings, but as they only took place in 1944, it is possible to say with a relative degree of certainty, that this front had absolutely no bearing on the mainland war against Russia until a much later stage.(1943 at the earliest, as Hitler was preparing for a possible Allied landing)

To summarise, if the UK had withdrawn from the war in 1940, and the Allies never entered it, it would have made virtually no difference to the inevitable German defeat at the hands of the Soviet military machine. If necessary, and you still want to belabour the point, I'll pull up the casualty and production figures, as well as the major battles, and break them down to show exactly how the Germans really did have no chance of defeating Russia after they lost their initial momentum, Allied distraction or no.

Conversely, had the Russians never entered the war, I seriously doubt there would have been the political US willpower to invade mainland Europe, and soak up the kind of resources and manpower it would have required to take on the entire Nazi war machine. Indeed, it's not even possible to say the US would have defeated Nazi Germany, it would quite possibly have ended in a stalemate, or the Germans launching an invasion of America 10 years down the line.

At the end of the day, it was essentially the Russians who defeated Nazi Germany. The rest of the Allies simply sped up the end by a few years.

sebster wrote:That's a pretty different view of things, where are you getting that from? By the time of Kursk the Soviets had achieved a marked superiority in men and material, having executed Operation Uranus and inflicting immense casualties on the Germans. There was no thinking among the German high command of being able to break the Soviets, Kursk itself was limited in scope, planned as an effort to delay the Soviet offensive. That was all the Germans were capable of against what had become an incredibly powerful Soviet war machine.

The Red Army had lost most of its man power by the end of 1942. In early 1943 they had little. Rather than make a dedicated push Germany spent it's time reconsolidating to prepare for larger engagements, and by mid 1943 the Red Army was back to strength. Perhaps saying Russia would have lost isn't correct. A dedicated attack at that time would have prolonged the Eastern War, and it would have taken Russia longer to begin its push into German occupied Eastern Europe.

Hang on. You're actually telling me you think Germany had begun it's decline by 1942?

I didn't say decline, or at least didn't intend to. They stalled out in 1942, by which I mean their advances halted. The failures in El Alamein and Stalingrad were defeats Germany never recovered from. Technically one could say Barbarossa was where the war turned about, but there were still events following Barbarossa that could have allowed Germany to win. After El Alamein and Stalingrad failed, Germany had lost its chances of winning the war (In hindsight, I don't know what German leadership thought at the time).

To summarise, if the UK had withdrawn from the war in 1940, and the Allies never entered it, it would have made virtually no difference to the inevitable German defeat at the hands of the Soviet military machine. If necessary, and you still want to belabour the point, I'll pull up the casualty and production figures, as well as the major battles, and break them down to show exactly how the Germans really did have no chance of defeating Russia after they lost their initial momentum, Allied distraction or no.

I never claimed Russia couldn't have won the war. I claimed that to say Russia won the war as we know it was incorrect.

Conversely, had the Russians never entered the war, I seriously doubt there would have been the political US willpower to invade mainland Europe, and soak up the kind of resources and manpower it would have required to take on the entire Nazi war machine. Indeed, it's not even possible to say the US would have defeated Nazi Germany, it would quite possibly have ended in a stalemate, or the Germans launching an invasion of America 10 years down the line.

Britain wasn't going down, not on the isles anyway. Operation Sea Lion had been called off as a failure long before Barbarossa was even passed initial planning. So long as Great Britain didn't surrender, the US would have aided in an invasion of Europe and in the closing battles of North Africa. US involvement in Europe was as inevitable as their involvement in the Pacific.

You underestimate the importance of the North African campaign and how starved for oil Germany was. Logistics were a constant issue in the German army, and they were beginning to ration what oil they had well into 1941, and even before 1940 the German industry found itself with plenty of means of production but few raw materials to work with. The lost in North Africa meant that Germany could never reach the middle east, or its oil. Likewise the failure of Stalingrad meant that Germany never made it into the Cacasus or the oil there. It's not just a question of man power its a question of resources. Many of Germany's moves following the start of the war were moves to obtain resources they needed, chief among them oil. Crap logistics and limited resources constantly stalled Germany in the war and were key to its defeat.

My point isn't that Russia wasn't vital. It's that there are factors other than "Russia is an unstoppable juggernaut" that played a role in how the war turned out, and the Soviets can hardly be given full credit for victory. EDIT: I admit any claims of how the war would have played out without <insert nation> will boil down mostly to opinion and conjecture.

Two words Lend-Lease. Russians with out a doubt did the heavy lifting and probably could have won the war without US/UK stepping onto Europe. What is questionable weather they would have been able to weather Barbarossa without lend lease. Especially when you consider the Japs being able to freely engage without being tied up with the allies.

I can also buy that a major consideration for the Invasion of Europe was to stop the red army from taking it all. It would have been interesting to see the U.S./UK versus Russia back then. It would have been air power, vs a giant land juggernaut, (without nukes anyway, nukes may have played a role in stopping Russian expansion (had that been a goal) to all of Europe as U.S./UK ground forces would more than likely just been a speed bump). We know air power is king, but the red army was really giant.

LordofHats wrote:
China has no economy without the US. They don't get to count that in their favor

You really beleive that do you? Oh boy.

The US has little or no hold on China, China on the other hand has a large hold on western economies, and everyone elses too.

The US has little or no hold on China, China on the other hand has a large hold on western economies, and everyone elses too.

It's an interesting argument, I would say they are more intertwined. Without one you really can't have the other. The world economy as a whole would take a giant crap without the U.S. economy. China's economy needs other strong economies to buy products.

Sure its interrealted but dependency usually flows one way or the other, less commonly both ways. China doesnt need us, they have seen to that by careful manoeuvering, now they are ensuring that we need them more and more.

LordofHats wrote:I didn't say decline, or at least didn't intend to.

*coughs*

Germany had already stalled out and began its decline by the end 1942, before the Russians had even started their push into German held areas of Eastern Europe.

LordofHats wrote:I never claimed Russia couldn't have won the war. I claimed that to say Russia won the war as we know it was incorrect.

But they did. As I just pointed out, extensively, with academic citatations, facts and figures, the US/UK forces had a minimal effect on the resources of Nazi Germany until 1943 at the absolute earliest, by which stage the Soviet Union had rearmed, learned how to launch a successful offensive, and were forcing the Germans back. By the time we began to noticeably affect Germany's ability to defend itself, the war was already a foregone conclusion. Germany had lost. And the main reason for this was Russia.

Britain wasn't going down, not on the isles anyway. Operation Sea Lion had been called off as a failure long before Barbarossa was even passed initial planning.

You do realise that Germany almost successfully won the Battle of Britain by targeting airfields right? RAF command estimated we were a week away from complete destruction, only Hitler(enraged at a British bombing run against a city), ordered Goering to change the focus of the aerial campaign to cities, as opposed to military targets. When you factor in the relatively successful U-boat campaign to sink shipping, it's not impossible to envisage Britain being defeated if Germany had decided to focus all it's resources on it, as opposed to striking for Russia.

So long as Great Britain didn't surrender, the US would have aided in an invasion of Europe and in the closing battles of North Africa. US involvement in Europe was as inevitable as their involvement in the Pacific.

On one hand you declare the absolute invulnerability of the British isles to German attack, and on the other state that US involvement was 'inevitable'. You seem to like dealing in absolutes. I admit, I stated an absolute when I said Russia would have defeated Germany with or without US/UK forces, but I have the statistics, and factual evidence to back that statement up. I would be interested in seeing your ironclad evidence for the two absolutes you have delivered above.

You underestimate the importance of the North African campaign

Not really. For the British, it was incredibly important, as it was the only surviving land front they had against Germany, and losing it would have been terrible for morale, whilst a victory immensely good. For Germany it was a sideshow. As stated above, less than 2% of Germany's military resources went into that campaign. Less than 2%. Had it been 5%, the British would have most likely been swept out of Africa. But Hitler simply didn't regard that front as even a slight priority. I've read communications between him and Rommel, several discussions involving the two above and the General Staff, and I can tell you right here and now, Germany did not regard this front as important. If you'd like, I'll dig around and find the exact quotations and documents necessary for you, but in exchange, I'd like you to present evidence pointing to contrary first, otherwise it's unfair that I do all the legwork.

Logistics were a constant issue in the German army, and they were beginning to ration what oil they had well into 1941, and even before 1940 the German industry found itself with plenty of means of production but few raw materials to work with.

To quote the Becker article:-

The Germans realized the graveness of their fuel situation and took action. Their infamous peace treaty with Russia in 1939 yielded them 4 million barrels of fuel per year (starting in 1940) and the Russians were diligent in delivering the fuel. Imports of oil from Romania was also drastically increased until imports reached 13 million barrels in 1941. The Germans also expanded their own small domestic production of oil and that of Austria which had been annexed by Germany in 1938. By 1944, the total domestic oil production had increased from 3.8 million barrels (1938) to 12 million barrels.

Additionally, about 5 million barrels of fuel were captured during the early military campaigns of World War 2 in western Europe in 1940.

Now I'm not saying that fuel wasn't critical, or that Germany wasn't in dire need of more supplies of it. Hitler's desire for the caucasian oilfields is well known and documented, however, he NEVER regarded the middle east and the desert campaign as a serious alternative. He never thought he'd need to until the Russians had him on the back foot, and by that stage of the game, his defeat was, as you like to say, 'inevitable', regardless of whether he'd had the oil supplies or not. Germany was incapable of matching the sheer industrial power and weight of numbers that Russia was capable of putting in the field, by the time oil was an issue.

My point isn't that Russia wasn't vital. It's that there are factors other than "Russia is an unstoppable juggernaut" that played a role in how the war turned out, and the Soviets can hardly be given full credit for victory.

I never said they should be. What I did say, was that our military intervention on continental Europe was entirely unnecessary in toppling Hitler in 1943/4, as the Russians already had it in the bag. We sped up the demise of Nazi Germany by a year or two, but most of the hard work and fighting was already done by the Russians. Case in point.

EDIT: I admit any claims of how the war would have played out without <insert nation> will boil down mostly to opinion and conjecture.

Indeed. However, by examining the facts and sources available to us, we can deduce what would have been more likely outcomes. Bar some kind of divine miracle, I can't see the Germans pulling off a final victory over the Russians from 43 onwards, regardless of Allied intervention. I make this analysis simply by using the facts and figures available to me.

China doesn't need us.

Hmm, I don't know about that. I'd have a read over "Chimerica" if you haven't read it. Not saying you are wrong I just think it's too much of a blanket statement.