NationStates Jolt Archive

In a recent interchange of messages with someone on facebook I have been having a discussion regarding the fact that he believes that WW2 in Europe would have had the same outcome if the USA had not been assisted by the UK and USSR. He seemed to believed that without the UK's help, the Americans could have invaded up through Italy and struck Germany there. I said that was complete rubbish for a number of reasons

- If the RAF were not fighting Germany at the time, the Germans would have had a massive airel advantage and most likly would have gained air superioirty over Italy rather easily. American forces would not have been able to get air superiority purely with aircraft carrier compliments. Without air superiority, they would not have been able to launch a very sucessful invasion from the sea.

- The way to get to Italy would have been through the straits of Gibralter, and that would have been rather difficult. With large numbers of American ships moving through to invade Italy would have been easy pickings for the Luftwaffe as well as the Spanish navy, who would have likly sided with Hitler if this sort of thing was going on (Spain being Facist also at the time)

- America would not be able to logistically manage to continue shipping the nessecary troop numbers to re-enforce, never mind invade, mainland Europe via either Italy or France, without a permeniant landing station. Also any invasion would require the kinds of precision bombing & air support that the RAF provided during the liberation of France. American aircraft carrier fleets would be unable to provide that.

- It is very doubtful that the political will would exist to fight the Germans at that stage, considering that without the need for the large number of troops who invaded Russia, the German army would be increadably strong, and more to the point, Kase 3 would be available. Kase 3 only was unavailable in the D-Day landings because of the British intellegence/American millitary opperation tricking the Nazi's into believing that a small scale invasion would take place in Normandy but the main one would be Calis. Hitler kept it waiting in Cailis and eventually it was surrounded and eliminated.

- If the Soviet Union was not fighting the Germans at that stage (assuming that the SU had surrendered or Hitler had not attacked them etc), the troops that were engaged in operation Barborssa (some 2-4 million I believe) would be able to be deployed Westwards, massively outnumbering any American attempts to invade.

I just thought I would bring such a debate here, as I thought more enlightened people would agree he does not really have a viable argument

That's just what all you commie European socialites would have us believe!

The second world war was an ALLIED victory, not a USA victoryYes, of course.
And wasn't there a thread about that just recently?
It was mostly won by the Russians, really.Yes. But USAmericans don't like that because of their commiephobia and all...

Without American help, Europe would have fallen to Nazi Germany.

Without European help, America would likely not have been able to sustain itself against a Nazi Hegemony.

The fact is, both sides needed each other. If america did not get involved europe would have fallen. If europe fell, America would have likely suffered substantially, and perhaps in the end collapsed or fractured itself.

It was mostly won by the Russians, really.

Yeah, invading Italy via Sicily from North Africa is obviously just the stuff of ill-thought out fantasy.

You'd have to get to North Africa first, and if the Germans were not fighting the British or the Russians, the forces in North Africa would have been considerably larger number

- The way to get to Italy would have been through the straits of Gibralter, and that would have been rather difficult. With large numbers of American ships moving through to invade Italy would have been easy pickings for the Luftwaffe as well as the Spanish navy, who would have likly sided with Hitler if this sort of thing was going on (Spain being Facist also at the time)

Yeah, invading Italy via Sicily from North Africa is obviously just the stuff of ill-thought out fantasy.

Russia did NOT win teh war for the allies, what a load of farse.

Someone already mentioned it, but its worth repeating, the war was WON by ALL(of the allies) sides for the European theatre. If it werent for Russia making a second front, Germany would of thrown its full force on the Western front. And quite frankly its thought that the Russians HAD NOTHING to do with the defeat of the Germans in the east because it was a COMBO of weather, stupid mistakes taken by Hitler and his commanders, and a small part of Russians going insurgent style fighting.
Personally i think Britian and USA could of done it alone with very high casualities if they were able to take Africa, which they did anyways and used that as an airbase to attack southern Italy. Quite frankly, if the Allies kepted up the pressure in Itally, the Italians would of ended that fight by joining the Allies side, especially when Mussalini was captured and finally killed.

Point is, no one nation won the war, but some has LARGE influences, like the USA and USSR and Britian. I still think if the USA didnt get itself involved in Europe over Pacific war....Britian would of either lost by invasion sooner or later or would of made a peace treaty.

You'd have to get to North Africa first, and if the Germans were not fighting the British or the Russians, the forces in North Africa would have been considerably larger number

The thing is, THEY WERE fighting the Germans. Sorry these what ifs are so spectulative...

And even so America would of gotten North Africa, Patton proved that.....

You'd have to get to North Africa first, and if the Germans were not fighting the British or the Russians, the forces in North Africa would have been considerably larger number

If the Germans weren't fighting the British, what the hell would the Germans be doing in North Africa?



EDIT: clarification about what I meant.

Without European help, America would likely not have been able to sustain itself against a Nazi Hegemony.

The fact is, both sides needed each other. If america did not get involved europe would have fallen. If europe fell, America would have likely suffered substantially, and perhaps in the end collapsed or fractured itself.

What a comedian.

The Americans came in when the Brits already had the Air suppiriority, when the Soviets where already advancing... please... don't twist logic. At the time the USA entered, the USA was far from the most powerfull nation, Britain and the USSR gave the USA time to build forces which they barely had.

The thing is, THEY WERE fighting the Germans. Sorry these what ifs are so spectulative...

And even so America would of gotten North Africa, Patton proved that.....

I think you are forgetting Montgomery, Monty was already punching the Germans before Patton even heard about North Africa.

Face it, the USA came in when the hardest part had already been done.

Russia did NOT win teh war for the allies, what a load of farse.

Someone already mentioned it, but its worth repeating, the war was WON by ALL(of the allies) sides for the European theatre. If it werent for Russia making a second front, Germany would of thrown its full force on the Western front. And quite frankly its thought that the Russians HAD NOTHING to do with the defeat of the Germans in the east because it was a COMBO of weather, stupid mistakes taken by Hitler and his commanders, and a small part of Russians going insurgent style fighting.
Personally i think Britian and USA could of done it alone with very high casualities if they were able to take Africa, which they did anyways and used that as an airbase to attack southern Italy. Quite frankly, if the Allies kepted up the pressure in Itally, the Italians would of ended that fight by joining the Allies side, especially when Mussalini was captured and finally killed.

Point is, no one nation won the war, but some has LARGE influences, like the USA and USSR and Britian. I still think if the USA didnt get itself involved in Europe over Pacific war....Britian would of either lost by invasion sooner or later or would of made a peace treaty.

What a way to put down the brilliant military tactics of the Russians. Kursk, anyone? Sturmoviks? Do those ring a bell? The T-34/85? Ivan Kozhedub?

The point is, the Russians didn't win solely by "stupid mistakes and bad weather". The stupid mistakes and a combo of bad weather kept the Germans out of inner Russia, but they held their line until the Russians developed the strategies and tactics necessary to defeat them and push them back all the way to Berlin.

Keep in mind that the majority of Germany's forces were deployed on the Eastern front, not the Western front.

Indeed, the British had the best allied fighters for A LONG time before the P-51 came, and they were the only allies with Jets (Meteor flew in '45 against V1's). The Russians had the best tanks of all and the Russians had more germans facing it then the Brits and the Yanks combined. Facts are Facts. Now I am aware Americans have a hard time accepting facts that don't make them look like god but they're still facts.

Edit: and the P-51 was only supperior to the Spit because of its range.

Zhukov himself said that without US aid, Russia would've surrendered in 1942.


The UK would've had to surrender because they would've been starved if it wasn't for the USN.

Not denieing that never did, but Russia had the manpower and the industrial capacity that gave the edge to the allies, if they'd of done that, the USA wouldn't have made the difference.

Edit: and the P-51 was only supperior to the Spit because of its range.

Actually, the P-51 also had better speed than most Spitfire variants (only the XII and XIV were superior, as far as war-time Spitfires go). It was also a lot more durable, though not quite as much as the fantastic P-47 Thunderbolt.

The Spitfire had better acceleration, climb, maneuverability, and guns packages (2x 20mm Hispanos and 2x .303 machine guns beats 6x .50 machine guns), though.

As far as looks go, well, the Mustang and Spitfire are two very different planes in that respect. I like them equally.

Does any one know the comparitive sizes of the USN and the Royal Navy? It seems to always be suggested that the USN eventually out grew the Royal Navy, but no figures for tonnage or total ships are ever given.

Zhukov himself said that without US aid, Russia would've surrendered in 1942.

And without Russia, the allies wouldn't have stood a chance. Does this mean that it was purely a Russian victory? :rolleyes:

Does any one know the comparitive sizes of the USN and the Royal Navy? It seems to always be suggested that the USN eventually out grew the Royal Navy, but no figures for tonnage or total ships are ever given.

It did, but only quite some time after the second world war.

I think you are forgetting Montgomery, Monty was already punching the Germans before Patton even heard about North Africa.

Face it, the USA came in when the hardest part had already been done.

Never said that Monty wasnt there, but it was Patton that came in and finished the job Monty couldnt. POINT IS ALL of them are part of the solution, did you read that part of my post?

Does any one know the comparitive sizes of the USN and the Royal Navy? It seems to always be suggested that the USN eventually out grew the Royal Navy, but no figures for tonnage or total ships are ever given.

I think the USN has somewhere over two thousand total ships.

What a way to put down the brilliant military tactics of the Russians. Kursk, anyone? Sturmoviks? Do those ring a bell? The T-34/85? Ivan Kozhedub?

The point is, the Russians didn't win solely by "stupid mistakes and bad weather". The stupid mistakes and a combo of bad weather kept the Germans out of inner Russia, but they held their line until the Russians developed the strategies and tactics necessary to defeat them and push them back all the way to Berlin.

Keep in mind that the majority of Germany's forces were deployed on the Eastern front, not the Western front.

Read my post again. I never said the Russians were not good or not excellent fighters, but they were on their last ropes, in fact Stalin was ready to concede and move to the Urals for a time if he had to. But the fact of the matter is weather and such conditions as STUPIDITY of Germany weighed much more then Russian tactics, though their INSURGENT style attacks helped which i DID mention in my post...please read my posts...

I hear alot of fallacies about WWII, like:
-It didn't happen. Yes, there are nutjobs that believe this.
-The US did all the work. If nobody believed this, this thread would not exist.
-It was a purely Russian military victory. Please. What did Russia do in the Pacific theatre? Nothing for the vast majority of the war. What was their main strategy on the Eastern Front? Send wave after wave of soldiers. It was a crappy strategy in WWI and it was even crappier in WWII. How did they win that front? They knew how to survive the Russian winters better than the Germans. They were essentially fighting a force weakened by the cold. The Germans didn't know how to keep their fuel from freezing or have the clothing needed.
-The US didn't help much. Pure crap. The US provided the main fighting force in the Pacific campaign, provided manpower for North Africa, Italy, and France, and supplied the allies with war supplies made from America's undestroyed factories that were well out of range of axis bombers.

What a comedian.

The Americans came in when the Brits already had the Air suppiriority, when the Soviets where already advancing... please... don't twist logic. At the time the USA entered, the USA was far from the most powerfull nation, Britain and the USSR gave the USA time to build forces which they barely had.

There's an old military axiom that an Army marches on its belly, although in the case of the Second World War, it was more appropriate to say that armies marched on their bellies, gas tanks, ammunition magazines, fuel bunkers of escort destoryers and strategic transport ships and countless other analogies. What the US did during the Second World War was produce 76% of the world's total munitions, build vast naval armadas, unlike any seen previously in history and supply vast stores of raw materials to the Russians, permitting them to feed their war machine and keep it running.

Without the economic capacity of the US, the Allies lose the Second World War.

Read my post again. I never said the Russians were not good or not excellent fighters, but they were on their last ropes, in fact Stalin was ready to concede and move to the Urals for a time if he had to. But the fact of the matter is weather and such conditions as STUPIDITY of Germany weighed much more then Russian tactics, though their INSURGENT style attacks helped which i DID mention in my post...please read my posts...

And please tell me why this somehow voids the fact that the Russians bore the brunt of Germany's armed forces, which they eventually defeated in several dozen military victories.

If you calculate total kills, losses, victories, and defeats, WWII was mostly a Russian victory... As far as the European Theater is concerned.

Ditto for the USSR. USA didnt have the poppulation capacity to compensate for the USSR falling away.

The majority of the German forces were in the east. Comperatively the Western Allies were faced by a small force.

And without Russia, the allies wouldn't have stood a chance. Does this mean that it was purely a Russian victory? :rolleyes:

Atomic Bomb, anyone?

The US had the ultimate weapon in 1945, while the Germans remained two-three years out.

Yes, the Russians had the upper hand in conventional military matters, but the US had the one superweapon that proved to be worth a damn in the war.

It was mostly won by the Russians, really.Blasphemy!!!
I dont need your F*cking revisionist history..
I know exactly what happened.
I know exactly when it happened.
I know exactly how it happened.
I know exactly who did what.

Hollywood told me.
and all your revisionist historians cannot compete against Hollywood.

I hear alot of fallacies about WWII, like:
-It didn't happen. Yes, there are nutjobs that believe this.
-The US did all the work. If nobody believed this, this thread would not exist.
-It was a purely Russian military victory. Please. What did Russia do in the Pacific theatre? Nothing for the vast majority of the war. What was their main strategy on the Eastern Front? Send wave after wave of soldiers. It was a crappy strategy in WWI and it was even crappier in WWII. How did they win that front? They knew how to survive the Russian winters better than the Germans. They were essentially fighting a force weakened by the cold. The Germans didn't know how to keep their fuel from freezing or have the clothing needed.
-The US didn't help much. Pure crap. The US provided the main fighting force in the Pacific campaign, provided manpower for North Africa, Italy, and France, and supplied the allies with war supplies made from America's undestroyed factories that were well out of range of axis bombers.You sir, are todays big winner. How does it feel to be the big winner?

Blasphemy!!!
I dont need your F*cking revisionist history..
I know exactly what happened.
I know exactly when it happened.
I know exactly how it happened.
I know exactly who did what.
Hollywood told me.

Thanks for making me laugh out loud for the first time today.

*hands you a special Hashijuana cookie*

Atomic Bomb, anyone?

The US had the ultimate weapon in 1945, while the Germans remained two-three years out.

Yes, the Russians had the upper hand in conventional military matters, but the US had the one superweapon that proved to be worth a damn in the war.

WAHAHAHA do you know how far off you are, do you know how close the Germans were with the A-bom. Are you aware that at the end of the European Theater, A german sub was sent to Japan due to the fact that they needed just one or two more weeks to finish it.

Russia did NOT win teh war for the allies, what a load of farse.

Someone already mentioned it, but its worth repeating, the war was WON by ALL(of the allies) sides for the European theatre. If it werent for Russia making a second front, Germany would of thrown its full force on the Western front. And quite frankly its thought that the Russians HAD NOTHING to do with the defeat of the Germans in the east because it was a COMBO of weather, stupid mistakes taken by Hitler and his commanders, and a small part of Russians going insurgent style fighting.
Personally i think Britian and USA could of done it alone with very high casualities if they were able to take Africa, which they did anyways and used that as an airbase to attack southern Italy. Quite frankly, if the Allies kepted up the pressure in Itally, the Italians would of ended that fight by joining the Allies side, especially when Mussalini was captured and finally killed.

Point is, no one nation won the war, but some has LARGE influences, like the USA and USSR and Britian. I still think if the USA didnt get itself involved in Europe over Pacific war....Britian would of either lost by invasion sooner or later or would of made a peace treaty.

This is quite possibly the most ignorant goddamn thing I have ever read about history.

The Russians handed the Germans their most greivous defeats in 1943: Kursk and Stalingrad come to mind. No other country fought the Germans so vigorously on the ground, and the Russians bore the tremendous majority of the fighting and the casualties.

Britain and the US would not have been able to do it on their own. Allow me to explain:

Russia's absence from the war could only mean one thing: Germany's conquest of it, either politically or militarily. Nazi doctrine is so heavily dependent on Eastward expansion that the only way to rule Russia out of WWII is to assume that it had been vanquished by the Germans before we or Britain could have done anything about it. Pretending Russia just didn't exist would be pointless for this excersize, since if it didn't, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk would never have been signed and WWII probably would have never happened.

Saying that the US and Britain could have done it on their own is laughable at best. The Germans actually fought very fiercely in France, Belgium and Holland, even though they did not score many tactical successes against the invading West. For testament to this one need look no further than the Winter of '44-'45. If there had been no eastern front, the Normandy invasion would have been thrown back into the sea within six weeks. The German army was incredibly powerful on the ground, and by that point in the war was very accustomed to fighting under enemy air superiority.

I'll grant that the destruction of the Luftwaffe would have played a serious role in the hypothetical US/Britain/Germany conflict, but without the possiblity of a war with Russia, the Germans actually (believe it or not) had the manpower to overrun the British Isles as early as late 1941--provided they had enough vessels to get Sea Lion off the ground. They probably didn't but again: without Russia in the picture a tremendous amount of resources could easily have been marshalled to this end.

WAHAHAHA do you know how far off you are, do you know how close the Germans were with the A-bom. Are you aware that at the end of the European Theater, A german sub was sent to Japan due to the fact that they needed just one or two more weeks to finish it.

Ah fuck, you beat me to it.

Thanks for making me laugh out loud for the first time today.

*hands you a special Hashijuana cookie*shagadelicius
Hash baby.. Hash!!! .. :D

This is quite possibly the most ignorant goddamn thing I have ever read about history.

The Russians handed the Germans their most greivous defeats in 1943: Kursk and Stalingrad come to mind. No other country fought the Germans so vigorously on the ground, and the Russians bore the tremendous majority of the fighting and the casualties.

Britain and the US would not have been able to do it on their own. Allow me to explain:

Russia's absence from the war could only mean one thing: Germany's conquest of it, either politically or militarily. Nazi doctrine is so heavily dependent on Eastward expansion that the only way to rule Russia out of WWII is to assume that it had been vanquished by the Germans before we or Britain could have done anything about it. Pretending Russia just didn't exist would be pointless for this excersize, since if it didn't, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk would never have been signed and WWII probably would have never happened.

Saying that the US and Britain could have done it on their own is laughable at best. The Germans actually fought very fiercely in France, Belgium and Holland, even though they did not score many tactical successes against the invading West. For testament to this one need look no further than the Winter of '44-'45. If there had been no eastern front, the Normandy invasion would have been thrown back into the sea within six weeks. The German army was incredibly powerful on the ground, and by that point in the war was very accustomed to fighting under enemy air superiority.

I'll grant that the destruction of the Luftwaffe would have played a serious role in the hypothetical US/Britain/Germany conflict, but without the possiblity of a war with Russia, the Germans actually (believe it or not) had the manpower to overrun the British Isles as early as late 1941--provided they had enough vessels to get Sea Lion off the ground. They probably didn't but again: without Russia in the picture a tremendous amount of resources could easily have been marshalled to this end.

Where the hell have you been?

*hands you a special Hashijuana cookie for furthering my point*

Yes, of course.
And wasn't there a thread about that just recently?
Yes. But USAmericans don't like that because of their commiephobia and all...


You limmies need to update. Commies are SO yesteryear. It's now the dreaded mauslum terraces!

Ok lets finish this:

Ok, you(=the people that believe this) say the USA could have beaten the Germans all on their own and the 2nd world war was an all American victory.

Then Why:
-Did it take so long for the Brits and the Yanks to march threw Italy TOGETHER.
-Was the invasion so hard while the yanks didn't invade alone.
-Was the march to Germany so long while at the same time the Candians/Russians/British/Polish/French/Dutch/Norwegians/Australians/New Zealanders etc. were fighting too.

If America could have done all of this on its own then why did the war take so long whilst there were so many other powerfull nations in the allied league.

Where the hell have you been?
I've been in the throes of a Guild Wars addiction.

Oh, and reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The Goebbels Diaries, Barbarossa: the German-Russian Conflict 1942-1945, Inside the Third Reich (Speer's memoirs) and Hitler: A study in Tyrrany. :D

This thread caught my eye because I've been on a hell of a WWII kick lately.

*hands you a special Hashijuana cookie for furthering my point*
*devours*

Saying that the US and Britain could have done it on their own is laughable at best. The Germans actually fought very fiercely in France, Belgium and Holland, even though they did not score many tactical successes against the invading West. For testament to this one need look no further than the Winter of '44-'45. If there had been no eastern front, the Normandy invasion would have been thrown back into the sea within six weeks. The German army was incredibly powerful on the ground, and by that point in the war was very accustomed to fighting under enemy air superiority.

Accustomed because they had little choice. It doesn't mean air superiority had no affect on them. Take Bagration; the retreating columns were blasted by the Russian air which caused chaos. Where was the German air? Mainly in the West dealing with the "little or no threat" Brits and Americans.

I'll grant that the destruction of the Luftwaffe would have played a serious role in the hypothetical US/Britain/Germany conflict, but without the possibility of a war with Russia, the Germans actually (believe it or not) had the manpower to overrun the British Isles as early as late 1941--provided they had enough vessels to get Sea Lion off the ground. They probably didn't but again: without Russia in the picture a tremendous amount of resources could easily have been marshaled to this end.

Probably but probably not; Hitler wasn't sold on the surface fleet. Many didn't have faith because of the previous war and Jutland, the fate of the Bismarck, etc.....

Good to see you ol angry one! :)

When you’re trying to deride someone, at least get your facts straight.

WAHAHAHA do you know how far off you are, do you know how close the Germans were with the A-bom. Are you aware that at the end of the European Theater, A german sub was sent to Japan due to the fact that they needed just one or two more weeks to finish it.

I know precisely how correct I am, and how absolutely wrong you are.

Click to learn! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project#Effectiveness_and_implications)

Germany sent submarine U-234 to Japan with boxes that were labeled as being filled with Uranium 235, but, in reality, after the submarine was captured, it was discovered to be merely Uranium Oxide in crates. Don't believe me? Click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-234). Uranium Oxide is a loooooong way away from Highly Enriched Uranium.

Rather, as the first link referencing Project Alsos proves, the German scientists had not even managed to replicate a sustained nuclear chain reaction. A feat the allies had accomplished in 1942.

Atomic Bomb, anyone?

The US had the ultimate weapon in 1945, while the Germans remained two-three years out.

Yes, the Russians had the upper hand in conventional military matters, but the US had the one superweapon that proved to be worth a damn in the war.
You do realize that the Germans were defeated on the Russian front a while before this, right:rolleyes:
You must also realize that the Germans could well have caught up with American nuclear research, especially if they had the chance to ransack the Russian labs and espionage archives.

You may not know that the Russians basically had surrender terms worked out with the Japanese who were ready to give up anything and everything but their emperor. Then the US dropped the bomb. Then they dropped another one.

I've been in the throes of a Guild Wars addiction.

Oh, and reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The Goebbels Diaries, Barbarossa: the German-Russian Conflict 1942-1945, Inside the Third Reich (Speer's memoirs) and Hitler: A study in Tyrrany. :D

This thread caught my eye because I've been on a hell of a WWII kick lately.


A good list. Two more that might interest you:


The Tragedy of the Faithful: 3rd SS Panzer Corps
by Wilhelm Tieke


Hitler's Greatest Defeat: The Collapse Of The Army Group Centre, June 1944 (The World of War)
by Paul Adair

Neu turned me on to that one.

You do realize that the Germans were defeated on the Russian front a while before this, right:rolleyes:
You must also realize that the Germans could well have caught up with American nuclear research, especially if they had the chance to ransack the Russian labs and espionage archives.

First off, we're operating under the assumption that the USSR was knocked out of the war in 1941 or 1942, thus, they would not have the sizable quantities of information on Manhattan and Tube Alloys that they did indeed end up having received from Greenglass and company.

You may not know that the Russians basically had surrender terms worked out with the Japanese who were ready to give up anything and everything but their emperor. Then the US dropped the bomb. Then they dropped another one.

And the Russians were sitting on the surrender terms, trying to get as much from their adventures in Manchuria as possible.

Accustomed because they had little choice. It doesn't mean air superiority had no affect on them. Take Bagration; the retreating columns were blasted by the Russian air which caused chaos. Where was the German air? Mainly in the West dealing with the "little or no threat" Brits and Americans.
I understand they didn't have a choice (the Luftwaffe ceased all reliability in 42-43 at the latest) but my point is they adapted to this and were actually able to perform reasonably well under those circumstances.

I didn't mean to imply that the British and Americans consituted "little or no threat;" but they probably could not have held out long enough to get the job done on their own. Hell, I am an American--I just don't think we were combat-proficient enough at that time to deal Germany massive defeats (on land!) on our own.


Probably but probably not; Hitler wasn't sold on the surface fleet. Many didn't have faith because of the previous war and Jutland, the fate of the Bismarck, etc.....
All things being equal I believe Hitler's decision to take down Russia first was motivated primarily (like just about every decision he ever made) not on strategic but on ideological and political principles. Even Goebbels complains to his diary that Hitler viewed the war solely as a political struggle, which was probably the ultimate source for the friction between him and his generals. If Hitler had been more wise to the strategic end of things, he'd have listened to Guderian more than he did.

Hindsight is 20:20 of course, but I can't imagine Russia would be enthusiastic about leaping to Britain's aid--and if Sea Lion had gotten off the ground (so to speak) it may have succeeded in as little as six weeks. Britain had a lot of naval and air power at the time, but their forces on land were remarkably weaker than Germany's. There isn't a tremendous amount of ground to cover in England, and the Nazi tanks would have had a relatively easy time pushing ahead to capture airfields or other strategic objectives. But in the end (not unlike their experiences in Yugoslavia) partisan warfare probably would have had a greater effect on them in the long run than any initial military struggle.

Good to see you ol angry one! :)
Rawr.

It was mostly won by the Russians, really.

"Mostly won." Cute.

"Mostly won." I would say its the appropriate wording.

People really think we could have taken Germany by ourselves? These individuals would have to be ignorant beyond belief. We should be thankful that millions of Russians died fighting the Nazis on the Eastern front and that we had needed assistance from the rest of the Allied powers or we would have been in deep trouble trying to get a toehold in Europe.

Besides, we took Japan on our own. Isn't that enough?

This again? Uhg... look. There is no way of knowing what would have happened but here are the facts as they are, youg guys decide things for yourself.

The British
1. While the British and thier superb Royal Navy and RAF could easily defend mainland Great Britain from all but the most determend German attacks they did not have the capability (manpower, supplies, weaponry, vehicles) to launch a counter-invasion to free thier French Partision Allies wich was one of thier primary goals.
2. In North Africa the Germans and the British were constantly going back and forth. Statistically speaking the British victories at El Alemien and other important sites may very well have been turned on thier heads when they stretched thier supply lines too far and ended up being defeated like happened about half a dozen times to both sides all war long.
3. The British had been trying to pressure the United States into taking an active roll in WWII since the begining. (Take for example the Eagle and Battlehawks fighter squadrons, both made up of more than 50% American Volunteers and military personell).

The Russians
1. The Russians are scrappers, they fought off the Romans, the Mongols, the Vikings, the Holy Roman Empire, and Napolean long before Hitler was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. I have no doubt that they would fight just as fiercely today against a foriegn invader. They fought with all the ferocious tenacity they could against the Nazis with everything they could. During the winter of '42-'43 the Russians just might have folded if they did not recieve aid from the only freindly nation that could supply it... the United States. As was stated before, Britain barely had enough supplies to keep the fight up in thier colonies in africa and asia while defending thier homeland at the same time. But the USA? The USA had plenty of factories that were undamaged by warfare and were more than willing to share (for a fee) what they had with both the British and the Russians. The US helped the Russians even further when they stopped trading with Japan which undoubtably helped turn the tide in China and SE Lower Russia into Allied favor.
2. After the battle of Stalingrad the Russians were practically an unstoppable juggernaught that could have possibly swept through both Europe AND Asia.
3. Yes, the Russains did have to fight more Germans than both the English and the Americans... but going by soldier to soldier ratio, things were pretty even.

United States of America
1. Without the British or the Russians would have been a sitting duck for Nazi Germany to Invade at thier own liesure. At the beggining of his rise to power Hitler had designs on conquering the US because he beleived that it was there that he could find the most industrious and strong people for his 'pure vision' [Mein Comph or My Struggle]. (I use this term loosely because Hitler was a short brown haired brown eyed Hungarian!)
2. The United States would have eventually entered the war regardless of Pearl Harbor, it would have just taken a much longer time.
3. The US only declared war on Japan, not Germany. America would not have truly been involved in WWII if Hitler had not declared war on the USA.

Allies
1. Without US involvement the War would have in my opinion (this is the only opinion I will give) ended up much differently. The British would have eventually won out when the Germans decided it was not worth all the trouble to take thier colonies and homeland. The Russians were hanging by a thread in '42 and '43 and its impossible to predict what would happen, I'd give it 50-50. The USA would have more than likely been invaded by the Nazi's in the 60's or 70's.

Nazi Germany
1. Historically they are at someone's throat, or at someone's feet.
2. They were lead by a political genious, and more often than not a politician of any sort proves how inept they are at anything else. Hitler wanted to run the whole war on his own and that is one of the decisive factors in the outcome.
3. They may have been able to regain air superiority over Europe's mainland given time with thier Jet Fighters.
4. The Germans are almost as tough as the Russians.
5. They signed thier own death warrant when Hitler (largely in a symbolic effort to support his allies) declared War on the USA.

Italy
1. Largely unimportant.
2. They killed Benito Muscilinni (I probably spelled that wrong) on thier own. A mob of angry peasants hanged him with piano wire; he was never captured.

Japan
1. Somewhere somehow they really fucked up the ideals behind bushido and became sociopaths.
2. They are a classic example of why governments should not give completly free riegn to thier armies (but they don't need to completly control it either).
3. Though they had many weapons and vehicles they were actually sub par for the most part. For instance, the Japanese Zero (Or Zeke) was an extremly quick and agile craft, but it had poor range, worse weaponry, and could not stand up to punishment.
4. They did not have the resources to wage the kind of war they were fighting. There are documented cases of Japanese soldiers attacking Americans armed with flamethrowers and long range rifles with nothing but sharpened bamboo sticks.

Now, instead of spamming the forum with the arguments I know you are going to bring up. Just hit me up on MSN my e-mail is Gooberwoc@Hotmail.com. I havn't used my ignore button in quite a long time and I'd relish the chance.

This again? Uhg... look. There is no way of knowing what would have happened but here are the facts as they are, youg guys decide things for yourself.

(I use this term loosely because Hitler was a short brown haired brown eyed Hungarian!)

Austrian, no?

2. They killed Benito Muscilinni (I probably spelled that wrong) on thier own. A mob of angry peasants hanged him with piano wire; he was never captured.

He was actually shot dead, and it was only after his death that his body was hung.

They still hanged him with piano wire whether dead or alive, he was hanged. And Austrian/Hungarian.. the difference is about 4 letters when your at work, tired, and bored.

The British fought of the Germans for years through bombings and rocket attacks, the French fought the Germans from within their own occupied country, the Americans made up a bulk of the invasion of Fortress Europa while also fighting the Japanese, the Chinese fought the Japanese within their own occupied territory, and the Russians not only split the German forces into two fronts, but also captured Berlin.

To say that one country did more than any other, or that somehow one of the allied nations weren't pivitol to the overall victory does a diservice to the millions of troops that died in this conflict.

Can we put this to bed now?

And Austrian/Hungarian.. the difference is about 4 letters when your at work, tired, and bored.

Austrian, Hungarian, what's the difference, eh?

Austrian, Hungarian, what's the difference, eh?

Damn tootin'!

*Disclaimer it was an error in recalling from memory, I'm just in a sarcastic mood today*

This again? Uhg... look. There is no way of knowing what would have happened but here are the facts as they are, youg guys decide things for yourself.

The British
1. While the British and thier superb Royal Navy and RAF could easily defend mainland Great Britain from all but the most determend German attacks they did not have the capability (manpower, supplies, weaponry, vehicles) to launch a counter-invasion to free thier French Partision Allies wich was one of thier primary goals.
2. In North Africa the Germans and the British were constantly going back and forth. Statistically speaking the British victories at El Alemien and other important sites may very well have been turned on thier heads when they stretched thier supply lines too far and ended up being defeated like happened about half a dozen times to both sides all war long.
3. The British had been trying to pressure the United States into taking an active roll in WWII since the begining. (Take for example the Eagle and Battlehawks fighter squadrons, both made up of more than 50% American Volunteers and military personell).

The Russians
1. The Russians are scrappers, they fought off the Romans, the Mongols, the Vikings, the Holy Roman Empire, and Napolean long before Hitler was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. I have no doubt that they would fight just as fiercely today against a foriegn invader. They fought with all the ferocious tenacity they could against the Nazis with everything they could. During the winter of '42-'43 the Russians just might have folded if they did not recieve aid from the only freindly nation that could supply it... the United States. As was stated before, Britain barely had enough supplies to keep the fight up in thier colonies in africa and asia while defending thier homeland at the same time. But the USA? The USA had plenty of factories that were undamaged by warfare and were more than willing to share (for a fee) what they had with both the British and the Russians. The US helped the Russians even further when they stopped trading with Japan which undoubtably helped turn the tide in China and SE Lower Russia into Allied favor.
2. After the battle of Stalingrad the Russians were practically an unstoppable juggernaught that could have possibly swept through both Europe AND Asia.
3. Yes, the Russains did have to fight more Germans than both the English and the Americans... but going by soldier to soldier ratio, things were pretty even.

United States of America
1. Without the British or the Russians would have been a sitting duck for Nazi Germany to Invade at thier own liesure. At the beggining of his rise to power Hitler had designs on conquering the US because he beleived that it was there that he could find the most industrious and strong people for his 'pure vision' [Mein Comph or My Struggle]. (I use this term loosely because Hitler was a short brown haired brown eyed Hungarian!)
2. The United States would have eventually entered the war regardless of Pearl Harbor, it would have just taken a much longer time.
3. The US only declared war on Japan, not Germany. America would not have truly been involved in WWII if Hitler had not declared war on the USA.

Allies
1. Without US involvement the War would have in my opinion (this is the only opinion I will give) ended up much differently. The British would have eventually won out when the Germans decided it was not worth all the trouble to take thier colonies and homeland. The Russians were hanging by a thread in '42 and '43 and its impossible to predict what would happen, I'd give it 50-50. The USA would have more than likely been invaded by the Nazi's in the 60's or 70's.

Nazi Germany
1. Historically they are at someone's throat, or at someone's feet.
2. They were lead by a political genious, and more often than not a politician of any sort proves how inept they are at anything else. Hitler wanted to run the whole war on his own and that is one of the decisive factors in the outcome.
3. They may have been able to regain air superiority over Europe's mainland given time with thier Jet Fighters.
4. The Germans are almost as tough as the Russians.
5. They signed thier own death warrant when Hitler (largely in a symbolic effort to support his allies) declared War on the USA.

Italy
1. Largely unimportant.
2. They killed Benito Muscilinni (I probably spelled that wrong) on thier own. A mob of angry peasants hanged him with piano wire; he was never captured.

Japan
1. Somewhere somehow they really fucked up the ideals behind bushido and became sociopaths.
2. They are a classic example of why governments should not give completly free riegn to thier armies (but they don't need to completly control it either).
3. Though they had many weapons and vehicles they were actually sub par for the most part. For instance, the Japanese Zero (Or Zeke) was an extremly quick and agile craft, but it had poor range, worse weaponry, and could not stand up to punishment.
4. They did not have the resources to wage the kind of war they were fighting. There are documented cases of Japanese soldiers attacking Americans armed with flamethrowers and long range rifles with nothing but sharpened bamboo sticks.

Now, instead of spamming the forum with the arguments I know you are going to bring up. Just hit me up on MSN my e-mail is Gooberwoc@Hotmail.com. I havn't used my ignore button in quite a long time and I'd relish the chance.

Best and most balanced post in this thread. I defer to you on the matter.

To say that one country did more than any other, or that somehow one of the allied nations weren't pivitol to the overall victory does a diservice to the millions of troops that died in this conflict.

Can we put this to bed now?

Are you claiming Uruguay was pivotal to the overall victory?

For anyone who cares to know:
Royal Navy Warship Strength

The Royal Navy, still the largest in the world in September 1939, included:

15 Battleships & battlecruisers, of which only two were post-World War 1. Five 'King George V' class battleships were building.

7 Aircraft carriers. One was new and five of the planned six fleet carriers were under construction. There were no escort carriers.

66 Cruisers, mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones had been laid down.

184 Destroyers of all types. Over half were modern, with 15 of the old 'V' and 'W' classes modified as escorts. Under construction or on order were 32 fleet destroyers and 20 escort types of the 'Hunt' class.

60 Submarines, mainly modern with nine building.

45 escort and patrol vessels with nine building, and the first 56 'Flower' class corvettes on order to add to the converted 'V' and 'W's' and 'Hunts'. However, there were few fast, long-endurance convoy escorts.

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 6/30/39


Type
Battleships 15
Carriers, Fleet 5
Carriers, Escort -
Cruisers 36
Destroyers 127
Frigates -
Submarines 58
SSBNs -
Command Ships-
Mine Warfare 29
Patrol 20
Amphibious -
Auxiliary 104
Surface Warships 178
Total Active 394

Best and most balanced post in this thread. I defer to you on the matter.

Thank you Andaluciae. I used to want to be a history teacher as a little kid, but now I'm a radio DJ, graphic artist, and author/poet... much cooler :p.

Included in the RN are commonwealth navies:

Commonwealth Navies

Included in the Royal Navy totals were:

Royal Australian Navy - six cruisers, five destroyers and two sloops;

Royal Canadian Navy - six destroyers;

Royal Indian Navy - six escort and patrol vessels;

Royal New Zealand Navy, until October 1941 the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy - two cruisers and two sloops.

Also:
The Fleet was reasonably well-equipped to fight conventional surface actions with effective guns, torpedoes and fire control, but in a maritime war that would soon revolve around the battle with the U-boat, the exercise of air power, and eventually the ability to land large armies on hostile shores, the picture was far from good.

ASDIC, the RN's answer to the submarine, had limited range and was of little use against surfaced U-boats, and the stern-dropped or mortar-fired depth charge was the only reasonably lethal anti-submarine weapon available. The Fleet Air Arm (FAA) recently returned to full control of the Navy, was equipped with obsolescent aircraft, and in the face of heavy air attack the Fleet had few, modern anti-aircraft guns. Co-operation with the RAF was limited although three Area Combined Headquarters had been established in Britain. Coastal Command, the RAF's maritime wing, had only short range aircraft, mainly for reconnaissance. And there was little combined operations capability.

On the technical side, early air warning radars were fitted to a small number of ships. The introduction by the Germans of magnetic mines found the Royal Navy only equipped to sweep moored contact mines. Finally, the German Navy's B-Service could read the Navy's operational and convoy codes.

Are you claiming Uruguay was pivotal to the overall victory?

I hate to sound somewhat...retractive...but I was more speaking of the larger nations: the US, Britain, etc.

But, aye, you did catch me in a bit of a textual slip-up.

The figures can be found at:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1938

Best and most balanced post in this thread. I defer to you on the matter.

I just scrapped a post that had a few minor nitpicks (It's Mein Kampf! :headbang: ) but most of it is reliably accurate. I disagree that declaring war with the US was Germany's "Death Warrant;" the biggest mistake Hitler ever made was invading Yugoslavia and postponing the launch of Barbarossa. If Barbarossa had started when it was supposed to, the Red Army could have been put down by '42.

Also I dispute the characterization that the US would have been "Sitting ducks." Without the naval infrastructure to get their army across even the English Channel, the Germans would have probably needed about ten more years of serious naval buildup in order to launch and sustain an invasion on the other side of the Atlantic. Owing to the clumsiness of German foreign policy at that time (Ribbentrop was a world-class moron), they likely would not have been able to keep their intentions very well hidden and by the time the Germans could have realistically invaded, we'd be very much ready for it. Add in the healthy population of American civilian gun owners and that sitting duck is looking a lot meaner.

I should have used a better term than "Death Warrant" I agree but lack of proper words. And also, thanks for the spelling correction my German is horendous, so is my french, and spanish. But you know, I'm an American and can barely speak English. By calling America a "sitting duck" I really meant a lone nation in a hostile world. Much like my NS country. Even at its worst America would be far from what people would consider a sitting duck.. the movie Red Dawn was just fiction but I think something of that nature would be highly probable; with regular citizens attacking and fighting soldiers. Its happened before during the revolution and our Civil War (they called them bushwackers and they fought for both sides).

-snip-
Very well thought through. What motivated you to write such a long post - is it something that grids your gears?

Out of interest, when was Barbarossa supposed to have started?

Out of interest, when was Barbarossa supposed to have started?

Spring of '41, but there was an uprising in Yugoslavia that threw Hitler into one of the greatest rages of his life--he ordered Barbarossa postponed (!) and took a couple of months to secure what he perceived to be a vulnerable southern flank before moving on Russia. It was (in my view) the single greatest strategic error the man ever made.

[QUOTE=Newer Burmecia;12583961]Very well thought through. What motivated you to write such a long post - is it something that grids your gears?
QUOTE]

I'll answer two ways.. the truth and with a flat out lie.

The Truth
Partially it was out of boredome. I'm sitting here typing song names into a databse... do you know how tedious that is? The other reason is because I thought I could pull some wood out of the fire by stating as many facts as I could think of in the space of 15 minutes. I'm fascinated with the history of warfare. And last but not least, I hold great respect for fighting men of all stripes and feel the best way to honor them is to study what happened, and why, so that future generations can resolve thier problems without needless loss of life.

The Lie
I was there! I saw it all! I did it, I won the war and I'm just trying to make people believe something else happened!

The figures can be found at:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1938Hmm, those figures say that the USN only overtook the RN in size at some point in 1944. To me that suggests that without the additional support of the RN the US wouldn't have been able to achieve the level of naval dominance that it did. Thus it would have had considerable difficulty maintaing a naval with both Germany and Japan.

Best and most balanced post in this thread. I defer to you on the matter.

Except for the part about the Zero, yeah, it's pretty accurate.

See, one of the great strengths of the A6M2 was its range. Its maximum range was just short of a P-51D Mustang (without drop tanks), and could stay aloft for over an hour on full throttle after take-off. Another strength was its guns package (2 Type 99 Mk. I cannons in the wings and 2 7.7mm machine guns in the cowling), which at the time was very hard-hitting, even moreso than the Bf-109E-4.

Its weaknesses were relatively weak landing gear, lack of pilot protection (armor), no self-sealing fuel tanks, no armor plating (a short burst of .30s could shred its wings), and heavy ailerons and an even heavier rudder, which almost stopped control above 300mph. It also could never exceed 410mph, as the aircraft would literally be torn to pieces.

However, at 210mph, it could out-turn even the Russian I-16, which says a hell of a lot about its combat abilities.

Hmm, those figures say that the USN only overtook the RN in size at some point in 1944. To me that suggests that without the additional support of the RN the US wouldn't have been able to achieve the level of naval dominance that it did. Thus it would have had considerable difficulty maintaing a naval with both Germany and Japan.

"Support"?

What exactly do you mean by that?

In a recent interchange of messages with someone on facebook I have been having a discussion regarding the fact that he believes that WW2 in Europe would have had the same outcome if the USA had not been assisted by the UK and USSR. He seemed to believed that without the UK's help, the Americans could have invaded up through Italy and struck Germany there. I said that was complete rubbish for a number of reasons

*snip*

You're right, it was an Allied victory.

You're right, it was an Allied victory.

So simple, yet so funny.

*hands you a Hashijuana cookie*

So simple, yet so funny.

*hands you a Hashijuana cookie*

Well, as an American, I see how stupid it is for some of my fellows to think the world revolves around us. We didn't do it alone; we helped.

Well, as an American, I see how stupid it is for some of my fellows to think the world revolves around us. We didn't do it alone; we helped.

Yep.

The figures can be found at:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#1938

figures, on NS? They better be wildly biased and innacurate or Satan will be renting out his Lake to Ice Skaters.

Well, as an American, I see how stupid it is for some of my fellows to think the world revolves around us. We didn't do it alone; we helped.

Wait? You're a woman? I thought all of you think the world revolves around you? :p

You may not know that the Russians basically had surrender terms worked out with the Japanese who were ready to give up anything and everything but their emperor. Then the US dropped the bomb. Then they dropped another one.
Where the hell did you get THAT from? The Showa Emperor sent envoys to the USSR to broker a cease fire and a possible surrender, assuming that the Allied Powers back off the unconditional part and allowed the Imperial Throne and its powers to endure. BUT, Stalin refused to see said envoy. The Envoy knew this, the Japanese High Command knew this, the only one who was hoping against hope was the Showa Emperor himself and even HE gave up once the USSR broke treaty and attacked Japan.

They didn't have surrender terms worked out, they had a proposal that wasn't ever presented.

The thread title is accurate.

It was mostly won by the Russians, really.

Cause they fought Japan a lot...

...wait.

Face it, the USA came in when the hardest part had already been done.

The Siege of Bataan
The Siege of Singapore
The Battle of Java Sea
The Battle of Coral Sea
The Second Battle of Kharkov
The Battle of Midway
The First Battle of El-Alamein
Operation Torch
The Battle of Guadacanal
The Battle of Milne Bay
The Second Battle of El-Alamein
The Battle of Stalingrad
The Battle of Kursk
The Invasion of Sicily
The Invasion of Italy
The Battle of Tarawa
The Battle of Monte Cassino
The Siege of Leningrad
Operation Overlord
The Battle of Normandy
The Battle of Saipan
The Battle of Imphal
Operation Bagration
The Warsaw Uprising
Operation Market Garden
The Battle of Leyte Gulf
The Battle of the Bulge
The Invasion of Iwo Jima
The Invasion of Okinawa
The Battle of Berlin


...and I skipped a fucking bunch.

The hardest part was done? What have you been smoking??

Not denieing that never did, but Russia had the manpower and the industrial capacity that gave the edge to the allies, if they'd of done that, the USA wouldn't have made the difference.

Not denying that Russia manpower was essential, but so was the U.S. industrial capacity...the war needed both for an allied victory.

...just look at these numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Russians lead in tanks and artillery...sure sure.

Look at trucks...tell me where the Soviets are.
Look at transport aircraft and merchant tonnage
Look at coal and iron ore...and especially crude oil.

I don't believe for one minute that the U.S. could have won the war on it's own...I'm not about to believe the Russians could have done it by themselves either.

Does any one know the comparitive sizes of the USN and the Royal Navy? It seems to always be suggested that the USN eventually out grew the Royal Navy, but no figures for tonnage or total ships are ever given.

There are figures for ships built in the link I posted above, but that's not total fleet numbers.

Indeed, the British had the best allied fighters for A LONG time before the P-51 came, and they were the only allies with Jets (Meteor flew in '45 against V1's). The Russians had the best tanks of all and the Russians had more germans facing it then the Brits and the Yanks combined. Facts are Facts. Now I am aware Americans have a hard time accepting facts that don't make them look like god but they're still facts.

Edit: and the P-51 was only supperior to the Spit because of its range.


Want to point out that the Americans were deploying a jet fighter in 1945 too.

Russians had the best tanks with the help of an American engineers design that was used for the tracks and other aspects of the T-34.

Lend lease gave much needed aid to the Brits and Russians.

Another thing to remember is that large numbers of German troops, aircraft were tied up in Western Europe and Southern Europe due to the fact that the Brits and Americans were invading in various places.

A large ariel bombing of Germany by American and British bombers had a devastating blow to Germany.

Do I still need to point out that the Americans and British forces defeated the Japanese without Russian help.

Also the atomic bomb that would also have been used on Germany if need be. I know there were only two at the time but more would have been built if they were needed.

As far as Americans doing it themselves I don't hear that from the fellow Americans I hang around. If some do then they are just being ignorant. About as ignorant as someone saying it was mostly the Russians that did it.

Hmm, those figures say that the USN only overtook the RN in size at some point in 1944. To me that suggests that without the additional support of the RN the US wouldn't have been able to achieve the level of naval dominance that it did. Thus it would have had considerable difficulty maintaing a naval with both Germany and Japan.
I don't know about that though. The one thing that has been seemingly left out is the overwhelming turn out ability the US ramped up to. We were churning out Essex class carriers at a very remarkable rate.

Russians had the best tanks with the help of an American engineers design that was used for the tracks and other aspects of the T-34.


Don't forget the Super Pershing. Took out a King tiger with ease.....then again there were only 2 of them.

No, it was a Russian victory. Russia ftw!

No, it was a Russian victory. Russia ftw!

Tell it to the Chinese.

The hardest part was done? What have you been smoking??

I can't help but notice that a number of those battles were fought without Americans (Stalingrad, Kursk--even El Alamein was mostly Brits)... so color me puzzled.

In all honesty, the US did not enter the war until Nazi Germany had already begun to reel substantially at the very least. They had long ceased scoring anything more than minor tactical successes against the Russians, and the initiative had been lost to them by February of 1943--quite some time before the invasion of Normandy. Clearly, the British and the Americans were hesitant to make any real moves on the European mainland until German forces in the East had been sufficiently compromised. Most competent strategists on all sides knew that the tide had turned at Stalingrad, or at the latest, Kursk. I consider that (not to mention the preceding campaigns from '41-'42) the "hard part."

In all honesty, the US did not enter the war until Nazi Germany had already begun to reel substantially at the very least.
Just out of curriosity, at what point in time did WWII get reclassified to include only war on the Nazis?

Just out of curriosity, at what point in time did WWII get reclassified to include only war on the Nazis?

Uh... most of the discussion so far has basically cenetered around the ETO so I didn't figure it was out of line to refer to it specifically.

I can't help but notice that a number of those battles were fought without Americans (Stalingrad, Kursk--even El Alamein was mostly Brits)... so color me puzzled.

Considering my list includes all the major Pacific actions, I would think the "world" aspect of the war was implied.

Considering my list includes all the major Pacific actions, I would think the "world" aspect of the war was implied.
*rubs temples*

...except that your list seems (mostly) to be a compilation of battles in which the Americans participated. You appear to be answering the allegation that America got involved "after the hardest part was done."

This would tend to mandate that the engagements you list to challenge that assertation would have to have had Americans as major participants, no?

I think that the Big Three were obviously the most important Allied players. I think that Hitler was an idiot militarily. Ill follow Melkor with his Yugoslavia thing. AND Hitler fought to much for politcs rather than strategic vlaue, as someone said earlier. I was also wondering what Kase 3 is. Kase is cheese if you add the umlauts to the a (two little dot things).

One thing I dont belive anyone has mentioned yet is that it took 60+ countries 6 years to defeat 8 (or so) that mad eup the Axis. I know most of those were like Uraguay and Panama but still. Also, at El Almien Rommel was sick when Montgomery first attacked. He also wanted to retreat after a few days but Hitler gave him the Stand Fast order (Yet another bit of his military genius :rolleyes: ) and Rommel obeyed for a time owning to the total destruction of the Axis forces present there.

Personally I think that if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union. (Impossible but just for speculation) The Soviet Union would have declared war on Germany. Stalin was getting ready for war with Germany and in his own words said;

"Our war plan is ready...We can begin the war with Germany within the next two months...There us a peace treaty with Germany, but this is only a deception, or rather a curtain, behind which we can openly work..." The First 7 Days:Barbarossa Page:6

I only wonder what this would have done to the opinions of the Americans. The Soviets would look very agressive to the more common person that didnt know Germany was going to invade the Soviets anyway.

Uh... most of the discussion so far has basically cenetered around the ETO so I didn't figure it was out of line to refer to it specifically.
But it is a little bit deceptive. The war had a number of fronts and three major theaters of action. So, yes, the hard part for the Nazis was done, in Europe. Northern Africa... yeah, that was pretty much over. The Pacific though... THAT hard part was the Battle of Midway.

I know that the United States did not fight in WWII until later in the game, but maybe that was a good thing. I have always viewed the U.S. to be kind of a relief pitcher, one fresh relatively powerful country to come in and blow the tired Axis powers away.

The U.S.'s greatest advantage was that the war was not fought on the home front, had high morale, and wasn't worn out by many years of fighting. An advantage that other countries did not have.

No, the U.S. did not win WWII by itself, and in no way could of it won the war by itself. But, it did give a large advantage to the allies.

The Siege of Bataan
The Siege of Singapore
The Battle of Java Sea
The Battle of Coral Sea
The Second Battle of Kharkov
The Battle of Midway
The First Battle of El-Alamein
Operation Torch
The Battle of Guadacanal
The Battle of Milne Bay
The Second Battle of El-Alamein
The Battle of Stalingrad
The Battle of Kursk
The Invasion of Sicily
The Invasion of Italy
The Battle of Tarawa
The Battle of Monte Cassino
The Siege of Leningrad
Operation Overlord
The Battle of Normandy
The Battle of Saipan
The Battle of Imphal
Operation Bagration
The Warsaw Uprising
Operation Market Garden
The Battle of Leyte Gulf
The Battle of the Bulge
The Invasion of Iwo Jima
The Invasion of Okinawa
The Battle of Berlin
Many of these were not Euro Theater and many of these are Russian theater with no American involvement... plus the hardest had been done, keeping the Germans out of the UK. The BOB was by far the hardest you could have.


Not denying that Russia manpower was essential, but so was the U.S. industrial capacity...the war needed both for an allied victory.

...just look at these numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

And you think these numbers were even 1/4 of what the Russians used? America was at peek industrial production and didn't even cover 1/4 of what Russia needed, USA couldnt compensate for even more industrial capacity.

Russians lead in tanks and artillery...sure sure.
Do you know how many T-34 tanks were built and howmuch better they were then any other allied tank?


I don't believe for one minute that the U.S. could have won the war on it's own...I'm not about to believe the Russians could have done it by themselves either.
Nor do I.

Want to point out that the Americans were deploying a jet fighter in 1945 too.
Indeed but only above American soil as experimental plane, Americans only flew british Jets during WWII.

Russians had the best tanks with the help of an American engineers design that was used for the tracks and other aspects of the T-34.
lol... America had barely any hand in it, the T-34 had sloped armour, the US tanks didn't have sloped armour for a LONG time after WWII.

Another thing to remember is that large numbers of German troops, aircraft were tied up in Western Europe and Southern Europe due to the fact that the Brits and Americans were invading in various places.
Very true, but not close to asmany troops that could be found on the eastern front... Not nearly...

A large ariel bombing of Germany by American and British bombers had a devastating blow to Germany.
Not that hard to do when the Americans came in when Air Domminance was already on the side of Britian.

Do I still need to point out that the Americans and British forces defeated the Japanese without Russian help.
haven't found anyone who sayed they did.

Also the atomic bomb that would also have been used on Germany if need be. I know there were only two at the time but more would have been built if they were needed.
Again you people seem to forget pretty fast that the Axis were very close aswell.

As far as Americans doing it themselves I don't hear that from the fellow Americans I hang around. If some do then they are just being ignorant. About as ignorant as someone saying it was mostly the Russians that did it.
Amen to that.

Lucky Boys in the USA were only ever invaded in Hawaii, and thats not really mainland is it!?
Fact is, Britain, Russia etc all had attacks coming from Germany, in the form of Full Infantry assault (Russia) or massive bombing campaigns (Britain) now we had to fight these off and counter attck to stop the rest of Europe Becoming Fascist, and we wouldnt have been able to do this nearly half as successfully without the help of the USA.
I do not accept that the USA could have Won the war completely on its own, that is utterly untrue and of huge disrespect to the millions of British, French, Russian, Australian, Canadian troops that all died during this war.
FACT, Collectively we did win, and lucky we do not all speak German and there are still Jewish People in this world and we should be thankful to everyone who fought for us in the war and not argue over Which nation really did win it. We all Won it, End.

Many of these were not Euro Theater and many of these are Russian theater with no American involvement...

So apparently, the Pacific Theater is just a completely seperate war, unrelated to the European conflict in any way...fine, whatever.

plus the hardest had been done, keeping the Germans out of the UK. The BOB was by far the hardest you could have.

...tell that one to the POWs in the Phillipines, the Poles and Jews in Warsaw, the peasants in China, or the millions of dead on the Eastern Front.

Battle of Britain was the "hardest"...my ass.

And you think these numbers were even 1/4 of what the Russians used? America was at peek industrial production and didn't even cover 1/4 of what Russia needed, USA couldnt compensate for even more industrial capacity.

And do you realize that America produced all the LOGISTICAL elements necessary to make the Soviet Union an effective fighting force?

All the combat vehicles in the world won't matter for shit if you don't have trucks and locomotives to keep your supply line flowing. Especially on the vast plains of the Eastern Front.

Soviet production of logistical vehicles was ridiculously low, because they were able to rely on America for those needs and convert factories over to armor and artillery production, hence their high levels of production in those areas.

Here's a good one.

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that only about 92 locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.

And I'll point to the Crude Oil and Merchant Tonnage from my previous post again...the Soviet war machine would have ground to a halt without American aid.

Nor do I.

Well, at least we agree on something. ;)

So apparently, the Pacific Theater is just a completely seperate war, unrelated to the European conflict in any way...fine, whatever.



...tell that one to the POWs in the Phillipines, the Poles and Jews in Warsaw, the peasants in China, or the millions of dead on the Eastern Front.

Battle of Britain was the "hardest"...my ass.



And do you realize that America produced all the LOGISTICAL elements necessary to make the Soviet Union an effective fighting force?

All the combat vehicles in the world won't matter for shit if you don't have trucks and locomotives to keep your supply line flowing. Especially on the vast plains of the Eastern Front.

Soviet production of logistical vehicles was ridiculously low, because they were able to rely on America for those needs and convert factories over to armor and artillery production, hence their high levels of production in those areas.

Here's a good one.



And I'll point to the Crude Oil and Merchant Tonnage from my previous post again...the Soviet war machine would have ground to a halt without American aid.



Well, at least we agree on something. ;)

The topic is: Is America responsible for the European liberation, to European liberation, the pacific campaign was unimportant.
About it being hard, don't be cheeky, I am very well aware that POWs had it hard but I think you know aswell as I do that was not what I meant with hard.

Indeed, all tanks in the world won't make a difference if there is no logistics. Ditto the other way around. Face it, without Russia the war couldnt have been won. It couldnt have done it alone, but it couldnt be done without.

Why is this even a thread? Only a retard would disagree with the premise that the victory of the Allies in WWII was a joint effort and not solely due to the participation of the US of America (or any single member, for that matter).

Well true... in the western part of the Pacific campaign, Britian did do alot. But I do agree that the Pacific campaign was MOSTLY an American doing.

The topic is: Is America responsible for the European liberation, to European liberation, the pacific campaign was unimportant.

Not really. It certainly tied up a good swathe of Commonwealth troops who otherwise would likely have been deployed in Europe if, for example, the US had shouldered all responsibilities in the Pacific, or if they had even entered the war earlier.

Well true... in the western part of the Pacific campaign, Britian did do alot. But I do agree that the Pacific campaign was MOSTLY an American doing.

While I agree that the Americans were a decisive battle in defeating the Japanese in the Pacific Theater, remember that the Chinese were fighting off the Japanese much like how the Russians were fighting off the Germans in the Eastern Front. So, I don't think that the Pacific Theater should be attributed as mostly an American doing, given that while we're not sure whether the native population in the occupied Japanese empire would have eventually fought them off, the Japanese military was largely stretched thin long before Pearl Harbor (sp?).

LOL I think I am confused with the other thread.

The topic is: Is America responsible for the European liberation, to European liberation, the pacific campaign was unimportant.
I think you have your threads confused. The other thread is about Europe. This one is WWII, which the last time I checked, included the Pacific Theater.

Racstz;12586169']Lucky Boys in the USA were only ever invaded in Hawaii, and thats not really mainland is it!?


Actually Hawaii was not technically an invasion.

Now Alaska was.....

Now I dont know this, bust wasnt Hawaii Still a territory thus not a state?

Now I dont know this, bust wasnt Hawaii Still a territory thus not a state?

;) Admitted in 1959.

Indeed but only above American soil as experimental plane, Americans only flew British Jets during WWII.

It was going into active service in 1945. Check the history of the P-80. They were in early service in early 1945 as recon. They were going to go into service but the war was ending and they never came into direct combat. Also all jet planes were experimental in WWII as you should know


lol... America had barely any hand in it, the T-34 had sloped armour, the US tanks didn't have sloped armour for a LONG time after WWII.

I mentioned the tracks to be exact. The undercarriage of the T-34 and tracks was of an American engineer design. To be honest they were of an old design and rejected by the US army except of course for the steel tracks. Most any weapon system designed then and now have foreign technology either directly incorporated or reverse engineered tech.


Very true, but not close to asmany troops that could be found on the eastern front... Not nearly...


Check your historical information. There were vast numbers of troops deployed outside of the Eastern front because of American and British forces invading at various points. Include the Japanese imperial Army in that number and it increases dramatically. Also want to mention the high number of casualties that the Russians had were because of their poor tactics at throwing men against machine gun nests and such. They did not care about the common foot soldier. The Americans and British did. This is one of the main factors of the difference in casualty rates. Now if you were to take the actual casualties inflicted by one country vs another. The Americans inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy as well as the British. I am taking into account both theaters including the massive bombing that the Americans and British did.


Not that hard to do when the Americans came in when Air Domminance was already on the side of Britian.

The British had air superiority only over the UK. Mainland air superiority did not come until American aviators arrived over mainland Europe with the aid of the British. This is one of the reasons why D-day was not until June of 1944.





Again you people seem to forget pretty fast that the Axis were very close aswell.



Neither the Germans and or the Japanese were that close to the end of their respective atomic programs to even test a nuclear weapon. This is a myth I see brought up in the last 10 years that they were just a hair away from making a nuclear bomb.

While I agree that the Americans were a decisive battle in defeating the Japanese in the Pacific Theater, remember that the Chinese were fighting off the Japanese much like how the Russians were fighting off the Germans in the Eastern Front. So, I don't think that the Pacific Theater should be attributed as mostly an American doing, given that while we're not sure whether the native population in the occupied Japanese empire would have eventually fought them off, the Japanese military was largely stretched thin long before Pearl Harbor (sp?).

The Chinese had massive allied help. Through direct air support to supplies over the Burma road. Even tactical help from the Americans. If they didn't they would have lost. Japanese army was not stretched thin in the Pacific Theater. Because their navy and air force was decimated it made it difficult to transfer troops. I believe there were over 2 million troops in arms in the Japanese Imperial Army at the end of hostilities

As I have said before, without Britain, America would have had a lot harder tme of it . For a start they would have been 3000 miles further away from Germany with a U boat filled atlantic to cross. Also many US weapons were only perfected after use by Britain. The B17 bomber had little armour and was under gunned until the RAF used it and passed their combat expierience to the US. Also it is little known that the majority of the Japanese army was destroyed by the Indian and British armys in Burma! I know this cos I am typing this in my workplace, the Imperial war museum in London. WW2 was won by ALL the allies, not just the US or Britain, even tho Britain suffered twice as many casualtys as America.

Zhukov himself said that without US aid, Russia would've surrendered in 1942.


The UK would've had to surrender because they would've been starved if it wasn't for the USN.

I seriously doubt that the war would have been won if they had surrendered, and the US had to fight Germany all by themselves.

It was obviously a joint effort, and it cannot be said that the US won the war, or that the USSR could have won the war alone.

In any case, the point is moot - we all worked together to bring victory.

Wikipedia provides a lovely graph of Napoleons casualties compared to the temperature in Russia at the time, for those who think that every Russian victory has been based purely on the weather:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Minard.png

From what I can tell (My French isnt that good) The big line on top shows the location of the French army, the black one below that shows casualties and the thin line on the bottom shows the temperature.
Note, if you will, that French casualties start to rise WITH the temperature, all the way up to what I beleive is a balmy 24 Reaumur (1 reaumur = C1.25 degree)

Anyway, on the subject of WWII...
It was indeed an ALLIED victory.
However, that is not to say that, as some here would apparently have it, the UK could have won the war on its own.
The only nation capable of winning the war on its own was Germany. And even they had some help.
Im not going to get into strategy and tactics, but it irks me somewhat to hear the entire scope of Russian strategy described as 'throwing waves of men at the enemy.' Certainly true for some commanders, but that would be a product of Stalin's purges.
In any case, you'll note that it worked out pretty well in the end, since, amoung other things, its terribly demoralizing to wake up in the morning and hear 10,000 Russians go "UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-RAH!"

And, again, I feel the need to point out that the Russians also had the best ground attack fighter of the war, and some of the best small arms (the Mosin-Nagant, the PPsh41, the DShK machine gun, etc.) and, indeed, quite a large navy. Stalin put almost as many resources into submarines as he did into tanks, scrapping several battleships to provide resources to build subs. One of his more redeeming actions, perhaps.
Of course, Russia would have been in a bad situation if the US hadnt provided them aid, but even in a worst case scenario Hitler would have had trouble crossing the Urals to get at the Russian industry which had been shifted over there.

...Meh, Ive already written a lot more than I menat to.

EDIT:
One last bone to pick.
Fighters.
Everybody seems to forget that the Russians built more fighters than anybody else, and that those fighters were, arguably of course, better than both the British and American ones. The MiG-3/7 were, however you look at it, far superior to the German fighter planes.

It was mostly won by the Russians, really.

Except in the Pacific Ocean.

I think you are forgetting Montgomery, Monty was already punching the Germans before Patton even heard about North Africa.

And it was the Fall of Tobruk that precipitated the Allies to choose to invade North Africa over Europe in late 1942 early '43.

Face it, the USA came in when the hardest part had already been done.

Oh yea sure like Normandy was not all that difficult :rolleyes:

Oh yea sure like Normandy was not all that difficult :rolleyes:

Compare it to Kharkov. By comparison, the US hardly took any casualties.

Not denieing that never did, but Russia had the manpower and the industrial capacity that gave the edge to the allies, if they'd of done that, the USA wouldn't have made the difference.

I guess you did not know that Lend-Lease went to the Soviets that helped them turn back the Germans?

I just scrapped a post that had a few minor nitpicks (It's Mein Kampf! :headbang: ) but most of it is reliably accurate. I disagree that declaring war with the US was Germany's "Death Warrant;" the biggest mistake Hitler ever made was invading Yugoslavia and postponing the launch of Barbarossa. If Barbarossa had started when it was supposed to, the Red Army could have been put down by '42.

Also I dispute the characterization that the US would have been "Sitting ducks." Without the naval infrastructure to get their army across even the English Channel, the Germans would have probably needed about ten more years of serious naval buildup in order to launch and sustain an invasion on the other side of the Atlantic. Owing to the clumsiness of German foreign policy at that time (Ribbentrop was a world-class moron), they likely would not have been able to keep their intentions very well hidden and by the time the Germans could have realistically invaded, we'd be very much ready for it. Add in the healthy population of American civilian gun owners and that sitting duck is looking a lot meaner.

I get the feeling that, while this fellow makes a few good points, he gets a lot of his information from Harry Turtledove books...

I get the feeling that, while this fellow makes a few good points, he gets a lot of his information from Harry Turtledove books...

Who Melkor?

That's funny.

I guess you missed his current reading list.

As I have said before, without Britain, America would have had a lot harder tme of it . For a start they would have been 3000 miles further away from Germany with a U boat filled atlantic to cross. Also many US weapons were only perfected after use by Britain. The B17 bomber had little armour and was under gunned until the RAF used it and passed their combat expierience to the US. Also it is little known that the majority of the Japanese army was destroyed by the Indian and British armys in Burma! I know this cos I am typing this in my workplace, the Imperial war museum in London. WW2 was won by ALL the allies, not just the US or Britain, even tho Britain suffered twice as many casualtys as America.

I dont think anyone with a passing knowledge of WWII is saying the British were not a contributing factor.

Compare it to Kharkov. By comparison, the US hardly took any casualties.

Casualties do not necessarily make one battle more important then another. Russians used bad tactics thus ensuring a lot of their young men and women went to the grave.

EDIT:
One last bone to pick.
Fighters.
Everybody seems to forget that the Russians built more fighters than anybody else, and that those fighters were, arguably of course, better than both the British and American ones. The MiG-3/7 were, however you look at it, far superior to the German fighter planes.

Not true in fighter production.

Fighter aircraft
United States = 99,950
Soviet Union = 63,087
Germany = 55,727
United Kingdom = 49,422
Japan = 30,447
Italy = 4,510

Check this link out and it gives a nice list of military equipment and who made it. Also shows material. Which the US was ahead in production. Also another interesting point in this list. Soviet subs = 52. Far behind everyone else except for Italy.

http://www.answers.com/topic/military-production-during-world-war-ii

Casualties do not necessarily make one battle more important then another. Russians used bad tactics thus ensuring a lot of their young men and women went to the grave.

Name a nation that, early in the war, used good tactics. Aside from Germany, of course.
Everybody aside from the Germans (and Japanese, of course) was still basically planning to fight WWI again.

Compare it to Kharkov. By comparison, the US hardly took any casualties.

Considering how the Russians handled their troops; casualty counts are not a measure for a fight.

Never mind the fact the West and East fought different styles.....

Name a nation that, early in the war, used good tactics. Aside from Germany, of course.
Everybody aside from the Germans (and Japanese, of course) was still basically planning to fight WWI again.

Maybe in 1939. You were talking about 1942-43 and comparing 1944.

Name a nation that, early in the war, used good tactics. Aside from Germany, of course.
Everybody aside from the Germans (and Japanese, of course) was still basically planning to fight WWI again.

Let me clarify what I meant in this particular instance. Russians used bad tactics specifically when it came to their ground troops. The would needlessly send thousands to their deaths to try and overwhelm a position.

As far as overall tactics I believe the Russians did a smart move by moving their industrial production east. The Americans were smart in ramping up production before they entered WWII officially. The Brits were smart in fending off the Germans in the Battle of Britain. Also the battle of Midway was a masterful plan. Their was good tactics in some areas and others there were not. That is going to happen in every war by all sides.

World War II, and many wars for that matter, are victories of the central bankers only. It's the money, children.

I would like to think the war was won by a joint victory, the Western Allies had the strength to push the Germans to Berlin, but so did the Russians.

It was because the German Army was tied down in the East that the West was able to gain a foothold in Europe.

Also, Hitler became totally engrossed in the Eastern Front and allowed other events to pass him by. The Russians distracted the bulk of his troops who feared another major attack like in 1943

WAHAHAHA do you know how far off you are, do you know how close the Germans were with the A-bom. Are you aware that at the end of the European Theater, A german sub was sent to Japan due to the fact that they needed just one or two more weeks to finish it.

Actually, I do know and the Germans were not as close as you believe they were.

Uh... most of the discussion so far has basically cenetered around the ETO so I didn't figure it was out of line to refer to it specifically.

That is true but the thread title did say that the second world war was an allied victory. In Europe, it most certainly was an ally victory. In the Pacific, it was mostly an US victory.

Many of these were not Euro Theater and many of these are Russian theater with no American involvement... plus the hardest had been done, keeping the Germans out of the UK. The BOB was by far the hardest you could have.

I see several of them as part of the PACIFIC THEATER which was primarily the duty of the US to fight. Many of those battles were very very difficult to. Thanks.

Racstz;12586169']Lucky Boys in the USA were only ever invaded in Hawaii, and thats not really mainland is it!?

Try Alaska!

I do not accept that the USA could have Won the war completely on its own, that is utterly untrue and of huge disrespect to the millions of British, French, Russian, Australian, Canadian troops that all died during this war.

Yep. US could not have won the war on their own. NO ONE could have won that war on its own.

FACT, Collectively we did win, and lucky we do not all speak German and there are still Jewish People in this world and we should be thankful to everyone who fought for us in the war and not argue over Which nation really did win it. We all Won it, End.

indeed.

May I please make one really important note about contries controlled by Nazi Germany?

They allowed people to retain thier own language and culture, and they did not require that they learn German. It owuld have been too much of a nitemare to try and do all that and the German's were smart enough to know it.

Compare it to Kharkov. By comparison, the US hardly took any casualties.

Not disputing that but on the Western Front, things were still difficult for the allies.

I get the feeling that, while this fellow makes a few good points, he gets a lot of his information from Harry Turtledove books...

Care to prove that point?

even tho Britain suffered twice as many casualtys as America.

Dead wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties


More casualties if you count civilian, and even then it is no where near twice as many.

Dead wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties


More casualties if you count civilian, and even then it is no where near twice as many.

I think he might've meant in the European theater. I don't know if it's true or not, but I think that's what he meant.

The Chinese had massive allied help. Through direct air support to supplies over the Burma road. Even tactical help from the Americans. If they didn't they would have lost. Japanese army was not stretched thin in the Pacific Theater. Because their navy and air force was decimated it made it difficult to transfer troops. I believe there were over 2 million troops in arms in the Japanese Imperial Army at the end of hostilities

Oh, well I guess my point is moot then ^^.

Sorry about that.

In a recent interchange of messages with someone on facebook I have been having a discussion regarding the fact that he believes that WW2 in Europe would have had the same outcome if the USA had not been assisted by the UK and USSR. He seemed to believed that without the UK's help, the Americans could have invaded up through Italy and struck Germany there. I said that was complete rubbish for a number of reasons

- If the RAF were not fighting Germany at the time, the Germans would have had a massive airel advantage and most likly would have gained air superioirty over Italy rather easily. American forces would not have been able to get air superiority purely with aircraft carrier compliments. Without air superiority, they would not have been able to launch a very sucessful invasion from the sea.

- The way to get to Italy would have been through the straits of Gibralter, and that would have been rather difficult. With large numbers of American ships moving through to invade Italy would have been easy pickings for the Luftwaffe as well as the Spanish navy, who would have likly sided with Hitler if this sort of thing was going on (Spain being Facist also at the time)

- America would not be able to logistically manage to continue shipping the nessecary troop numbers to re-enforce, never mind invade, mainland Europe via either Italy or France, without a permeniant landing station. Also any invasion would require the kinds of precision bombing & air support that the RAF provided during the liberation of France. American aircraft carrier fleets would be unable to provide that.

- It is very doubtful that the political will would exist to fight the Germans at that stage, considering that without the need for the large number of troops who invaded Russia, the German army would be increadably strong, and more to the point, Kase 3 would be available. Kase 3 only was unavailable in the D-Day landings because of the British intellegence/American millitary opperation tricking the Nazi's into believing that a small scale invasion would take place in Normandy but the main one would be Calis. Hitler kept it waiting in Cailis and eventually it was surrounded and eliminated.

- If the Soviet Union was not fighting the Germans at that stage (assuming that the SU had surrendered or Hitler had not attacked them etc), the troops that were engaged in operation Barborssa (some 2-4 million I believe) would be able to be deployed Westwards, massively outnumbering any American attempts to invade.

I just thought I would bring such a debate here, as I thought more enlightened people would agree he does not really have a viable argument

Yeah. The US was more of a supplier in the European theater. It was more concentrated in the Asian theater.

LOL I think I am confused with the other thread.

I think you have your threads confused. The other thread is about Europe. This one is WWII, which the last time I checked, included the Pacific Theater.

Yeah, I didn't notice that. :p

The Chinese had massive allied help. Through direct air support to supplies over the Burma road. Even tactical help from the Americans. If they didn't they would have lost. Japanese army was not stretched thin in the Pacific Theater. Because their navy and air force was decimated it made it difficult to transfer troops. I believe there were over 2 million troops in arms in the Japanese Imperial Army at the end of hostilities

Japan bit off way more than it could chew invading China and provoking America.

People forget the licking the European powers took at the hands of the Japanese at the outset of the Pacific War. With so much focus at home, the Japanese took full advantage, even though they had been tied up in China for over four years.

In the five months between Pearl Harbor and Coral Sea, Japan took Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Borneo, the Phillipines (mostly), most of the Dutch East Indies. They were within striking distance of India from Burma, and of Australia from Java. Thaland had capitulated and aided Japan.

The US, UK and Dutch forces were not prepared to act as a unified force, and were basically on their heels until Midway. After that, Japan's overextension, particularly in the loss of trained and experienced pilots, proved too difficult to overcome.

If China hadn't been divided, the war would have been quite different.

America could have defeated Japan without any help, though it would have been much more difficult, but China truly did more than anyone else in that campaign the resources Japan expended there would have been of much better use elsewhere.

China couldn't really win, but it'd couldn't really lose either. The US was saved much sweat and blood due to the efforts and deaths of countless Chinese.

I often wonder what might have happened if Japan had ignored U.S. interests and focused only on European Pacific holdings. Bypassing Pearl and the Phillipines might have netted them India, or Australia/New Zealand. The UK and The Netherland (occupied!) were in no position to stop Japan.

The U.S. probably would have gotten involved, but at what point, and to what degree? Do Japan and Germany meet somewhere in the Middle East. What of Russia? Does Japan attack Russia if the U.S. fails to act quickly?

Lots of intriguing possibilities, none particularly good...some much worse.

As I have said before, without Britain, America would have had a lot harder tme of it . For a start they would have been 3000 miles further away from Germany with a U boat filled atlantic to cross.

The US occupied Greenland on April 10th 1941, exactly one year and one day after the invasion/surrender of Denmark to Germany.

The US occupied Iceland on July 7th 1941, five months before Pearl Harbor.

Draw any conclusion you like, but there was a plan in place...not the ideal plan, but a plan.

I dont think anyone with a passing knowledge of WWII is saying the British were not a contributing factor.

The United Kingdom, and the British Empire as a whole, were just as essential as the U.S. or Russia.

The UK, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand...contributing in every theatre, and often in key battles (El-Alamein, Imphal, Normandy, All of Italy)...and the UK being the only nation besides Germany to have been at war for it's entire duration. (Aside from Japan and China)

I think the Italian front was interesting. Free French, Poles, and Greeks. Mexicans and Brazilians. Many troops from all over the British Empire, Americans. Germans. Italians on both sides.

An ecclectic campaign, to say the least. :p

Racstz;12586169']Lucky Boys in the USA were only ever invaded in Hawaii, and thats not really mainland is it!?
Fact is, Britain, Russia etc all had attacks coming from Germany, in the form of Full Infantry assault (Russia) or massive bombing campaigns (Britain) now we had to fight these off and counter attck to stop the rest of Europe Becoming Fascist, and we wouldnt have been able to do this nearly half as successfully without the help of the USA.
I do not accept that the USA could have Won the war completely on its own, that is utterly untrue and of huge disrespect to the millions of British, French, Russian, Australian, Canadian troops that all died during this war.
FACT, Collectively we did win, and lucky we do not all speak German and there are still Jewish People in this world and we should be thankful to everyone who fought for us in the war and not argue over Which nation really did win it. We all Won it, End.

Learn history. Hawaii was bombed, not invaded.

Some Alaskan islands, however, were invaded by Japan.

The Siege of Bataan
The Siege of Singapore
The Battle of Java Sea
The Battle of Coral Sea
The Second Battle of Kharkov (what was the US involvement there?
The Battle of Midway
[/b]The First Battle of El-Alamein (now, call me a retard but I'm sure this was a British battle)[/b]
Operation Torch
The Battle of Guadacanal
The Battle of Milne Bay
The Second Battle of El-Alamein
The Battle of Stalingrad (a Soviet battle)
The Battle of Kursk (see Stalingrad)
The Invasion of Sicily
The Invasion of Italy
The Battle of Tarawa
The Battle of Monte Cassino
The Siege of Leningrad (see kursk)
Operation Overlord
The Battle of Normandy
The Battle of Saipan
The Battle of Imphal
Operation Bagration (see Leningrad)
The Warsaw Uprising
Operation Market Garden
The Battle of Leyte Gulf
The Battle of the Bulge
The Invasion of Iwo Jima
The Invasion of Okinawa
The Battle of Berlin (overwhelmingly Soviet)


...and I skipped a fucking bunch.


.

The Second Battle of Kharkov (what was the US involvement there?)

They supplied most of the trucks, locomotives, and rolling stock.

Those who think that victory in Europe was mainly a Russian affair, that they could, and would have won without America, please explain this to me: How do you get a fantastic amounts of arms and munitions to the front line without transport?

The US could not win the war in Europe alone, but the Allies would have lost without the US.

Learn history. Hawaii was bombed, not invaded.

Some Alaskan islands, however, were invaded by Japan.

Kiska and Attu were little more than diversions by the Japanese to keep the US fearing an invasion of Alaska. US Army forces pushed the Japanese out very quickly.

The Japanese were, bottom-line, pushed into the conflict. They had two choices: go to war with the United States, or run out of raw materials. they chose war over giving up the rich countries in Southeast Asia because they knew, down to the exact day, how much oil they would have with the American embargo in place.

'Course, they managed fairly well for a little while, at least until Midway. Hell, they pounded British Malaysia so hard the battles are still being looked at as one of the best Japanese combat victories.

World War II can really be boiled down to World War I The Sequel. The interplay is so vital to the comprehension of the conflict itself, terms like "Nazi Germany" and "The US Won at D-Day" fail to accurately describe the conflict.

My opinion, at least, is that Germany never had a chance to really win it all. There was just too much at stake, with too many things to go wrong, and Hitler banked way too much on getting the natural resources of the east. I can't recall the exact title, but I read through a book about the myth of German military superiority in the modern age. I'd recommend that.

It's possible that the U.S. would have won WWII anyway but highly unlikely. And even if they did the casualties would be terrible. Russia was there not only to divert Germany (which they didn't want to) but they also carried the heaviest cross.
All-in-all, I'd say the war probably need Britain, Russia, and America. It would would have been concievable for only two to be able to win (although it would be very long and terrible) but virtually impossible for any one. Of course, if you factor in the Bomb the U.S. would have a much better chance of winning, but yet again the death toll would make the REAL WWII look like Iraq.

The United Kingdom, and the British Empire as a whole, were just as essential as the U.S. or Russia.
. :p

I'm not sure Russia would have even been an ally if America wasn't. I would say America contributed the most simply becuase it ha dthe most men/material. I mean England and Russia did help alot, but the entire pacific campaign to defeat Japan was mostly American. The Chinese didn't do alot really. GENERAL McAURTHUR FTW!!

That's just what all you commie European socialites would have us believe!

Please. Retarded and Conservative are two seperate things.

What a way to put down the brilliant military tactics of the Russians. Kursk, anyone? Sturmoviks? Do those ring a bell? The T-34/85? Ivan Kozhedub?

No, Zhukov trumps them all.

If the British and Russians had lost/surrendered, Hitler would still have lost, only half of Europe would be a radioactive parking lot. It would have gone something like this:

Hitler: I have the entire Old World under my control. I have the bulk of the world's industry and natural resources. What do you have?
Truman: I have the atomic bomb *nukes Berlin*.
Hitler: (censored because I don't know any German swear words)

If the US had not been on the verge of developing The Bomb (and let's face it, the chances of Hitler being in a position to stop the Manhattan Project by 1945 are non-existant), they would have probably lost in the end - but if the Resistance efforts in Europe and Asia were fierce, the American Resistance (combine an armed populace with the Mafia, add a proud revolutionary past to draw upon for inspiration and leaflets) would have been the Wehrmacht's worse nightmare (and that's after the bloodbath that would have been Palestine).

Hey, that would be an interesting alternate history - the Germans occupy America, only to face horrific casualties from the American Resistance - and ultimately, a second American Revolution.

The presence of Russia and the UK allowed the Allies to win without causing massive collateral damage. World War II was an Allied victory.

In a recent interchange of messages with someone on facebook I have been having a discussion regarding the fact that he believes that WW2 in Europe would have had the same outcome if the USA had not been assisted by the UK and USSR. He seemed to believed that without the UK's help, the Americans could have invaded up through Italy and struck Germany there. I said that was complete rubbish for a number of reasons

- If the RAF were not fighting Germany at the time, the Germans would have had a massive airel advantage and most likly would have gained air superioirty over Italy rather easily. American forces would not have been able to get air superiority purely with aircraft carrier compliments. Without air superiority, they would not have been able to launch a very sucessful invasion from the sea.

- The way to get to Italy would have been through the straits of Gibralter, and that would have been rather difficult. With large numbers of American ships moving through to invade Italy would have been easy pickings for the Luftwaffe as well as the Spanish navy, who would have likly sided with Hitler if this sort of thing was going on (Spain being Facist also at the time)

- America would not be able to logistically manage to continue shipping the nessecary troop numbers to re-enforce, never mind invade, mainland Europe via either Italy or France, without a permeniant landing station. Also any invasion would require the kinds of precision bombing & air support that the RAF provided during the liberation of France. American aircraft carrier fleets would be unable to provide that.

- It is very doubtful that the political will would exist to fight the Germans at that stage, considering that without the need for the large number of troops who invaded Russia, the German army would be increadably strong, and more to the point, Kase 3 would be available. Kase 3 only was unavailable in the D-Day landings because of the British intellegence/American millitary opperation tricking the Nazi's into believing that a small scale invasion would take place in Normandy but the main one would be Calis. Hitler kept it waiting in Cailis and eventually it was surrounded and eliminated.

- If the Soviet Union was not fighting the Germans at that stage (assuming that the SU had surrendered or Hitler had not attacked them etc), the troops that were engaged in operation Barborssa (some 2-4 million I believe) would be able to be deployed Westwards, massively outnumbering any American attempts to invade.

I just thought I would bring such a debate here, as I thought more enlightened people would agree he does not really have a viable argument

sausage and chips and crepes de fromage et de jambon et what won the war. yes i can talk french, you are wrong :P

Hitler: I have the entire Old World under my control. I have the bulk of the world's industry and natural resources. What do you have?
Truman: I have the atomic bomb *nukes Berlin*

Nope. Tries to send a piston-driven bomber to nuke Berlin, the bomber gets blasted out of the sky by a Jagdgeschwader of Me-262 jets. Come on, if Hitler had been able to wipe out Russia and secure Europe under his control, wir würden jetzt Deutsch sprechen.;)

World War II was an Allied victory.
Never repeated enough. Ah, the good times of old, when America fought fascism...

Originally Posted by Post Terran Europa
In a recent interchange of messages with someone on facebook I have been having a discussion regarding the fact that he believes that WW2 in Europe would have had the same outcome if the USA had not been assisted by the UK and USSR.

Call me eurocentric, but I still see WW2 as a war fought mostly by the British Empire and CCCP on the Allied side, with the support of USA in a second stage of it. Britain ALONE carried the blunt of the Axis' attacks for 2 whole years. CCCP had its territory invaded by the greatest invasion force ever.
Look, meaning no disrespect to USA, but look at the casualties... just look at the casualties.

linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2_casualties

The Japanese were, bottom-line, pushed into the conflict. They had two choices: go to war with the United States, or run out of raw materials. they chose war over giving up the rich countries in Southeast Asia because they knew, down to the exact day, how much oil they would have with the American embargo in place.
*blinks* Have you been getting your history from Yasukuni-jinja?

The UK would've had to surrender because they would've been starved if it wasn't for the USN.

The Merchant Navy cept the UK supplied, not the US Navy. The Merchant Navy even had to go to US to get supplied. The US Navy even forced the UK to buy some destroyers it badly needed. They didn't just GIVE them, they forced the UK to buy them.

-The US didn't help much. Pure crap. The US provided the main fighting force in the Pacific campaign, provided manpower for North Africa, Italy, and France, and supplied the allies with war supplies made from America's undestroyed factories that were well out of range of axis bombers.

That is absolute crap. The UK and Commonwealth forces fought in Burma and the rest of the Pacific for longer than any of the US forces. There were also not more US people in the Pacific.

The US had the ultimate weapon in 1945, while the Germans remained two-three years out.

Yes, the Russians had the upper hand in conventional military matters, but the US had the one superweapon that proved to be worth a damn in the war.

70% + of Scientists working on the Atomic Bomb were actually German (or from the Nazi Empire) or from the UK. Hardly any were American. The Germans were actually much faster at building the Atom bomb until the Telemark research base was destroyed.

The only reason the US got involved in the western front was because the war was pretty much already over. Nazi germany would have fallen anyway, the US wanted to limit the amount of land the russians invaded. If no invasion was made from the west, the russians would have gladly kept fighting all the way to france and would have happily taken italy as well. I'm sure it wouldn't have taken long for them to support coups in spain or a weakened UK for that matter either.

The biggest contribution the US made to the war was supplying the UK, russia and allies. Without this support the war would have ended very differently.

Well, without the American support, Russia would have been lost as Germany was less then 25 miles from their capitol. England was lucky that Hitler had a change of heart and instead of invading the UK he went on to invade Africa.

Yes, without the Americans the world would be taken over by dictators.

*blinks* Have you been getting your history from Yasukuni-jinja?

He does get his facts from the turth in history. America decided to cut off the Japanese of all raw meterial. Up until this point they got over half of their materials from us.

He does get his facts from the turth in history. America decided to cut off the Japanese of all raw meterial. Up until this point they got over half of their materials from us.
*sighs* Japan was not forced into the war, Japan decided to go to war. Japan made the attacks on China, various points in the Pacific, and, of course, Pearl Harbor. There was no 'forced' about it.

The point of view that Japan was forced is a favorite of Japanese nationalists who use the museum at Yasukuni-Jinja to argue just that, usually because it makes the Pacific War justifiable and absolves Japan of any war guilt.

*sighs* Japan was not forced into the war, Japan decided to go to war. Japan made the attacks on China, various points in the Pacific, and, of course, Pearl Harbor. There was no 'forced' about it.

The point of view that Japan was forced is a favorite of Japanese nationalists who use the museum at Yasukuni-Jinja to argue just that, usually because it makes the Pacific War justifiable and absolves Japan of any war guilt.

Winner for 10.

I can't believe anyone outside of Japan even takes the idea seriously.

He does get his facts from the turth in history. America decided to cut off the Japanese of all raw meterial. Up until this point they got over half of their materials from us.

We cut the Japanese off from trade because of the war in China.

That is absolute crap. The UK and Commonwealth forces fought in Burma and the rest of the Pacific for longer than any of the US forces. There were also not more US people in the Pacific.
That, my friend, is pure bull. Burma was attacked in January of 1942. Attacks on US held Philippines and Hawai'i came in December, 1941. US citizens had been engaging Japanese forces in China since the late '30's as well.

The Merchant Navy cept the UK supplied, not the US Navy. The Merchant Navy even had to go to US to get supplied. The US Navy even forced the UK to buy some destroyers it badly needed. They didn't just GIVE them, they forced the UK to buy them.

Whilst the Merchant Navy did keep the UK supplied, large numbers of merchant vessels and more importantly escorts came from the US, especially in the latter stages of the conflict.

That is absolute crap. The UK and Commonwealth forces fought in Burma and the rest of the Pacific for longer than any of the US forces. There were also not more US people in the Pacific.

Utter rot. Whilst never one to denigrate the work of 14th Army and its brethren, there were far more US soldiers serving in the Pacific Theatre than British and Commonwealth soldiers. As NERVUN has already highlighted, the US had been fighting, even if only by association, for many more years than the British had.

70% + of Scientists working on the Atomic Bomb were actually German (or from the Nazi Empire) or from the UK. Hardly any were American. The Germans were actually much faster at building the Atom bomb until the Telemark research base was destroyed.

Again, utter rot. According to John Cornwell and his book 'Hitler's Scientists', the Nazi nuclear weapon project was always a non-starter; it lacked for materials and manpower to seriously complete such a program, and had only a fraction of the academic manpower required to compete with the UK and US atomic programs.

The only reason the US got involved in the western front was because the war was pretty much already over. Nazi germany would have fallen anyway, the US wanted to limit the amount of land the russians invaded. If no invasion was made from the west, the russians would have gladly kept fighting all the way to france and would have happily taken italy as well. I'm sure it wouldn't have taken long for them to support coups in spain or a weakened UK for that matter either.

The biggest contribution the US made to the war was supplying the UK, russia and allies. Without this support the war would have ended very differently.

Actually, that's an extremely inaccurate view. Although some US Generals had reservations, notably Admiral King, the need to eliminate Germany and thus focus on a 'Germany-First' doctrine was agreed upon in early 1942. This was primarily due to the fact that Germany was the more powerful Axis power and the Axis power who could more easily be attacked. Thus, the Americans did not just wish to limit the land the Russians took - they focused on Germany first for strategic reasons rather than political.

Well, without the American support, Russia would have been lost as Germany was less then 25 miles from their capitol. England was lucky that Hitler had a change of heart and instead of invading the UK he went on to invade Africa.

Yes, without the Americans the world would be taken over by dictators.

Erm, your historical accuracy seems rather shallow. The German advance on Moscow ending had nothing to do with American support. The advancing weather and stiffening Russian resistance ensured that Operation Typhoon would not reach Moscow (Even if several German platoons did make it into the Moscow Suburbs for a short period).

As to your second point, you seem confused. Hitler had already decided for various reasons to invade the USSR years before the war, and the African Theatre had nothing to do with this decision, as relatively few resources were spent there. The RAF's triumph over the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain turned Hitler's attention to Russia, and not Africa as you state.

Erm, your historical accuracy seems rather shallow. The German advance on Moscow ending had nothing to do with American support. The advancing weather and stiffening Russian resistance ensured that Operation Typhoon would not reach Moscow (Even if several German platoons did make it into the Moscow Suburbs for a short period).



Marshal Zhukov was of the opinion that the USSR would have collapsed in 1942 without American Lend-Lease.

Marshal Zhukov was of the opinion that the USSR would have collapsed in 1942 without American Lend-Lease.

He was right. The Russians were able to produce fantastic amounts of arms and munitions, but this was only possible because of American aid. The US built most of Russia's trucks, locomotives, and rolling stock. Without that, the Russians would not have been able to produce as much as they did.

The moment people posting here started neglecting logistics, and started going about tactics, and weapons, the debate lost realism.

The T-34 may have been the best tank, but without the proper logistics backing it, it is the most useless tank.

If anyone think the Russians could have done this alone, perhaps they could explain how such effective weapons could retain their effectiveness without fuel, ammunition, and replacements.

The Japanese were, bottom-line, pushed into the conflict. They had two choices: go to war with the United States, or run out of raw materials.

America decided to cut off the Japanese of all raw meterial.

What?! You mean those evil, nasty Amerikkkans objected to Japan's perfectly just war of aggression in China, and they had a problem with the Japanese slaughtering Chinese civilians who were just asking for it?!

How dare they! White devils! All Japan wanted was peace, and those war-mongering, imperialist Amerikkkans forced them into a war.

More seriously, Allech-Atreus, you neglect Japan's third choice.

Here it is:

Stop attacking China

Marshal Zhukov was of the opinion that the USSR would have collapsed in 1942 without American Lend-Lease.

And indeed he was right. I was arguing that Typhoon itself wasn't stopped due to US aid, but rather Russian resistance stiffening, foul weather and Hitler's meddling diluting the power of the Wehrmacht by diverting them to different objectives.

The only reason the US got involved in the western front was because the war was pretty much already over. Nazi germany would have fallen anyway, the US wanted to limit the amount of land the russians invaded. If no invasion was made from the west, the russians would have gladly kept fighting all the way to france and would have happily taken italy as well. I'm sure it wouldn't have taken long for them to support coups in spain or a weakened UK for that matter either.

The biggest contribution the US made to the war was supplying the UK, russia and allies. Without this support the war would have ended very differently.

Ha! Ever heard of D-Day? Sicily? Battle of the Bulge? Nice try. Ignorance is no excuse for an ungrateful attitude toward the forces who fought against Nazi Germany.

Ha! Ever heard of D-Day? Sicily? Battle of the Bulge? Nice try. Ignorance is no excuse for an ungrateful attitude toward the forces who fought against Nazi Germany.

Those were not just American battles. British fought on D-Day (And Canadians too). the Brits fought in Sicily and the Brits fought in the Battle of the Bulge.

Those were not just American battles. British fought on D-Day (And Canadians too). the Brits fought in Sicily and the Brits fought in the Battle of the Bulge.

No shit! Really?

And here I thought the American contribution was unnecessary. Well, let's replay history without American military involvement, cause you know, those battles...and coutless others from 1942 on...would have been won and led to ultimate European victory over the Nazis.

What?! You mean those evil, nasty Amerikkkans objected to Japan's perfectly just war of aggression in China, and they had a problem with the Japanese slaughtering Chinese civilians who were just asking for it?!

Okay, if you're going for that angle, then what was the the rational for going to war in the first place? Silly me, I thought it had something to do with Pearl Harbor and not Japanese imperialism. I'm simplifying a bit, granted, because the Japanese Navy clique pushed the country to expand into the south rather than China and the north, but the bottom line is that the Japanese conquest of Indochina, which incidentally puts another chink in your "OMGooses, atorcities" thinking, pushed the US government to embargo Japan, which pushed them to war.

How dare they! White devils! All Japan wanted was peace, and those war-mongering, imperialist Amerikkkans forced them into a war.

More seriously, Allech-Atreus, you neglect Japan's third choice.

Here it is:

Stop attacking China[/QUOTE]

You win a gold star for absurdity. I'm not an apologist for Japanese war crimes, but to suggest that the main American cause for friction with Japan was cause by China is simply not true. The embargo was a direct result of the Japanese invasion of French Indochina (which was basically a bunch of grapes waiting to be plucked anyway, given that the Germans had coldclocked France herself), not the invasion of China.

China alone would not have been cause for the embargo- it's nowhere near American interests, and only threatened the eastern borders of the USSR.

*blinks* Have you been getting your history from Yasukuni-jinja?

No. I am, however, getting my history from John Toland's "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945."

How about addressing my points themselves?

*sighs* Japan was not forced into the war, Japan decided to go to war. Japan made the attacks on China, various points in the Pacific, and, of course, Pearl Harbor. There was no 'forced' about it.

Forced, probably not. Left with few viable avenues? Yes. China and the other expansionist movements were peripheral to America's foreign policy interests until the conquest of Indochina, as I mentioned elsewhere.

The Japanese were left with the reality of running out of raw materials, and then running out of food. In the 1930s themselves, most of Japan's rice was being imported from Korea.

The point of view that Japan was forced is a favorite of Japanese nationalists who use the museum at Yasukuni-Jinja to argue just that, usually because it makes the Pacific War justifiable and absolves Japan of any war guilt.

Yasukuni's a cool little place. I prefer Meijijingu myself, but it's personal preference. The whole "kami of the Emperor" thing. Funny, when I was there I saw a few of those little black vans with the white kanji on them that the nationalists drive around. I got told not to photograph them.

Of course Japan has war guilt, so does America. It seems like you're taking the position that America has no guilt at all in impelling the conflict in the first place, which isn't true for any conflict. Sure, there's no excusing the Japanese attack, but there is a definite sociopolitical history beyond "Hahaha surprise attack!1!!!1one!"

It's not like the Japanese Imperial Navy just up and decided to attack America for no reason; the political reality is that the Japanese upper government was both in the hands of militarist hawks, and facing the rality of material collapse in the home islands.

Forced, probably not. Left with few viable avenues? Yes. China and the other expansionist movements were peripheral to America's foreign policy interests until the conquest of Indochina, as I mentioned elsewhere.

The Japanese were left with the reality of running out of raw materials, and then running out of food. In the 1930s themselves, most of Japan's rice was being imported from Korea.
As noted, they could have, you know, backed off from a war of aggression with China and other parts of the Far East. And no, it was not just French Indochina that started this, the US had been warning Japan for quite some time about the conduct in China. The US actually does have a history of declaring that China shouldn't be carved up and that proclamation was indeed used as a reason for warning Japan. Furthermore, reports of Japanese actions in Nanjing and other areas were reported in the US at the time and really made the public unhappy.

Indochina was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Yasukuni's a cool little place. I prefer Meijijingu myself, but it's personal preference. The whole "kami of the Emperor" thing. Funny, when I was there I saw a few of those little black vans with the white kanji on them that the nationalists drive around. I got told not to photograph them.
You didn't read any of the exhibits in the war museum, did you?

Of course Japan has war guilt, so does America. It seems like you're taking the position that America has no guilt at all in impelling the conflict in the first place, which isn't true for any conflict. Sure, there's no excusing the Japanese attack, but there is a definite sociopolitical history beyond "Hahaha surprise attack!1!!!1one!"
Oh? And where did you get THAT from? I am not taking the point of view that the US is pure on this, what I am saying though is the usage of "Japan was forced into the war" is a common claim of the nationalists here in Japan.

It's not like the Japanese Imperial Navy just up and decided to attack America for no reason; the political reality is that the Japanese upper government was both in the hands of militarist hawks, and facing the rality of material collapse in the home islands.
There are plenty of reasons why Japan attacked but saying that "The Japanese were, bottom-line, pushed into the conflict" smacks of being forced when they were not. They chose to attack and they chose to start the wars in China, Korea, and elsewhere. Saying or implying anything else is historically dishonest.

And is the enshrined point-of-view of Yasukuni-jinja.

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with Pearl Harbor and not Japanese imperialism.

The Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbour if the US had not embargoed Japan, and the US would not have embargoed Japan if the Japanese has simply stayed at home.

I'm simplifying a bit, granted, because the Japanese Navy clique pushed the country to expand into the south rather than China and the north, but the bottom line is that the Japanese conquest of Indochina, which incidentally puts another chink in your "OMGooses, atorcities" thinking, pushed the US government to embargo Japan, which pushed them to war.

Wow, you found a nitpick that doesn't actually undermine my overall argument in any way.

You win a gold star for absurdity. I'm not an apologist for Japanese war crimes, but to suggest that the main American cause for friction with Japan was cause by China is simply not true. The embargo was a direct result of the Japanese invasion of French Indochina (which was basically a bunch of grapes waiting to be plucked anyway, given that the Germans had coldclocked France herself), not the invasion of China.

Wow, you found a nitpick that doesn't actually undermine my overall argument in any way.

Prolly both are correct. The US imposed an embargo on oil and scrap iron (correct me if I'm wrong) on Japan partly due to its invasion of China; and Japan attacked partly because it needed those resources, available in the Indies.

The United States was very ill-equipped to hold its colonial possessions in the Philippines. Pearl Harbor came partly as a surprise. Though I read somewhere that Pearl Harbor wasn't supposed to be a sneak attack; a declaration of war by Japan vs. the US was sent to the Japanese Embassy in the US, they planned that the attack would occur soon after. But the the Japanese at the Embassy were so slow in decoding the message, the declaration of war came out after Pearl Harbor. Or, as conspiracy theorists have it, the Americans deliberately delayed the reception of the message so as for the American people to think that Pearl Harbor was an outrageous sneak attack. Of course, in 1940, American public opinion wanted Britain to win the war but they did not want to enter it (hence the Lend-Lease). But Pearl Harbor effectively changed that, so much so that at the joint session of Congress to declare war against Japan, only Republican Rep. Jeannette Rankin of Montana cast the lone dissenting vote.

Prolly both are correct. The US imposed an embargo on oil and scrap iron (correct me if I'm wrong) on Japan partly due to its invasion of China; and Japan attacked partly because it needed those resources, available in the Indies.

The Indies are in the Caribbean! :rolleyes: You are thinking of French Indochina.

The United States was very ill-equipped to hold its colonial possessions in the Philippines. Pearl Harbor came partly as a surprise. Though I read somewhere that Pearl Harbor wasn't supposed to be a sneak attack; a declaration of war by Japan vs. the US was sent to the Japanese Embassy in the US, they planned that the attack would occur soon after. But the the Japanese at the Embassy were so slow in decoding the message, the declaration of war came out after Pearl Harbor. Or, as conspiracy theorists have it, the Americans deliberately delayed the reception of the message so as for the American people to think that Pearl Harbor was an outrageous sneak attack. Of course, in 1940, American public opinion wanted Britain to win the war but they did not want to enter it (hence the Lend-Lease). But Pearl Harbor effectively changed that, so much so that at the joint session of Congress to declare war against Japan, only Republican Rep. Jeannette Rankin of Montana cast the lone dissenting vote.

And she was thrown out of office just like she was in 1916.

The Indies are in the Caribbean! :rolleyes: You are thinking of French Indochina.

Nope, I was saying Indies as in Dutch East Indies. (Indonesia right now.)

Prolly both are correct. The US imposed an embargo on oil and scrap iron (correct me if I'm wrong) on Japan partly due to its invasion of China; and Japan attacked partly because it needed those resources, available in the Indies.
It's a wee bit more complicated. The US had condemned Japan's actions in China from the get go and had refused to recognize Manchuku or any gains Japan made, deciding to hold to the old status quo. As reports came in on Japanese actions in China, the US sent protest after protest, but still maintained trading relationships. In 1938 however, both the Rape of Nanjing and the deliberate sinking of USS Panay (along with HMS Lady Bird and Bee) were reported to the US. The public was incensed and turned against Japan. Pressure was put on President Roosevelt to punish Japan and the US sent a diplomatic note threating embargoes unless Japan apologized. An apology was given, but the US continued to protest Japan's actions in China. This culminated on July 26, 1936 when the US told Japan that it would not renew the US-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation after 1940. Pretty much it was the formal start of the embargoes. The US stopped shipping aircraft parts.

In September of 1940, after the invasion of Indochina, the US responded with the ABCD embargoes, stopping all transactions to Japan and getting the British, Chinese, and Dutch to sign on. Faced with starvation for its military movements, Japan decided to attack the US in the hopes that it could force the US to negotiate a cease fire and leave Japan a free hand in China and the resource rich areas of South East Asia. It couldn't move north due to the USSR and British India was deemed, at the time, too strong. However, they could have also just quit their attacks into China as well.

But the the Japanese at the Embassy were so slow in decoding the message, the declaration of war came out after Pearl Harbor.
It came as a mix up of slowness in translation/decoding/and forgetting the time difference. It also managed to annoy the Showa Emperor who felt that if it had gotten there on time, the US wouldn't have been nearly as annoyed.

Can anyone deny that the US did the bulk of the fighting in the Pacific, especially later in the war? My sources may be biased towards Americans, but I don't recall any time after Pearl Harbor where the British played a major role in pushing the Japanese back (excluding their efforts to defend Australia).

If anyone can provide historical sources to refute my claims, I'd be quite grateful.

I know of course that the British did as much fighting on the Western Front as the Americans did, and that the Russians did all the actual fighting on the Eastern Front. I think I can clarify the key roles all sides played, just after I put on my flameproof suit:

UK:
Fought the Germans from the start, held on during the early war, did most of the fighting in Africa and about half of the fighting on the Western Front. Provided the bulk of wartime intelligence, especially against the Germans. Also prevented Japanese from seizing Australia and India.

USSR:
General Winter stopped the German invasion in 1941. Russians fought the bulk of the Wehrmacht all the way to Berlin, taking (and inflicting) horrific casualties. Wardec in 1945 helped bring about Japanese surrender.

USA:
Provided massive industrial base, supplying both the Brits and Russians with war material. Did half the fighting on the Western Front, and nearly all the fighting (especially the offensive work) in the Pacific. Did some of the fighting in North Africa - US presence probably sealed the fate of the Afrika Korps.

Do I have this right? If not, correct me. And if you think I'm an idiot for trying to sum up the war efforts of each side in a single paragraph, you can say so, but you only get one sentence to do so. Anything beyond that will be considered excessive flaming.

Can anyone deny that the US did the bulk of the fighting in the Pacific, especially later in the war? My sources may be biased towards Americans, but I don't recall any time after Pearl Harbor where the British played a major role in pushing the Japanese back (excluding their efforts to defend Australia).

If anyone can provide historical sources to refute my claims, I'd be quite grateful.

There's Burma. Slim not only pushed back the Japanese forces there, he pretty much anihilated them. And from that success the Biritish were preparing to take back malaya when the war ended. But it was a bit of an isolated theatre, so it can only have had a limited effect on ending the war, being another reversal to weigh in mind along with the a - bombs, the russians in manchuria and the US's advances through Okinawa etc.

There's Burma. Slim not only pushed back the Japanese forces there, he pretty much anihilated them. And from that success the Biritish were preparing to take back malaya when the war ended. But it was a bit of an isolated theatre, so it can only have had a limited effect on ending the war, being another reversal to weigh in mind along with the a - bombs, the russians in manchuria and the US's advances through Okinawa etc.

Yes. Imphal, Kohima and the Defence of the Admin Box - all were battles where 14th Army pushed the Japanese back out of Malaya and Burma. It was a secondary theatre that forced Slim to fight for every scrap he could get to use, and which thus forced a number of risky strategies, such as the march on Rangoon.

But yes, Burma and Malaya was the primary British Far Eastern Theatre.

I knew about Burma. I was counting that. I was thinking more of the major offensive operations in the Pacific, especially the ones on islands as opposed to the mainland.

I knew about Burma. I was counting that. I was thinking more of the major offensive operations in the Pacific, especially the ones on islands as opposed to the mainland.

Then no, that'd be the preview of the US. The UK stuck to Burma and Malaya, as it was a secondary front and had limited resources (Much of which was sucked dry by Stilwell and the Chinese over The Hump).

The only Island Hopping we did was the Dodecanese. Which went...not very well, to be honest.

So was my earlier summary of the Allies' efforts accurate?

So was my earlier summary of the Allies' efforts accurate?
The Afrika Korps was pretty much beaten before Patton arrived.

So was my earlier summary of the Allies' efforts accurate?

The Afrika Korps was pretty much beaten before Patton arrived.

I meant that Patton sealed their fate. They were already losing when the Brits showed up - Patton merely finished them off.

I meant that Patton sealed their fate. They were already losing when the Brits showed up - Patton merely finished them off.
Meh, I think the influence of Patton in the North African theatre is overestimated. Even at the end the British were still doing most of the (succesful) fighting.

Actually the british managed to ruin german plans to invade Great Britain in 1940, and to stop the axis in North Africa, and the americans were not still even in the war.

And the russians managed to stop the german invasion in late november 1941 - the americans had not still entered the war.

Both the british and soviets had proven capable to resist the german punch. Hiter war doctrine was designed for a fast, short and "profitable" wars, like the polish and french campaigns where, but not for a long attrition war. The Reich was doomed as soon as someone forced it to fight a war of attrition, and both the british and soviets forced it to by late 1941, when the americans had not still entered the war. The germans still hold the initiative in 1942, but their offensives were doomed to end in disaster.

American lend-lease shipments to the USSR, through helpful, where less than 10% of the total soviet war production. And at the time in wich that aid was was more critical, 1941, those shipments were not american, but british (as the USA was not still in the war).

The landings in both Italy and Normandy where only possible because more than 3/4 of the german army was fighting in the East. By the time the western allies managed to open a real second front in Europe, the german eastern front had already crumbled.

American intervention helped to end the war much faster, and their contribution has to be much appreciated, something that the Hollywood Movie Industry has not made regarding the other allies, doing instead a great job in making everyone belive the americans won the war by themselves. But the fact is that they were not the decisive factor.

Actually the british managed to ruin german plans to invade Great Britain in 1940, and to stop the axis in North Africa, and the americans were not still even in the war.


Actually the Russians had more to do with that. If Rommel had a couple more german divisions he would have smashed the Brits quite easily.



And the russians managed to stop the german invasion in late november 1941
- the americans had not still entered the war.

It wasn't decided in 41.


Both the british and soviets had proven capable to resist the german punch. Hiter war doctrine was designed for a fast and short war, but not for a long attrition war. The Reich was doomed as soon as someone forced it to fight a war of attrition, and both the british and soviets forced it to by late 1941, when the americans had not still entered the war. The germans still hold the initiative in 1942, but their offensives were doomed to end in disaster.

American intervention helped to end the war much faster, but they were not the decisive factor.

Their lend-lease shipments to the USSR, through helpful, where less than 10% of the total soviet war production. And at the time in wich that aid was was more critical, 1941, those shipments were not american, but british (as the USA was not still in the war).

:) Guess again.

The landings in both Italy and Normandy where only possible because more than 3/4 of the german army was fighting in the East. By the time the western allies managed to open a real second front in Europe, the german eastern front had already crumbled.

The Central Front had crumbled.

The question to ask would Bagration been the success it was if the fighter forces had been moved to the West?

Both operations needed each other.

Anyway, the Hollywood movie industry has done a great job to make everyone belive the americans won the war by themselves!

Hey at least mention the material you read that tells you the Americans didn't do anything significant for the war.

The US aid to Russia (it was US aid, the US was backing the allies before it entered the war) was logistical. It gave the Soviets the ability to produce at such a high level.

And I acknowledged what the British and Russians did in my summary. What the US provided was a massive industrial base, about a doubling of Allied troops on the Western front, and they took on the Japanese almost singlehandedly.

Could the war have been won without US involvement? It would have been longer, bloodier, and probably would have led to Russia dominating the Continent, provided none of the Resistance movements launched any kind of major uprising.

The Afrika Korps was pretty much beaten before Patton arrived.

If they were pretty much beaten then why did it take so very long to actually take Tunisia from the Afrika Corp?

I meant that Patton sealed their fate. They were already losing when the Brits showed up - Patton merely finished them off.

Tobruk comes to mind. After all, it was this battle that precipitated the North Africa invasion.

Meh, I think the influence of Patton in the North African theatre is overestimated. Even at the end the British were still doing most of the (succesful) fighting.

:headbang:

I see people do not read history anymore.

Actually the british managed to ruin german plans to invade Great Britain in 1940, and to stop the axis in North Africa, and the americans were not still even in the war.

Then why did they nearly lose in North Africa and it took the invasion of the United States in the West to help break the back of the Axis in North Africa?

And the russians managed to stop the german invasion in late november 1941 - the americans had not still entered the war.

Economicly we were.

Both the british and soviets had proven capable to resist the german punch. Hiter war doctrine was designed for a fast, short and "profitable" wars, like the polish and french campaigns where, but not for a long attrition war. The Reich was doomed as soon as someone forced it to fight a war of attrition, and both the british and soviets forced it to by late 1941, when the americans had not still entered the war. The germans still hold the initiative in 1942, but their offensives were doomed to end in disaster.

And what if the Germans did not delay Barberossa? What if it was launched on time? The USSR would have been finished.

American lend-lease shipments to the USSR, through helpful, where less than 10% of the total soviet war production. And at the time in wich that aid was was more critical, 1941, those shipments were not american, but british (as the USA was not still in the war).

Historical evidence to back up claim please (and I mean Primary Documents)

The landings in both Italy and Normandy where only possible because more than 3/4 of the german army was fighting in the East. By the time the western allies managed to open a real second front in Europe, the german eastern front had already crumbled.

Basicly the first correct thing you have stated.

American intervention helped to end the war much faster, and their contribution has to be much appreciated, something that the Hollywood Movie Industry has not made regarding the other allies, doing instead a great job in making everyone belive the americans won the war by themselves. But the fact is that they were not the decisive factor.

Prove it.