Could the Allies have taken on the Axis,without Russia

Hitler wanted Russia- full stop.

He hated Communism with a passion and hated Stalin even more so. He hated the Russian people- he wanted to exterminate them. He saw Russia as good land to settle with his Arayan stock-hence he preferred to just roll on through there torching every single piece of biomass in his armies' path.
Hitler had no beef with with America, and was a firm admirer of Britain. He admired the meme of the "English Gentleman", the urbane city-dwellers and the sophisticated sporting hunters. He admired their Colonial achievements, which he saw as a triumph of Arayan supremacy over lesser peoples.
He wished to share the spoils of his military conquests with those of Anglo-Saxon descent. Certainly he had admirers in both Britain and the United States. Indeed Nevil Chamberlain gave him free reign- being that he was such a good sport Until it dawned on everyone that he really wasn't.

It came as quite a shock to Hitler to find himself at war with Britain. Moreover the signing of the Anti-Commonterm pact meant that now the US were at war with him too. It was all going wrong.

Barbarossa failed due to Hitler's pig-headedness. He refused to listen to his advisors and decided to press forward.
I think Russia, regardless of the allies would have triumphed none the less. There were just waaaay too many Russians. And their last minute attack against the Japaneese showed they were far from exhasusted, at least from a military standpoint.

Certainly in the final days Germany seemed to be fighting a war on all fronts and loosing ground at each stage. Russian retalliation was fierce. Stalin's resolve was stronger than Hitlers. Indeed it took a monster to fight a monster. It was America, and let's not forget Australia who helped defeat the Japaneese- were it not for Japan, the US may well have trampled Germany. And then there's the Italian dimension- bailing Mussolini out of North Africa- another drain on German resources.

As for Russia and the other Allies, they were only Allies by default, Russia was left to fight its war, Britain and the US theirs.
Indeed the way I see it USSR/West relations were no healthier during WWII as they were after it. Churchill was delighted at the prospect of Barbarossa, as it was a nice way for Nazi soldiers and Soviet soldiers to kill each other off. Arguably, had history one a different way- Hitler would have done the Allies a favour. But as it stands, cooperation between US and UK was comparitivly supurb. Whereas Stalin was never fully trusted- hell look at the pictures of the Yalta Conference - read the body language...

In all fairness Hitler would have been a more appropriate ally.
And one, it must be said, with a far-lower deathcount to his credit.

Anyways I think the US has more to do with the Allied victory than the Soviets. Without them we would now be making fun of Kaiser Charles' ears. The US certainly had the numbers and the industrial capacity to defeat the Axis in Europe. And bomb Berlin back into the stone age- to use the parlance of our times.

Without the failure of Barbarossa, however, Hitler may well have taken Britain, and the USAF wouldn't have had any foothold. I think it would have been a stalemate- Hitler would have taken a large chunk of Europe but it would be difficult for him to consolidate it- he tended to push too hard and spread his ranks too thin. Had he not invaded Russia- or held out, he would have invaded someplace else. That was his way, he thought himself invincible.

Although- another thought springs to mind, were it not for the Russian front Germany may well have completed the bomb 1st. Adding that with their advancements in rocketry and jet fighter technology. (Much of which falling into the hands of the Soviets) Who knows...

My thoughts- or did I actually answer the question?

I kinda think the same

USA really helped Russia throughout the war. They supplied them food and material and lots of military equipment. Personally I reckon without Russia the Allies would still have won simply because of the USA resources. In fact Russia probably wouldn't have survived only for the USA. But yeah it would have taken a lot longer without Russia. The war in the east basically wore down the German military strength and sucked it dry of most of its resources equipment and men.

The other point to consider is that if the war had dragged on German could have had atomic weapons and they had a lot of better technology that could have been brought to bear.

Then theres the fact that Allies were also fighting a 2nd front in the Pacfic and across asia. So if they weren't doing that and those resources were poured into europe germany wouldn't have stood a chance. Imagine raids of B29's using Naplam over Germany.

Hitler was a one track record. He only had one battle plan which was to attack all out. When that failed he didn't have a clue what to do. He actually was a very poor leader from a miltary point of view. He was directly responsible for a lot of the major defeats of the war.

So in summary I reckon yeah the allies could have done it witout Russia.

think Britain didn't so much underestimate him so much as put their energies into the wrong areas (as a naval power they had never put much stock in aerial warfare). Had Britain made more thought into their air and naval strategies instead of sticking to the modes of warfare more suited to the First World War they may have been able to bring the fight to Nazi Germany a lot more effectivly.

For example- in the air they wasted more aircraft trying to bomb high-risk areas with minimal if any degree of accuracy- they may as well be pouring their pilots out the trenches and into the waiting arms of German machine gunners.

Two things I think had more an impact on the German military machine than anything else.

1. The work in Bletchley Park (as portrayed brilliantly in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon) and the subsequent cracking of the Enigma codes gave the Allies the edge on land, in the air, and most importantly for Britain- in the sea.

2. The reknewed allied bombing strategy tag-teaming night and day raids between the USAF and the RAF. Although in retrospect many of these raids were conducted more for the sake of weakening the enemies resolve than for any strategic reason.
(And when we think of the atrocities of the Axis and Japan lets also not forget those of people like Bomber Harris) I mean, had the German cities (and towns and villages for that matter) not been pummeled into rubble by allied raids think both the Russian advance from the east, and the post-D-Day advance into the German heartland would have gone on for a lot, lot longer.

Russia was a distraction, a long and painful one for those who fought in it- none the less- Hitler took Poland and other countries which he saw as a buffer between himself and Russia. He might well have been able to hold off a Russian advance were it not for the damage inflicted on his doorstep by allied bombing.

I'm trying to figure out myself if these are opinions of my own or not- I'm not trolling- just thrashing out scenarios left right and centre to see what people say.

My net opinion is that if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia (highly unlikely) or at the very least held out, he would have invaded someplace else- possibly Britain- but even then I think the allies would have prevailed over Hitler's ever-audacious empire-building. This, however, at the expense of a lot more lives, many more years due to America's commitment to the war in the Pacific.

The YAK 3 was one of the fighters best in the war, and like the ground attack aircraft it was available in realistic numbers - unlike most of the high tech German weapons.

The YAK 3 was quite a nasty piece of work. But don't forget the Il-4 or, of course, the Tu-2.
The Russians really got their act together. They coordinated their attacks to hault supplies from reaching the German troops. Unfortunatly for them it took them a long time, and the loss of half the Eurasian continent, for them to do so.

The T-34 was made very crudely. When shells bounced off it often the interior of the armour was so brittle it showered the crew with shrapnel. Even though the armour wasn't actually pierced. The US and German tanks didn't suffer from this

Then again I doubt Stalin cared.
Being "The Man of Steel" he would no doubt have seen it as somehow symbolic.

The Allied strategy (the British more so), the only option they had basically, was to throw a group of tanks at one Tiger and hope that just one might make it out alive. Stalin's was to throw a hundred. They certainly didn't have the range, or the armour, but it was numbers, sheer numbers, that prevailed.

In all fairness it's gonna be impossible to fight a war of attrition against Russia. Yes, you can argue that German tanks were superior. But given the sheer number of Russians, and the sheer number of Russian tanks, compared with weary, starving Germans with little fuel for their tanks, or frozen fuel tanks, or jamming mechanics, or having to be mechanically adapted to the muddy and/or snowy terrain - then along come an armada of T-34's well...

Schieze!

I took "allies" to include the US. I don't think britain had a chance on their own.