Real reason the allies won the war

I started by checking my own Global 1940 map analysis document…

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26161/global-1940-2nd-edition-map-analysis/33?page=2&lang=en-GB

…and the entry for Chile says “Chile, a country with close trading ties with Germany, initially chose to remain neutral (in contrast with many South American countries which, although technically neutral, tilted slightly towards the Allied side early in the war). Chile only started to distance itself from the Axis powers in 1943, when it broke diplomatic relations with them.”

According to this page…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II

the “Declaration by United Nations”, originally signed by 26 nations in January 1942, was signed by Chile in early 1945. Chile was also one of the original 51 signatories of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, and Chile also apparently declared war on Japan in April 1945. This page…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II

…similarly notes the same declaration of war against Japan and similarly mentions none against Germany.

All in all, it sounds as if Chile was one of the countries (there were several, notably in Latin America) which spent much of WWII playing their cards close to their vest, and which only committeed themselves to the Allied bandwagon once it was clear that a) the war was nearly over and b) the Allies were going to win. Based on the other entries in my map analysis document, it looks as if, basically, the Latin American countries whose real inclination was to be pro-Axis spent the war pretending they were neutral; the Latin American countries whose real inclination was to be neutral spent the war pretending they were pro-Allied; and the Latin American / Caribbean countries whose inclination was to be pro-Allied jumped onto the Allied bandwagon right after Pearl Harbor. The reason for all of these positions (nuanced or overt) isn’t hard to guess: they were all in the western hemisphere, i.e. in the backyard of the United States, so they had to be careful about the public stance they took, even in those countries with right-wing governements and/or significantly large numbers of residents of German ancestry.

@Narvik:

….and the slaughter of Indians during 1800 was not pointless and unjust ?

The slaughter of Indians in the 1800s does not justify American intervention during WWI. Allied victory in WWI did not make the world a better place. It did not result in self-determination, the end of militarism, or any of the other idealistic principles for which Woodrow Wilson said he’d fought. Its main short-term effect was to allow France to exact a petty, unjust, cruel revenge against Germany for its victory in the Franco-Prussian War. The longer term consequence was to rob Central and Eastern Europe of its ability to resist Soviet invasion. According to former Soviet intelligence operative Suvarov, the main reason for the Spviet Union’s invasion of Poland in 1919 was the desire to continue on into Germany. Germany was weak, disarmed, and (in 1919 - '20) largely communist anyway. The German people had been partially radicalized by the famine conditions the Allies had created.

Fortunately, that particular Soviet invasion failed, due to the courage of the Polish Army, and due to the fact the Soviet Union was still in a state of civil war. But a disarmed Germany could not forever escape Soviet occupation. Germany’s only long-term hope was to elect a right wing leader–a militarist–who would match the Soviet military buildup with a strong military of his own. Unfortunately, the political circumstances the Allies created in the afermath of their victory were such that only a radical leader would throw off the unjust Versailles Treaty and seek to return Germany to a position of strength. It’s deeply unfortunate that the particular militarist Germany chose was a rabid anti-Semite and anti-Slav. Had WWI resulted in a tie or an Axis victory, Germany would presumably been able to maintain a strong military presence in the post WWI era without politically radicalizing itself. That combination (a strong German military and no radical anti-Semitism) would have yielded better long-term results than anything one could expect from the Allied victory.

Good points Garg - I didn’t think of it that way - I too often feel like I’m honoring the memory of those in the war - not just playing a game. (which might explain my total lack of interest in fantasy and sci-fi games)

I found the interview enjoyable, while my wife rolled her eyes at me at my thought of a good YouTube video.

Clyde, I agree with you, a German WWI victory prevents a lot further bloodshed.

Had Germany won in 1916, how long does the Kaiser remain in power? and the Czars? We can write of Austria-Hungry Empire, that Empire wasn’t a crumbling house, it was a tremite mound of ruins.

@Razor:

I think Stalin sabotaged the Republicans cause since he was afraid of disturbing UK, they sure did not want a commy state as neighbour. Imagine UK joining up with Germany against communism in Europe.

I think that over-zealous Comintern agents and an NKVD infiltrated PCE (the communist part of Spain) are what really caused the most damage to the Spanish Republic. The wasting of men and material on useless “prestige” offensives in places like Brunete and Teruel, the lack of initiative shown the Soviet advisors and their communist promoted officers, and the persecution of Republic supporting groups like the CNT, UGT (anarchists) and the POUMS (Spain’s Marxist/trotskiest party) did the most damage.

Also, the other single biggest enemy of the Republic and the country that did the most to help the Nationalists and hurt the Republic was the United Kingdom. Their policy of “non-intervention” and the stupid committee they set up that did absolutely nothing. Even when given proof that both Germany AND Italy were blatantly ignoring their roles in this non-intervention committee, and actively helping Franco with troops and equipment, the UK did nothing. Also Britain keep France from helping the Republic by suggesting that they would not back France against the Germans if they did. It was part of the UK’s stupid policy of appeasement that did the most damage to the Republic and thrust them into the arms of the Soviets, and all the damage that caused.

I don’t think it’s really plausible that any of the three major Axis powers would have been able to launch an invasion of mainland America large enough to actuallyhewould not have gained ground against the Americans fighting on their own turf. While the German army may have matched that of the United States, their navy was in no way ready to launch any amphibious invasion, especially one of the scale requited to attack the US. Italy… let’s just say I couldn’t see Mussolini walking into the white house.

Most likely, if the Axis were able to overhwelm all of the other allies, a cold war would develop between the US and Germany/Japan (and maybe even between the axis themselves) and all sides would race to develop defenses and nuclear weapons.

If any axis takeover of washington was to take place, it would be a result of either a revolution within the US or (less likely) an invasion by Mexico and other Central/South American countries supported by the Axis. Germany would likely send another Zimmerman letter, but this time would provide actual support. Although by this point, with the US in possession of nuclear weapons, i doubt and invasion would take place.

Is the version of All Quiet on the Western Front from 1979 film with Richard Thomas and Ernest Borgnine the version that you guys are talking about?

A year since the last post