What's rubbish?
Barbarossa started in '41. The U.S. wasn't officially in the war yet.
He already had the rest of Europe and most of North Africa.
You don't read too well.
I stated there's a debate on how much the Russians helped.
They might have won it without the second front. Maybe not.
Barbarossa started in '41. The U.S. wasn't officially in the war yet.
He already had the rest of Europe and most of North Africa.
You don't read too well.
I stated there's a debate on how much the Russians helped.
They might have won it without the second front. Maybe not.
Comments
It was the reason he didn't complete the battle of Britain, leaving the UK available to recover.
If he hadn't broken the deal with stalin then Europe would certainly have been done for, however he couldn't fight 2 'superpowers'
I only stated in the beginning that there were a number of possible outcomes if the U.S. hadn't entered the war with soldiers.
One of them was the entirety of Europe as the USSR.
Read what I typed again.
However I agree that it would have been more likely the USSR would have taken the whole of Germany and Austria as the US were instrumental in the crossing of the Rhine pace.
Also, see French, dutch and Belgium colonies...
What has this got to do with the question? What has it got to do with the US intervention bringing an end to the war, or not?
Most of the countries you've listed were not still colonies in 1940. e.g. Morocco. A French protectorate, and under the Vichy government.
In 42 many of the vichy colonies switched to the free French, joining Gabon, Guinea etc.
They Africans knew what fascism was.