History

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

Fun fact that a book produced by US military makes it pretty clear that allies played a minor role in the war and that USSR would have won all on their own.

a few quotes from it

parent

[–] oehm@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

That says it would’ve taken 12-18 months of additional intense bloodshed for the USSR. That doesn’t seem insignificant

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

Sure, my point is that the west did not play a decisive role in the outcome.

parent

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

This kind of historiography is incredibly speculative. There is a reason those kinds of questions have their own copy paste answer on askhistorians.

You can speculate endlessly about what would've happened if the USA and GB would have done nothing at all. Like the source states, the second battle of El-Alamein was incredibly significant and denied Germany the middle eastern oilfields for its parched panzers. Maybe with no American activity Japan might have an appetite for some Manchuria.

We can go on forever.

Btw the source you linked doesn't speak of the program you suggest in your title. You could de-editorialize the title.

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 3 years ago

The title is literally the title the Vox article has. Meanwhile, if anybody has a good idea of what the likely outcome of the war would've been, it's certainly the US military.