NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that it is interesting that in ww2 Pearl Harbor became a symbol of surprise attack. When you look at Barbarossa Pearl Harbor pales in comparison. Roughly 4 million axis troops poured over the borders of the Soviet Union without warning. Well, the Soviets were as prepared as the Americans(both had seen clear indications yet ignored them). I have heard that at first the STAVKA(USSR supreme command) refused to believe that an invasion had occured. Stalin had believed that the posting of German units along the border were just a provocation.

The airstrikes and assaults of the Wehrmacht were devestating. Pearl Harbor resulted in about 3,000 deaths and loss of much material. The first few weeks of Barbarossa left millions of dead and captured Russians.

Why is Pearl Harbor living on as the greatest sneak attack in history? Apart from the fact that it was the US it attacked.

Why is Pearl Harbor living on as the greatest sneak attack in history? Apart from the fact that it was the US it attacked.
Um, I think that really is the only reason.

Because Ben Affleck is dreeeamy.

Because Ben Affleck is dreeeamy.

Well, he is when he shuts up and takes it like the bitch he is!

Um, I think that really is the only reason.

To Americans.

Well, he is when he shuts up and takes it like the bitch he is!
Oooh...I missed that movie...what's it called? I'd like to see that...

I agree with Sinuhue.

Op. Barbarossa was between the Russians and Germans, as neither were dominant upon the media stage after the war, it wasn't prevalent.

Well, he is when he shuts up and takes it like the bitch he is!

:D

Oooh...I missed that movie...what's it called? I'd like to see that...

Well that's what he was doing in my head when I watched that movie about the people in the mall. He didn't?

To Americans.
Well yes, I thought that was obvious...that it is the biggest sneak attack in the world to Americans...but now that you mention it, I guess it isn't obvious. You see, in Canada, we don't think much about it:), nor do we try to define world history by what has happened just to us.

Well, he is when he shuts up and takes it like the bitch he is!
It's implied that he's prison raped at the end of the movie Mallrats.

Well that's what he was doing in my head when I watched that movie about the people in the mall.
I think that's the one movie where his true personality came out...

Despite allegations to the contrary, Pearl Harbor was not a surprise attack. The only people that didnt know it was coming were the men stationed there at the time. For years prior the US government had been taking note of Japanese plans to expand into Micronesia since they needed the natural resources there.

The Japanese knew our generals wouldn't stand for that. I suppose if you want to nitpick I'll concede that it is possible that we didn't know when exactly the attack was coming, but we definately knew there was a mounting threat.

FDR was a son of a bitch.

It's implied that he's prison raped at the end of the movie Mallrats.

I knew that it was not just my lurid imagination!

Well yes, I thought that was obvious...that it is the biggest sneak attack in the world to Americans...but now that you mention it, I guess it isn't obvious. You see, in Canada, we don't think much about it:), nor do we try to define world history by what has happened just to us.

You Canadians and your humble sanity.

It is a personal thing to many USians, yes. It is held up by many USians as an example of wrongdoing and being caught with your pants down, yes.
The eastern front is generally neglected by a lot of people, it is not near to home to it is not thought of. Thus the whole, D-day turning point of the war crap. Pearl gets the same kind of boosting.

The Germans were very good at the sneak attacks - Poland and France. The belated Russian response could be blamed upon poor communication, and the fact that Stalin thought he was headed for the Gulag for a period of a few days.

The fact that the Russians had not idea was on Hitler's part though.

Because Ben Affleck is dreeeamy.

kate beckinsale was hot in the movie... :D

Despite allegations to the contrary, Pearl Harbor was not a surprise attack. The only people that didnt know it was coming were the men stationed there at the time. For years prior the US government had been taking note of Japanese plans to expand into Micronesia since they needed the natural resources there.

The Japanese knew our generals wouldn't stand for that. I suppose if you want to nitpick I'll concede that it is possible that we didn't know when exactly the attack was coming, but we definately knew there was a mounting threat.

FDR was a son of a bitch.

Yep, 100% correct. Especially the FDR thingy.

You Canadians and your humble sanity.
"sanity" won't keep the CIA mind control satelites from beaming messages into your head. Only tinfoil does that.

Yep, 100% correct. Especially the FDR thingy.

Hell yes. I like your compass score btw :D

"sanity" won't keep the CIA mind control satelites from beaming messages into your head. Only tinfoil does that.

Hah, shows what you know! AluminIUm foil is where it's at!

The Germans were very good at the sneak attacks - Poland and France. The belated Russian response could be blamed upon poor communication, and the fact that Stalin thought he was headed for the Gulag for a period of a few days.

The fact that the Russians had not idea was on Hitler's part though.

But the Soviets did know the Germans were coming. They had massed units on the borders on alert when the Germans attacked. That was part of the problem for the Soviets because the Germans punched holes through the line and encircled masses of Soviet troops.
The Poles knew the Germans were coming also, they had alerted their units and put them on the border in defensive positions before the attack. It didn't help much.
Sure the Soviets and Poles didn't know the exact moment of attack but that doesn&t make it a sneak attack.

Hell yes. I like your compass score btw :D

Its so moderate though, so so moderate. . .at least I think so.

But the Soviets did know the Germans were coming. They had massed units on the borders on alert when the Germans attacked. That was part of the problem for the Soviets because the Germans punched holes through the line and encircled masses of Soviet troops.
The Poles knew the Germans were coming also, they had alerted their units and put them on the border in defensive positions before the attack. It didn't help much.
Sure the Soviets and Poles didn't know the exact moment of attack but that doesn&t make it a sneak attack.

It would seem so, but the Soviet border masses was most likely more just a show of strength. Like I said, Stalin ignored any intelligence sources claiming that an invasion was imminent. The Soviets expected a war with Germany no earlier than 1944, then the Soviet Union would have a modern and better equipped army.

I would love to know how much FDR and American commanders knew of the Japanese plans. It is obvious that they should have expected something after ordering an embargo, which according to Kellogg back when the Briand-Kellogg pact was signed claimed would be an act of war. Thus FDR should really have been on his toes.

The USSR had relatively good relations with Germany before the invasion. Molotov is quoted as saying "What have we done to deserve this?" when the invasion was confirmed. Stalin knew that a war was coming, but it happened too soon. The Yanks must have realised that a war was coming, even if it would take another year or two.

What makes Pearl Harbor so important not only to the US but to the world is that that attack was what propelled the US into war. Now FDR may have been looking for a reason to do it, but this is it. This got the American citizen rilled up and ready for war. W/out the Americans Germany and Japan may have won their campains, or if not, caused even more damage. America was a critical piece in the defeat of the Axis. Russia, while important, didnt have a large impact on the Japanese or Italy.

What makes Pearl Harbor so important not only to the US but to the world is that that attack was what propelled the US into war. Now FDR may have been looking for a reason to do it, but this is it. This got the American citizen rilled up and ready for war. W/out the Americans Germany and Japan may have won their campains, or if not, caused even more damage. America was a critical piece in the defeat of the Axis. Russia, while important, didnt have a large impact on the Japanese or Italy.

While the rest of Europe was going through a second world war, the U.S. was building up its forces and waiting for the right moment to step in and tip the scale. The reason why they waited was because the more damage incurred by the French, the British, and the Russians, the more of a super power they would be when the war was over.

Re: Pearl Harbour: The Japanese made a big mistake by revealing they were in striking range and should not have attacked without having the ability to occupy Hawaii. This attack, however, shattered the belief that the U.S. was untouchable. It is this, more so than the fact that it was a surprise attack, that Americans resent.

this is a no-brainer

as has been alluded to

lots of movies about pearl harbor

no movies about Barbarossa

and are you SURE the russians didnt see them coming? 4million guys are tough to hide

What makes Pearl Harbor so important not only to the US but to the world is that that attack was what propelled the US into war. Now FDR may have been looking for a reason to do it, but this is it. This got the American citizen rilled up and ready for war. W/out the Americans Germany and Japan may have won their campains, or if not, caused even more damage. America was a critical piece in the defeat of the Axis. Russia, while important, didnt have a large impact on the Japanese or Italy.

They may not have had a big impact on Italy or Japan, but they sure as hell had a major impact on Germany. I think that America is given too much credit in both world wars, especially in WWI, but that's besides the point. The point is that even in Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, the Russians would still have gotten to Berlin, they would still have beaten the Third Reich. Operation Barbarosa (sp?) was a much greater attack than Pearl Harbor was, and the Russian influence on the war was much greater than the American influence. I don't know what each side knew about the threats of an attack, so I'm not going to adress that. What I will adress though, is that even in Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, the Allies would still have won the war. Wait, let me rephrase that, the Soviet Union would have won the war, because after they defeated Germany, they would have surely have pushed into Western and Southern Europe, and then turn their attention to Japan (who they had a standing non-agression pact with), would roll through a battered China. So while America gets too much credit for their involvment in WWII, they play their major role in the Post-WWII World.

I agree with you that America didnt have a big impact in WWI thats a fact, but to claim that the Soviets WOULD have won is something that no one knows. Patton had a huge impact on Germany, if it wasnt for him Rommel would have probably taken Africa and then gone to fight on the eastern front killing the soviets needed to take back Stalingrad.

It's a more compelling image to see battleships sinking than a lot of angry Germans (it's lost its novelty after the first 583346238920 times.)

Ok, Pearl Harbuor was a surprise attack because the attack there at that time and without a decleration of war was not expected, if it was something would have been done.
Yes the Japanese were aggressive but at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbour the Japanese were engaging in peace talks with the U.S. Barbarossa was not a surprise attack, the Russians knew there was a build up and saw the massed tanks, Stalin chose to ignore it.

To Americans.
i have to laugh at the fact that americans make a big deal out of the pacific campain concidering they were trained here in australia, all were trained in the form of combat by australian regulars, and the fact that australia generally carried their ass

While the rest of Europe was going through a second world war, the U.S. was building up its forces and waiting for the right moment to step in and tip the scale. The reason why they waited was because the more damage incurred by the French, the British, and the Russians, the more of a super power they would be when the war was over.

Re: Pearl Harbour: The Japanese made a big mistake by revealing they were in striking range and should not have attacked without having the ability to occupy Hawaii. This attack, however, shattered the belief that the U.S. was untouchable. It is this, more so than the fact that it was a surprise attack, that Americans resent.

Wait a second...

First of all, the U.S. had no significant increases in arms production for it's own use until after Pearl Harbor. They were producing, yes, but most of what was being produced was already being sent to England and Russia, so to say that the U.S. was building up it's forces is completely false.

Also...WHAT damage did the British, French or Russians incur against either Germany or Japan by January 1942? Aside from a few relatively inconsequential victories for the British in Africa and successful raids against the Italian Navy, and the fact that the German offensive into Russia was beginning to stall due to the winter, there had been NO significant military defeats or losses for the Axis powers before the U.S. entered the war, so to say that the U.S. waited for more damage to be incured to make it easier to "become a superpower" is also completely false.

You are correct that Japan should not have tipped it's hand without occupying Hawaii, however, it would not have been overly difficult for Japan to have launched such an operation in December of 1941. They would later invade and successfully occupy the Phillipines. The damage to the air power in Hawaii as a result of the attack ensured that any invasion would have had only to deal with minimal ground based resistance.

They may not have had a big impact on Italy or Japan, but they sure as hell had a major impact on Germany. I think that America is given too much credit in both world wars, especially in WWI, but that's besides the point....*snip*...What I will adress though, is that even in Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, the Allies would still have won the war. Wait, let me rephrase that, the Soviet Union would have won the war, because after they defeated Germany, they would have surely have pushed into Western and Southern Europe, and then turn their attention to Japan.

I agree...the U.S had very little influence in WWI

But to say that the Allies would have won the war without the U.S. is downright comical in it's inaccuracy.

Without the second fronts opened in Africa and France, Germany would have been easily able to isolate England and turn it's full attention and all of it's resources on Russia. Was the outcome certain? Hardly...but without the Germans having to deal with a two-front war, the situation would have been extremely grim for the Soviet Union.

Also, you say that after defeating Germany, the USSR would have turned on Japan? But without the U.S....who has been fighting Japan? Essentially nobody British and Indians in SE Asia, Australians in New Guinea, but nobody capable of mounting counter-offensive operations. So instead of the battered enemy you saw in 1945, you would have had a super-empire composed of nearly the entire eastern pacific...Australia, possibly India...

Conceeding that the Soviet Union somehow beat Germany (unlikely), would they have been in any position in terms of military strength to then immedeatly turn on Japan? The answer is a resounding...no

You say America gets too much credit for it's involvment in WWII....but you fail to look at the facts of the situation, and what was most likely to happen had America not entered the war...

...it is quite possible that America doesn't get enough credit for it's involvement in WWII

EDIT

i have to laugh at the fact that americans make a big deal out of the pacific campain concidering they were trained here in australia, all were trained in the form of combat by australian regulars, and the fact that australia generally carried their ass

"Carried their ass?"

Would you care to provide me some figures showing how many Australians were at Guadacanal? Midway? Iwo Jima? Lete Gulf and the Phillipines? Okinawa?

Trained? Yes...because Australian regulars had experience in Jungle Warfare the the U.S. troops did not. But carried? Please. :rolleyes:

"Carried their ass?"

Would you care to provide me some figures showing how many Australians were at Guadacanal? Midway? Iwo Jima? Lete Gulf and the Phillipines? Okinawa?

Trained? Yes...because Australian regulars had experience in Jungle Warfare the the U.S. troops did not. But carried? Please. :rolleyes:
the only reason there were so many US troops is because they kept on getting themselves killed. the top US marines couldnt keep up with Australian regulars in training, so how the hell are they going to fight a war when they keep on getting killed?

the only reason there were so many US troops is because they kept on getting themselves killed. the top US marines couldnt keep up with Australian regulars in training, so how the hell are they going to fight a war when they keep on getting killed?

Go run Google search on "World War Two Casualties"

The sites you find list U.S. military casualties as being between 275,000 and 300,000. They list Japan's miltary casualties as being between 1.5 and 1.75 million

Let's even pretend that all U.S. casualties were in the Pacific, and lets also pretend that enough military personel were killed by Britain, Australia, India and China that the U.S. was only responsible for one million of the Japanese military casualties.

A kill ratio of more than 3 to 1 in that era is a truly monumental figure, especially considering the fanatical defense of the Japanese and the manner in which the Pacific war was fought.

Considering the kill ratio was actually closer to about 4 or even 4.5 to 1...well, it's not just monumental, it's astounding.

Go run Google search on "World War Two Casualties"

The sites you find list U.S. military casualties as being between 275,000 and 300,000. They list Japan's miltary casualties as being between 1.5 and 1.75 million

Let's even pretend that all U.S. casualties were in the Pacific, and lets also pretend that enough military personel were killed by Britain, Australia, India and China that the U.S. was only responsible for one million of the Japanese military casualties.

A kill ratio of more than 3 to 1 in that era is a truly monumental figure, especially considering the fanatical defense of the Japanese and the manner in which the Pacific war was fought.

Considering the kill ratio was actually closer to about 4 or even 4.5 to 1...well, it's not just monumental, it's astounding.
i like your pretending.... reality though, the only thing that it proves is that australians were more efficient at killing and staying alive. by the way, are you one of these people that belive america saved europe's ass in world war I as well?

I agree with you that America didnt have a big impact in WWI thats a fact, but to claim that the Soviets WOULD have won is something that no one knows. Patton had a huge impact on Germany, if it wasnt for him Rommel would have probably taken Africa and then gone to fight on the eastern front killing the soviets needed to take back Stalingrad.

...
You do realise that Patton shown up after El Alamein, and when Rommel had virtually nothing left? Here's a source (http://www.ez-zone.co.uk/ww2desert/montgomery.htm) in case you find it hard to believe me. Admittedly it starts off with Montgomery's early life, but dodge the first few paragraphs and it details significant events of the African war. You'll notice that by the time Patton shown up, Rommel had 20 tanks left in all of Africa, and half of his 100,000 man army was dead, too wounded to fight, or a prisoner. Now tell me where Rommel would have drastically turned this around, with no prospect of reinforcements, please? (You might wish to bear in mind that Britain had somewhere in the region of 500 combat-worthy tanks remaining, 350, according to the source, awaiting repair.

i like your pretending.... reality though, the only thing that it proves is that australians were more efficient at killing and staying alive. by the way, are you one of these people that belive america saved europe's ass in world war I as well?

So what your saying is that, had they the ability, and an equal number of forces, Australia's casualties fighting Japan would have been less than the U.S's?

Australia lost about 30,000 soldiers...the vast majority in New Guinea and points thereabout. Are you telling me that they killed over 120,000 Japanese soldiers??

Not only are you overestimating the fighting spirit and ability of the Australian armed forces, but you are underestimating the spirit and ability of both the Americans and the Japanese.

As for the whole WWI thing...why don't you read my first post in this thread. :rolleyes:

Here's my two cents. You're comparing one battle (Pearl Harbor) with an entire operation (Barbarossa). Pearl Harbor lasted a day, while Barbarossa lasted, what, several years?

To me, a sneak attack is something that is sneaky (duh), but also has implications of something happening very quickly.

The two defining characteristics of Pearl Harbor were that it was unexpected and that it happened hard and fast-like a man stabbing another in the back.

Operation Barbarossa was more like an extended wrestling match than a backstab. Did it start out as a "surprise" attack? Yes, however, it quickly became more than a simple "surprise attack". When histrorians talk about it, they talk about the immense amount of life lost, the overall implications it had to the war, etc. The fact that it started out as a surprise is usually mentioned offhandedly. Why? Because in comparison to the other aspects of the operation, the fact that it started in surprise isn't all that terribly important.

So that's my theory. Pearly Harbor is the WWII "sneak attack" everyone talks about because it's main characteristic was that it was, in fact, a sneak attack. The main characteristic of Barbarossa was that it was a long, bloody, drawn out conflict that costs millions of lives. In some ways, this is the exact opposite of a "sneak attack".

In response to the thread starter's post I would say:

Perl Harbour happened in English, it was reported in English and we all speak English.

Perl Harbour was an attack on America, which is still a superpower.

They were communist, which did not suit the west's propaganda purposes unlike Pearl Harbour.

the only reason there were so many US troops is because they kept on getting themselves killed. the top US marines couldnt keep up with Australian regulars in training, so how the hell are they going to fight a war when they keep on getting killed?

Wow. You might as well buy yourself a plane ticket to DC, take a trip to Arlington National Cemetary and spit on the grave of every American WWII vet that's buried there.

*Shrugs*

When I think of the greatest sneak attack, I think of the Trojan Horse ..

*I'll show myself out*

*Shrugs*

When I think of the greatest sneak attack, I think of the Trojan Horse ..

*I'll show myself out*

We have a winner!!!

:)

We have a winner!!!

:)

w00t, I won! I won!

While reading this thread I had a distinct feeling it would end up, discussing who won what and who shot who in the what now. For some reason these topics are rarely about the topic: being the sneak attack comparision between Barbarossa and Pearl.

The reason why Pearl is considered THE sneak attack of WW2 is because the IJN managed to take a fleet of six carriers and a lot of auxiliary ships and without being discovered brought to the doorstep of the US: the Hawaian islands. A cruise of almost 2000 miles! (educated guess: could be less or more). It's discusable whether the US intelligence and higher echelons knew the strike on Pearl was happening (they cracked the Japanese code for some months or years and the Japanese embassy had received orders 'to terminate diplomatic relations with the US, a USN destroyer on patrol discovered the fleet some miles before the fleet was in striking range, Japanese subs were sunk before the bay of Pearl, etc... etc...). Or whether the USN really had taken a blow. Fact is some (elderly) battleships and cruisers were sunk and damaged while Japanese losses were below minimal. German losses would've been a bit higher the first hours of Barbarossa.

Somewhere I've read that Barbarossa lasted several years:not true. Barbarossa started when German forces poured across the border and ended after the succesful Russian counter-attack at Moscow. The goals were Kiev, Leningrad and Moscow. In the summer '42 it was the Kaukasus and later on Stalingrad (it was never meant as the most important goal, however it had a very strategic importance: it had to be taken to protect the flanks of the German advance).

"...it is quite possible that America doesn't get enough credit for it's involvement in WWII"

Most people give America a lot of the credit for winning WWII, unless they're Churchill fanatic BNP wankers, in which case ignore them anyway!

I think the oddest thing about Pearl Harbour was that people in America got very up in arms and worried about their own personal safety, when Hawaii was about a quarter of the way around the world from them! It's more of a colonial outpost, certainly not falling within the natural territorial boundaries.

The only explanation really must have been that they were looking for an excuse to join the war. Much like Britain in the first world war: joining to help poor little Belgium because they'd made a treaty many years ago? Balls. That could have been easily overlooked. Nations do basically whatever they like, act first, and find the justification later.

Wait a second...


Also...WHAT damage did the British, French or Russians incur against either Germany or Japan by January 1942? Aside from a few relatively inconsequential victories for the British in Africa and successful raids against the Italian Navy, and the fact that the German offensive into Russia was beginning to stall due to the winter, there had been NO significant military defeats or losses for the Axis powers before the U.S. entered the war, so to say that the U.S. waited for more damage to be incured to make it easier to "become a superpower" is also completely false.


THAT is not what was implied. Read the posting again... the US government didn't want the Axis to suffer losses. It wanted the European colonial powers to disappear and replace them on the global stage, and it accomplished that quite nicely.

THAT is naive. Read the posting again... the US government didn't want the Axis to suffer losses. It wanted the European colonial powers to disappear and replace them on the global stage, and it accomplished that quite nicely. How can people be so naive...

If that's the case, then why were we sending the largest colonial power in the world (England), and an idealogical enemy (USSR) weapons?? :rolleyes:

If that's the case, then why were we sending the largest colonial power in the world (England), and an idealogical enemy (USSR) weapons?? :rolleyes:

Shades of grey... :) The US didn't start the war. However, it saw the opportunity when it presented itself. There are some extremely clever people in the United States... becoming the savior of the free world was of great help in consolidating political and economical hegemony. I am not berating you or your leaders for it; History is full of such examples and the US isn't the first country to do this. I am neither English nor American, but have lived in both countries, and it never ceases to annoy me how so many people accept the truths handed down to them without further thought. I have met American military officers that believed that the reason for the Gulf War (the first one) was purely to free the Kuwaitis.... :eek:

In the same way, there are many reasons why the United States entered WWII. They are not only economical, but neither are they purely altruistic.

It would seem so, but the Soviet border masses was most likely more just a show of strength. Like I said, Stalin ignored any intelligence sources claiming that an invasion was imminent. The Soviets expected a war with Germany no earlier than 1944, then the Soviet Union would have a modern and better equipped army.

I would love to know how much FDR and American commanders knew of the Japanese plans. It is obvious that they should have expected something after ordering an embargo, which according to Kellogg back when the Briand-Kellogg pact was signed claimed would be an act of war. Thus FDR should really have been on his toes.

The USSR had relatively good relations with Germany before the invasion. Molotov is quoted as saying "What have we done to deserve this?" when the invasion was confirmed. Stalin knew that a war was coming, but it happened too soon. The Yanks must have realised that a war was coming, even if it would take another year or two.

Why would you have a show of strength in the face of your good friends? They were "friends" who hated each other and were planning war as quickly as possible against each other. The Soviets were building railheads right up to the border. I just don't think the attack was much of a surprise to them. Beetles make juice if you squeeze them.

...there are many reasons why the United States entered WWII. They are not only economical, but neither are they purely altruistic.

Very true. Good post.

Also, thanks for the edit above. It's not naive to respond to someone elses statement that the U.S. waited to enter the war so that the Allies would inflict more Axis casualties with the fact that the Allies were hardly causing any Axis casualties. As you stated, the U.S., while provoked by Japan, was waiting for the "opportune moment"

Obviously we wanted Axis casualties, otherwise why were we sending the Allies weapons? :p

As to how WWII would have gone without Pearl Harbour... well, apart from the fact that Japan would have declared war anyway sooner or later, let's focus on the European front with no US involvement.

The stalemate over Britain could probably have gone on a long time. Sealion was never going to work, so pretty much all the Reich could do was bomb us. The fact is, we were on home territory, and it would have taken them a /long/ time to bring us down. The rest of Europe? Well, they already /had/ it. Europe lost WWII, utterly. Then the UK and US went in and started what was really a completely new war. Okay, so there would probably have been uprisings in France at some point, but really, Germany could leave Europe mostly to its own devices.

So, the Lufwaffe is still pounding Europe. The Navy is still disrupting supply lines across the Atlantic. Some of the army is focussed on keeping Europe pinned down, but the vast majority can attack the USSR. I'm not too familiar with Barbarossa, but I gather the German assult was defeated before the US/UK pitched in in the west? If so, then it seems likely that Russia, with a massive, if untrained, population, could concievably have taken out Germany all by itself. It would have taken a bit longer, and a few more millions of men, but they would have done it. Especially if the UK sent her troops around to join them, train them, and improve them. So the Soviets could reach Berlin, a few years late. Then what?

Well, seeing as Europe would still be occupied, they'd probably have to keep pushing. At a guess, some of Hitler's government -- or possibly Hitler himself -- would remove to Paris. So Russia keeps pushing, a few more years drop away, but eventually the whole of Europe is united under the Hammer and Sickle. The Europeans, freed from the oppressive regime of the far Right, would welcome the Left with open arms. Britain would probably start to swing that way too.

And thus the war ends, with Eurasia almost solidly Red. Imagine how the Cold War would turn out /this/ time 'round...

The reason why they waited was because the more damage incurred by the French, the British, and the Russians, the more of a super power they would be when the war was over.


I think he meant damage suffered by these countries, otherwise the statement does not make sense. :)

I think he meant damage suffered by these countries, otherwise the statement does not make sense. :)

lol...It still doesn't make sense, because if we wanted them to suffer damage, why were we sending them weapons?? :)

There are a number of issues in this thread:

to start... Patton was a lunitic and cost massive allied casualties for his own personal glory in north africa, sicily, and in southern france. He was a loose cannon.
American involvent in the war was nessesary and very much appreciated, but i believe that the war in europe would still have been won without the american military in europe. they entered at the opportune moment when the war was already turning in favour of the allies, after El Aliemein, after Britain shook off the nazi invasion, during a successful strategic air and commando campaign. Without the US army, Churchill and Montgomery (both heavy combat Vets of WW1) would have been in command of the military forces in europe which would involve many commonwealth troops that the americans consistantly left in england, not Eisenhower and Bradley (both who never fired a weapon in combat before WW2). German Generals after the war had said that if they made Montgomery SAC in europe, the war would have been over in 1944, but it was the american political agenda that held the allies back.
concerning the publicity of pearl harbour, it was based on the post war atmosphere. the Soviets were the enemy in the cold war, and as such the us media would not publicise their sacrifice and victories.

There are a number of issues in this thread:

to start... Patton was a lunitic and cost massive allied casualties for his own personal glory in north africa, sicily, and in southern france. He was a loose cannon.
American involvent in the war was nessesary and very much appreciated, but i believe that the war in europe would still have been won without the american military in europe. they entered at the opportune moment when the war was already turning in favour of the allies, after El Aliemein, after Britain shook off the nazi invasion, during a successful strategic air and commando campaign. Without the US army, Churchill and Montgomery (both heavy combat Vets of WW1) would have been in command of the military forces in europe which would involve many commonwealth troops that the americans consistantly left in england, not Eisenhower and Bradley (both who never fired a weapon in combat before WW2). German Generals after the war had said that if they made Montgomery SAC in europe, the war would have been over in 1944, but it was the american political agenda that held the allies back.
concerning the publicity of pearl harbour, it was based on the post war atmosphere. the Soviets were the enemy in the cold war, and as such the us media would not publicise their sacrifice and victories.

heh heh, Montgomery? The German high command had little respect for him. They thought him far too cautious. Patton, on the other hand, was recognized by the Germans as having truely learned the lessons they had taught early in the war about manuever warfare. They respected him and were surprised he was not used more often. Patton drove hard and won, Montgomery did a pretty good job but . . .MarketGarden...nuff said.
Without US involvement the Soviets would have fought the Germans back to somewhere in Poland, the Brits would have made a seperate peace with the Nazis and We would have a heavily entrenched fascist Europe today.

Patton may have been a lunatic who didn't care for the lives of his men yet he was the one who stabilised the US army in Africa after the battle of Kasserine Pass. In France he was ordered to conquer Bretagne yet he knew it wouldn't matter and pushed on eastward: the Falaise pocket was for the greater part his creation. If Patton didn't managed to turn his army so quickily Bastogne could have fallen (it wouldn't matter yet the 101st would've been destroyed).

It is true that he was anti-communist, authoritarian bastard lunatic yet to become a succesful general one has to be eccentrique. Don't get me wrong: with another general the war would've been won yet not so quickly.

Wait ..... this thread turned serious?

Um, I think that really is the only reason.
yeah!
Damn you River Bug(I think thats the one) flooding damn you to hell! :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

While the rest of Europe was going through a second world war, the U.S. was building up its forces and waiting for the right moment to step in and tip the scale. The reason why they waited was because the more damage incurred by the French, the British, and the Russians, the more of a super power they would be when the war was over.


What a typical, yet cock-eyed statement.

Without US involvement the Soviets would have fought the Germans back to somewhere in Poland, the Brits would have made a seperate peace with the Nazis and We would have a heavily entrenched fascist Europe today.
Can i have some of what your smoking?
Without Americas ability to produce the equipment for 2000 Divisions Germany would have romped home!

I hope you arent underestimating the lend lease programmes ability to keep Russia going.
Mind you early on that damn pocket of Russian Resistance slowed the follow up Divisions for some 3+ weeks.

Churchill would never make a deal with Hitler!
Britain and Germany maybe.

Also for everyone Germany declared war on America!
America might not have actually gotten involved in Europe otherwise. :)

:( Can i have some of what your smoking?
Without Americas ability to produce the equipment for 2000 Divisions Germany would have romped home!

I hope you arent underestimating the lend lease programmes ability to keep Russia going.
Mind you early on that damn pocket of Russian Resistance slowed the follow up Divisions for some 3+ weeks.

Churchill would never make a deal with Hitler!
Britain and Germany maybe.

Also for everyone Germany declared war on America!
America might not have actually gotten involved in Europe otherwise. :)

You point about Soviet pocket resistance. . .I do not understand.
Your point about Churchill and then Britain and Germany making peace. . .I don't understand.
Your last point. . .I don't understand the relevance.
None of that is meant as an insult, I just really don't understand it after reading it a few times.

smoking nothing, unfortunately.

Focusing on the ETO lets look at why the USSR was able to push through German lines. It was because of the US, we posed enough of a threat to Germany that they started pulling forces from their eastern front and putting them in Belgium for their final offensive, the US held (or at least the 101st did) until Patton showed up and sent the Nazis home crying.

Which is also partial to why the US was able to push through so fast after D-day. The nazis had its troops securing the line. Which meant less on there western line.

The Nazis weren't very good strategists, they always kept a mass of forces in the middle, with one flank strong and the other exposed.

I think the reason it is held in high esteem is that it brought the US into the war....i beleive that is the only reason, we had no qualms with hitler at the time, FDR wanted to sit on his hands and do nothing about it, he didn;t care, he was selling things to both sides.....and his wife was a communist...but don;t get me started on that one.

The Nazis weren't very good strategists, they always kept a mass of forces in the middle, with one flank strong and the other exposed.

That statement, while brief, is probably the most accurate description of Germany's strategic inefficiency during the war.

Of course, they should never have started a two front war to begin with.

And let's not forget there were still Nazi forces fighting the Allies in Italy until very late in the war.

Listen up. To those decended from the Alies. We were all on the same side. Stop bickering about who did the most in the war. Everyone did their bit and did a damn fine job doing it. Let us not sully the good name of the generation of Americans, Canadians, Brits, Aussies, etc that fought and died to win that war. Once, we were united in a common cause. Pray that we will unite again.

As to the topic, Pearl Harbor was not the greatest sneak attack in history. There are far better examples of that. It was the first use of Sea-based airpower on a large scale against a major port. That is it's signifigance. It also brought the US into the war. In the long run, it turned out that we were just the last peice of a puzzle that brought down Hitler and Hirihito.(sp?)

:(

You point about Soviet pocket resistance. . .I do not understand.
Your point about Churchill and then Britain and Germany making peace. . .I don't understand.
Your last point. . .I don't understand the relevance.
None of that is meant as an insult, I just really don't understand it after reading it a few times.

smoking nothing, unfortunately.
Well After Guderian made his excellent thrust he continud to move Eastwards as is the custom with the Blitzkrieg.
The follow up units obviously not all Armour or mobile where lrft to swallow a massive Russian force.
The Russians refused to surrender even though they were done and dusted which slowed the follow up units advance by 3+ weeks.

Hitler offered peace to Churchill in 1940
Churchill's reply went along the lines of "I wont have any dealings with this man."

Churchill and Hitler could never come to peaceful terms.
Britain may have been prepared but under Churchill ot couldnt happen.
Hitler if he had been taken out of the equation then peace could have been arranged leaving Germany to deal to Russia.

Simple enough?

The last point had nothing against you it was just some facts that seem to be omitted most of the time! :)

What a typical, yet cock-eyed statement.

Do you want to explain? Can you?

lol...It still doesn't make sense, because if we wanted them to suffer damage, why were we sending them weapons?? :)

So they could inflict damage on Germany and Italy.

Listen up. To those decended from the Alies. We were all on the same side. Stop bickering about who did the most in the war. Everyone did their bit and did a damn fine job doing it. Let us not sully the good name of the generation of Americans, Canadians, Brits, Aussies, etc that fought and died to win that war. Once, we were united in a common cause. Pray that we will unite again.

As to the topic, Pearl Harbor was not the greatest sneak attack in history. There are far better examples of that. It was the first use of Sea-based airpower on a large scale against a major port. That is it's signifigance. It also brought the US into the war. In the long run, it turned out that we were just the last peice of a puzzle that brought down Hitler and Hirihito.(sp?)

Excellent post! :)

But I would say the principle significance of Pearl Harbor was the end of the "bigger is better" battleship doctrine that had dominated naval warfare since the first use of a cannon on a ship.

EDIT

So they could inflict damage on Germany and Italy

Germany, maybe...but Italy? Come on now. :p

"Germany, maybe...but Italy? Come on now." - Delator

Does this mean you don't think the U.S. sent weapons to Europe to be used by allied forces in Italian campaigns? Or does this mean you don't grasp the concept of divide and conquer? Or does this mean that you are unfamiliar with the fact that the U.S. had demonstrated an imperialistic agenda prior to WW2? Or does this mean that you don't understand that this agenda would have come into conflict with the French and the British had they been able to defend their colonies? ie. South East Asia/ Middle East

For once, neither the attack on France nore the attack on Russia were sneak attacks. France and Germany were already at war and the French were just too arrogant to realize that the Germans wouldn't give a shit about their oh-so-great Maginot Line and that they wouldn't care about the neutrality of Belgium and the Netherlands (something they should have known all the way. Did they really believe that Hitler would care about Belgium and the Netherlands after he occupied Austria and Czechoslovakia and attacked Poland? If yes, then they're more stupid than I thought). A stand-off between the Soviets and the Nazis would have happened sooner or later anyway, after all, those two ideologies were enemies. If Hitler wouldn't have attacked the USSR, Stalin would have sooner or later attacked Nazi Germany, it was just a question of time.

As for Pearl. Well, the US can't say they were surprised. Any member of their secret service would have known that the Japanese regime would have attacked sooner or later. It was pretty clear. After all, Japanese planes "accidently" bombed the USS Panay in 1937 near Nanking. That attack had been ordered by Japanese high command in the area, the pilots had reluctantly followed these orders. Also, if you keep in mind that right winged politicians in Japan had been ranting against the foreign influence in Asia (especially the British and American) for quite a while, then it's pretty clear. No American can tell me that Pearl Harbor was such a big surprise, because of so, then their secret service was nothing more but a convention of Blind Pews and fools and the whole military and all politicians were blind in that case as well.

In the long run, it turned out that we were just the last peice of a puzzle that brought down Hitler and Hirihito.

That is... wrong. It brought down Hitler, but only because the Red Army took Berlin (still kind of ironic when you keep in mind that the SS units that fought with the most fanatism in Berlin were French (elements of the SS Division Charles Magne, made up of French volunteers)). Even without a third front in France (I wonder why the Italian front is always forgotten and not counted as a second front, even though it was there earlier than France, maybe it's because the Brits don't need to brag about the real biggest landing operation in history), the German army would have been defeated by the Russians. The Red Army simply outnumbered the Germans. When they started their last assault against the German defense lines outisde of Berlin the attacking army moved in with more the 6,000 tanks. And the Germans had lost at least two whole armies (Stalingrad and Kursk) before. Not to mention that the most modern tanks had been wasted in the Ardennes 1944 instead of using them against the Russians (and that offensive simply failed because the German tanks ran out of fuel, and not because of a brilliant move by whoever). Ultimately, the USSR would have crushed Nazi Germany anyway, it would have been bloodier and worse than it already was, but I doubt that, on the long run, the Germans would have been able to win. You can't attack, take and secure Russia, Napoleon learned that the hard way, so did Hitler and his puppets in the OKW. The defeat at Stalingrad was just the beginning of the end, and when Stalin pounced the Germans with fresh Sibirian divisions it was just a matter of time. Add the Russian motivation (they saw what German units had done in Russia when they found the first mass graves) and the fate of Hitler and his goons was merely bound to the question "when will it be done?".

In Japan Hirohito (unlike Hitler) remained untouched, the whole Imperial Family remained untouched, even though members of it were involved in the Rape of Nanking (the order to take no POWs came, after all, from a general who was related to the Emperor and not from the commanding officer of the army that took Nanking; not to mention that nobody in the rest of the world cared about it anyway) and had their share of responsibility in the pre-war aggression towards China and other countries, not to mention the fall from democratic Japan to, basically, a military regime (something I would say Hirohito could have prevented by stepping in, at least, he could have tried to prevent it, but he didn't, he just sat on his ass and watched). And unlike Germany, Japan surrendered conditionally, after all, they could keep the Emperor and the Imperial Family, even though the allies wanted him to be removed in the beginning and attempts to surrender by the Japanese prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ignored because of the fact that the Japanese wanted to keep the Emperor, and in the end they got to keep him. He lost his powers, sure, but he still remained sitting on the Chrysanthemum Throne (unlike Hitler who was shipped off to Moscow, or better said, what was left of him).