It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

WW2, why an Allianced had to be made against the Axis powers.

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 01:12 AM
First of all I'm a big fan on history of old war history. I read many parts of the war. I will tell you why this happened and you can google search the battles.

The whole point of America and an alliance being made between the Communist and non-communist was a must in order to defeat the Great Nazi Empire.

The Nazi had their own plan of white race only domination through Propaganda and brain washing. They had scientists of all evil. MK Ultra was a prime example and genetic bioweapons against other races like the ticks foot and mouth disease that would've horribly gone wrong. The ticks came from Africa.

The British one of the three biggest Empire was the first to get invaded after France fell. There were strategic resources own by the Brits in North Africa. If the Brits had lost Africa there would be unlimited resources for the Germans to fight on Eastern Front.

During North African Campaign the Germans already invaded Soviet Union. The Brit had to ally Soviet Union therefore supplying Soviet to stop Germans from Expanding Eastward. US now sees Nazi Germany as a big threat beating back Soviet Union, therefore had to join the War and Open up Western Front. This has caused the Nazi to bring most of their men back from Eastern front like some of their best elite war heroes to fight on Western front. If the Soviet Union had fallen. Germany would've gotten unlimited resources from the East to invade the West and US.

Before US joined the Brits had already lost a lot of men. Only America itself has enough men power to reopen Western Front.

All Countries would've lost the war without each other. They cannot let the Germans to get enough resources to invade other countries and build up their war machines. By cutting off Nazi germany resources, the Atlantic Wall couldn't be completed. Their Bombers were grounded and their fighter planes were limited. If the Eastern Front was lost earlier the Germans would've enough manpower and resources redirected onto Western Front. If North Africa had fallen, Eastern Front would've fallen then the Western Front would've been a bigger slaughter.

Now about Japan, the Nazis had formed an Alliance with Japan to connect trade routes, so the Nazis would not have gone further much East, but gtting ready for the West. This all leads to China. The one and only country standing in the way blocking Japan. India wasn't much help due to lack of resourcs and trade routes. Japan was invading India during the war, I doubt some of you guys know that was happening. Stalin made an agreement with China to block their Eastern Front.

Japan was also very evil. They were fully brainwashed like the Nazis. If Japan had taken over China, the Soviet Union would have been smashed from the East and a lot of resources cut off. India would've fallen easily without China being in the way. Therefore a trade route will begin between the two Axis powers from the Silk Road making both Empire almost unstoppable for US alone to take on. US was the last country on their list to takeover as it wasn't part of the British Empire. Canada would've been doomed earlier due to British claim. Technically it would have been South America as US is one of the Stronger Empire in the past.

edit on 6-12-2014 by makemap because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 04:50 AM
a reply to: makemap

Very interestin post, which I enjoyed reading.

What went through my mind, was not the historical points exactly that you raised, but how different countries that allied themselves (for their own reasons as you stated) have un-allied themselves today. Its a very different world and one I find lacking in any sort of loyalty or logic.

The battle for resources has begun, but I never thought back when I was able to listen to my family who had lived through the war, fought in it and the women driven ambulances etc that we would get to a world where the governments are merely puppets of the CEO's who run giant corporations - this is the most unhealthy, undemocratic world which is a by-product of those alliances forged in WW2, but not in the way the people thought it would be.

Perhaps WW3 will not be about country's fighting each other but more about corporations being fought by the public who are increasingly sick of their policies, dictates and abuse of the public's taxes. However that would take organisation and perhaps we are not at that level yet; so perhaps it will be corporation against corporation.

Just look at the war in Syria and then ask the brits if they agreed to theoir tax money being sent to give the rebels there weapons and aid? cameron was told no to a war, so he merely directs the war funding to an army not of british soldiers, in order to get his master's bidding done. Yet no politicians really opposed him and exposed him. Disgusting people and a particularly disgusting man!

posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 09:46 AM
a reply to: makemap

Good point's but as late as the early 1930's there was a paranoia between the US and Britain during which the Canadians were drilling against a US invasion expecting the British to back them up, secretly however the British realised the US was now far too powerful for them to take on so had made a study and drawn up a contingency to hold the US in the atlantic but leave Canada to it's fate (to be incorporated forcefully into the US), Some US President's had dreamed of this and of making a unified north american continent.

Meanwhile Adolf Hitler who actually did not want war with Britain no matter how evil he was had drawn up a contingency as he fully believed that Britain and the US were going to come to blow's and that it was only a matter of time before this happened but he admired the British for there control of India and the Empire, he admired it far more than he coveted it and saw the British as a germanic people so in his plan he was going to come into such a war on the side of the British.

That War never materialized and relations between the British Empire and the US warmed, this left hitler with only his own plans and no way or making Britain his ally, Hitler was also leery of the US though so was pleased with imperial Japan's strategy which he believed would distract the US and tie up enough of there asset's to keep them from the Atlantic side conflict, he miscalculated which was something he did a lot and one reason we stopped trying to assassinate him in 1941 as had we done so that far more dangerous Heidrich would have become fuhrer in his place.

A war was brewing but between whom was the question, it was the Nazi's who made the first move.

posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 07:49 PM
Yes, the alliance with the Soviet Union was basically one of necessity. It was quite obvious that if the Germans succeeded in creating a defensive line from northern to southern Russia, say at least to Moscow or a little farther, they would have access to an extremely large amount of materiel, which would subsequently be deployed against the US and England at a later date. The Germans knew they did not have to conquer the entire Soviet Union, rather they only had to push so far, driving the defenders into the eastern part of that country, where they could not really sustain any war effort, despite the large number of troops they would still possess. Stalin started giving the "no retreat" orders partially because he did not want this to occur.

I think you are a bit mistaken in saying that the German conquest of Africa would have given them unlimited resources for fighting on the eastern front, as this is not the case. Africa never was a huge part of the overall German strategy, and I think the fact that Rommel was constantly plauged by a lack of supplies and reinforcements proves this point. Hitler would not route materiel to North Africa because he did not view it as being of the same importance of the eastern front. In my opinion North Africa was important for strategic reasons. The Meditteranean allowed access to a number of different nations, including Italy and France, and by invading Africa the US and the British forced Germany to divert resources that otherwise would have been used on the eastern front. Another reason the US hit Africa first was because its troops were green. They got kicked around by Rommel for quite a while before they became experienced. And truthfully, they would have continued to get kicked around by Rommel had he been properly supplied and supported by the Hitler and the high command. To be quite honest, the African campaigns were almost a footnote to the main theatres of the war, and there never was a lot to be gained as far as resources, at least not out in the western part of the country.

Hitler could have put more emphasis on the eastern parts of Africa, and then extending to Turkey, where he could have backdoored the Soviet oil fields, and also could have worked down to the regions around Saudi Arabia. But the oil resources out in the deserts of western Africa were not worth much, not when you had other oil producing regions that would have been easier to defend. You are sort of right in your reasons for why the US joined the war. Part of the reason was that Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor, causing the US to declare war on Japan. Then you had Germany declaring war on the US. Had Hitler not declared war on the US, it is quite likely that the US never would have declared war on Germany. Few realize this fact, and how much the war could have been altered by Germany's declaration of war on the US. We might have got involved at some point with Germany, but things would have been different for sure. The Germans were not diverting many resources to the western front, even after the landings at Normandy.

The allied forces who invaded the coast of France probably did not know how much their deception saved the day. They basically gave Patton a fake army in England, and the Germans thought this was the main invasion force, which would invade at the shortest point across the channel, at Calais. Hitler was so convinced this is where the invasion would occur, that this is where the bulk of the German forces were located. The allied forces suffered a large number of casualties, and had somewhat of a difficult time on D-Day, mainly because of Rommel's genius. So there is a good chance that the invasion would have been held off if one of two things had occured. First, if Hitler would have been more flexible and not so close-minded, and second, if Hitler would have immediately started moving forces to the invasion point. So much critical time was wasted that it became too late. Anyway, if Germany would have won in the USSR, it is unlikely that the allies could have beaten them, without the atomic bomb of course.
But the truth of the matter is that Germany should have won WWII, considering they had more chances than the allies. And the only reason for this is Hitler himself, the person who started the entire thing. There are so many mistakes that he made that I cannot get into all of them, but the main ones included his inability to realize that his armies were relatively good at mobile withdrawals and counterattacks, and that his forces were better on the move. He let them get bogged down on the eastern front. Had a person like Manstein been allowed to make all the military decisions, it was game over on the eastern front. The one time he disobeyed Hitler and retreated, he singlehandedly restabilized the eastern front. Paulus never would have been allowed to get trapped in Stalingrad either, and there would have been an entire army that would have been retained. There were just so many mistakes.

If it had to be boiled down to a single reason, why Germany lost the war, it would be that whenever Hitler was faced with a decision, he put the Nazi party before military common sense. The entire idea of never giving up the slightest bit of ground is a prime example. This was not based on military strategy or tactics, but was a product of Nazi ideology and Hitler's personal beliefs. He thought himself more intelligent than he actually was in my opinion. He could not believe that he could be wrong and his generals right. So he bungled a victory on the eastern front, he bungled a sure victory on the western front, he bunbled a victory in Africa, and he also bungled the invasion of England. Some say it never could have succeeded, but I believe they're wrong. When England started bombing German cities Hitler switched the Luftwaffe strategy of bombing RAF targets to bombing English cities, which gave the RAF enough time to regroup and rebuild. Had Hitler kept the same strategy, the RAF would have ceased to exist, allowing for a channel crossing in boats. Such a crossing is only possible with air superiority. There were even other things he bungled and that cost Germany the war. I am adamant that Germany did more to beat itself than the allies did to beat Germany in WWII. That is not to undermine the importance of what the allies accomplished, as they did a good job, but they were simply exploiting the weaknesses that never should have existed in the first place. I am grateful for Hitler's mistakes however, considering that the world would have been a worse place had he won the war.

edit on 12/6/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:03 PM

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus

I think you are a bit mistaken in saying that the German conquest of Africa would have given them unlimited resources for fighting on the eastern front, as this is not the case. Africa never was a huge part of the overall German strategy, and I think the fact that Rommel was constantly plauged by a lack of supplies and reinforcements proves this point.

See, this is where your wrong. Everything is about Hitler ain't it? Hitler that, Hitler this. Did I not say there were Mad scientists in Germany. Not everything is about Hitler.
Hitler would have changed strategy once African continent gets taken over. The main forces that were aiming for Africa were the Facist Italians. This would give Italians a resource trade route with Nazi Germany. Giving Nazi Germans a lot of resources to push Soviet Union very hard. If the Brits hadn't been there, Germany would have had more bombs for their bombers, fighter planes, etc. Also you do know the main source in Africa is mostly oil. This would mean the Germans would not have grounded their planes and they would be flying more in the war. There is a reason why Germans were flying a lot of planes at start of the war.

top topics

log in