Ah, that. Very well, but it's hardly the only reason Germany lost the war. I can't see them winning had they done mostly the same things they did without the US intervening. By the time the US entered the war, Operation Typhoon had already failed and the Soviets had launched their Winter counteroffensive, which means the Germans already got the closest they had to actually winning the war in the east (Yes, I know, debatable).
The Italian performance was indeed pretty bad, but they weren't really a net loss for the Germans. They wouldn't have been better off without them...I think...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
I think he means that when Japan attacked the US it brought the industrial and manpower might of the USA in on the Allied/Comintern side, while at the same time the Japanese did nothing to draw off the Soviets in the eastern front (Like attack in to Mongolia).
When people think of the Japanese they always jump to the Carriers, the Yamato and the Zero Fighters but they don't think of their Army, it was huge! They started off with 1,700,000 million troops in 51 divisions plus a Marine Corps (Incl. Paras) in the IJN. By the end of the War they had 5.5 million men in the Army.
|
How useful would this army have been against the Soviets in 1941 or 1942? Not only was it bogged down or otherwise in action in China, Burma and the Pacific, it was also very poorly equipped and trained for an open land war.
They've certainly proven pretty bad at it in 1939 and 1945.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JokerOfFate
Question:
If the Brits and the France were allied to Poland and Declared war on Germany when they attacked, Did they Declare war on Russia when they attacked Poland as well or am I missing something?
|
No, they didn't.