Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-10975360-20131208111308/@comment-4206034-20131209212145

And I see a number of issues with your statement. Russia would still have the 2 to 1 advantage in men. There is a very good reason the human wave tactic worked so well against the Germans. And the thing with the Soviet army was, they already had females fighting for them - most notably in the air force. And you see with the Russians, their full strength numbers in the war were much much higher than three million. And talking about the collaborators - the army of people they raised from the Ukraine were almost useless - and lets not forget many collaborators were in fact double agents, such as the guy in charge of the construction of the K3 pen in Lorient.

Viva, there was a reason why the British destroyed the French navy - the Vichy navy was in no shape to take on the British. Italian-controlled Med sea? It never happened Viva, the British were able to just keep going with their shipping anyway. Otherwise would the Italian navy not have been able to stop offensives like Operation Torch and the allied landing on Sicily? And Gibralter was British, meaning the opening of the Med was in British - not axis - hands. True, Rommel's supply lines may have been too long - but even if the Suez fell, the British would be able to get round Africa. The point I made before - by 1943 the Germans had lost the battle of the Atlantic due to the fact the British had cracked the enigma code and were using radar to moniter for spikes in the sea which would mean radio contact with a sub and would lead to the triangulation of its location. And even if Hitler attempted to cross the Chanel, it would be a bloodbath as the British destroyers picked off the Nazi Subs and transport ships at ease. Even with the invasion of Britain, the Germans would have been forced back - with probably loss of two divisions (I heard this on the other althist website).

The numbers of Indians, Viva, the numbers. The British would have seen that if they were isolated, they were going to need an industrial India and would have probably begun building huge industries to produce tanks and ammunition for the British effort. Plus with the troops they could mobilise, they would not only have been able to go to Africa - they would have been able to fight off the Japanese too. Even without American help, the mess they called China would still need to be fought in and completely conquered. Let's not forget that the Japanese were pushed back from Port Moseby by a small number of Australian troops.

Britain was nowhere demoralised, their fighting spirit continued strong. If they were demoralised - they would have been protests on the streets for peace and an end to the war - instead they fought on. The convoy system helped win the war of the Atlantic, with their airforce holding steadfast against the Germans. Russia had Leningrad, remember? That city did not fall to the Germans - and neither would Moscow. Even if it did fall, Stalin would still direct his troops and tractor factories would still produce the T-34 and the deadly Katyushas. Russia's industry was so large that it could just keep producing and it also had Winter on its side, which always served the Russians well. If the Germans had the tank and aircraft numbers to counter-act the Soviets - then things may have been different. In the end it was the German prodcution speeds and the foolish deployment of resources and troops which lost them the war. The British Isles would not fall under his foot, and the middle east would only fall if the British did not manage to get their act together by 1944. Otherwise, the British would have come back with vicious numbers, and single-handedly turned the tide in Russia and then perhaps North Africa. "The Man in the High Castle" is a good read stating the same fact.