Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are a couple of points that many Americans don't seem to take on board.
2. The US didn't come in to the War until more than two years after the British by which time we had survived the Blitz and had already seen off the Germans during the Battle of Britain, whilst Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and most of the rest of the world fought alongside our side during this period.
3. The US Stripped Britain of her gold assets and wealth before even considering any help, leaving the country impoverished and later on the verge of bankruptcy. Any help given was not merely out of pure kindness.
4. The Soviet Russians who lost as many as 27 million people in WW2 were the ones who smashed the German Army and they would have taken Germany even if the Americans hadn't come in to the war. The Russian winter and the Red Army destroyed the third reich and the Russians were on the verge of defeating Germany without allied help, indeed most serious military historians generally acknowledge this.
5. Britain itself supplied Russia and other countries with supplies, the Arctic Convoys being one such dangerous supply route.
Some good points. By Dec 1941:
The German surface fleet was near wiped out and much could not go to sea because of fuel shortages or fear of being sunk.
The RAF was bombing German industry.
The RAF destroyed over 700 German fighters over Europe in 1941.
The unknown and underrated, Royal Navy blockade of Germany was highly effective starving Germany of food and essential raw materials.
The French navy had been near wiped out by the British being denied use by the Germans.
The German air force had been defeated over Dunkirk and over southern England by the RAF.
The Soviets counter attacked at Moscow with the first massed concentrations of the T-34 tanks. The Soviets pushed back the Germans taking 30,000 prisoners. The great gamble of defeating the USSR in one swoop failed.
The British had secured the Middle East and its oil and a rail line from the Gulf to the USSR border giving a supply route for materials and oil from the British refinery at Aberdan.
The Germany and its allies were checked in the west and in the east by Dec 1941. The Germans were going nowhere.
No. 3 above. Lend lease only came after the US had financially stripped the UK.
Some good points. By Dec 1941:[*]The German surface fleet was near wiped out...
You're written that before, and it simply isn't true. By December of 1941 the Kriegsmarine had lost one Panzerschiff aka "Pocket Battleship" (Admiral Graf Spee), one heavy cruiser (Blucher), two light cruisers (Emden and Konigsberg) and one battleship (Bismarck.)
In December of 1941 they still had two Panzerschiffe (Admiral Scheer and Lutzow), two heavy cruisers (Prinz Eugen and Admiral Hipper), one battleship (Tirpitz), two battlecruisers (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau), and four light cruisers (Leipzig, Nurnberg, Koln and Karlsruhe).
In December of 1941 the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet was deployed (a) at Trondheim in Norway, (b) Brest in France, and (c) Wilhelmshaven in Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
... and much could not go to sea because of fuel shortages or fear of being sunk.
Inaccurate but not totally incorrect. The surface raiders did not go to sea because the Kriegsmarine's fleet of supply ships in the Atlantic had been seriously depleted in the months following the Bismarck breakout.
Some good points. By Dec 1941:[list=a][*]The German surface fleet was near wiped out and much could not go to sea because of fuel shortages or fear of being sunk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes
You're written that before, and it simply isn't true. By December of 1941 the Kriegsmarine had lost one Panzerschiff aka "Pocket Battleship" (Admiral Graf Spee), one heavy cruiser (Blucher), two light cruisers (Emden and Konigsberg) and one battleship (Bismarck.)
In December of 1941 they still had two Panzerschiffe (Admiral Scheer and Lutzow), two heavy cruisers (Prinz Eugen and Admiral Hipper), one battleship (Tirpitz), two battlecruisers (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau), and four light cruisers (Leipzig, Nurnberg, Koln and Karlsruhe).
In December of 1941 the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet was deployed (a) at Trondheim in Norway, (b) Brest in France, and (c) Wilhelmshaven in Germany.
I agree with Nigheyes here.
Far from being destroyed by Dec 1941, it is actually interesting how much of the German Navy managed to survive until later in the war.
You're written that before, and it simply isn't true. By December of 1941 the Kriegsmarine had lost one Panzerschiff aka "Pocket Battleship" (Admiral Graf Spee), one heavy cruiser (Blucher), two light cruisers (Emden and Konigsberg) and one battleship (Bismarck.)
The German surface fleet was miniscule. Look at what was destroyed in the Norwegian campaign They had few destroyers, cruisers ,and frigates. The protection vessels.
Quote:
Inaccurate but not totally incorrect. The surface raiders did not go to sea because the Kriegsmarine's fleet of supply ships in the Atlantic had been seriously depleted in the months following the Bismarck breakout.
What was left of the Germany navy was short of fuel and if went out to sea would have taken a mauling from the RN. Large pocket battleships unable to go anywhere are useless. Hitler was threatening to scrap the Tirpitz and use its guns as shore protection. Their aircraft carrier was never finished as they could not afford the fleet around it, to protect it. Again they feared it would be sunk on its maiden voyage.
That was the German gamble mentality of a massed attack. It worked for Germany in France and Crete when all was near lost, and they were pulling out, and they had a last attack. In the battles that mattered it never. Japan used it at Pear Harbor and were unable to use it anywhere else.
Well, the "massed attack" as you coined it either results in victory or attritional warfare. Neither Japan nor Germany nor Italy were in a position to fight a war of attrition, so needed the "massed attack" (I actually prefer the Japanese term of "kantai kessen" aka "decisive battle") in order to have a chance at victory.
Ultimately this is Tooze's thesis, which he is right about, despite his details being rather flawed and his story a little slanted. The Axis powers didn't have a chance to win the war of attrition, even if the US never got involved. By this, when Germany didn't defeat the USSR at Moscow and the US didn't roll over after Pearl Harbor, the war was impossible for the Axis to win. Ultimately, we disagree on the details more than the thesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
The French were under the umbrella of British command. All armies were, Polish, Norwegian, Canadian, etc, except the USA.
In actuality, the US forces were under British command for operation Overlord. The command structure for Overlord was as follows:
Supreme Allied Commander: Dwight Eisenhower, USA
Deputy SAC: Arthur Tedder, UK
Ground Forces CIC: Bernard Montgomery, UK (Omar Bradley was his second)
Air Forces CIC: Trafford Mallory, UK
Naval Forces CIC: Bertram Ramsey, UK
From June 6th, 1944 until September 1st, 1944 (following the collapse of the Falaise Pocket) all ground forces, including the Americans took their orders from Montgomery. On September 1st Eisenhower assumed the role of Ground Forces CIC directly (as had been previously agreed, doth Monty protest). This made Monty equal to Bradley and Jacob Devers, both Americans and all three reported directly to Eisenhower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
The British never thought that at all. Their eventual aim was invasion with US troops or not. If the US military never entered WW2, then Churchill was well on the way to using US industry to compliment empire industry to supply a massive empire army. The US loved this as they made lots of money doing so. British and French orders for equipment and raw materials from the USA got rid of American soup lines. The standard of living in the USA rose from 1939 to 1941.
Churchill said, "give us the tools and we will do the job". He wasn't asking for US troops, as he could amass an army of 45 million from the British Empire. He just needed the industry and raw materials to equip them quickly to get the war over quickly. Without US industry the war would have dragged on somewhat for sure - 3 years more? 4? 5? The aim was to get it over quickly. Also the British A-Bomb project was started in 1939.
2/3rds of the combat forces in France were American by October 1944. By the time the British could have mounted and sustained a UK/Commonwealth invasion/liberation of France, the Soviets would have been marching down the Champs-Elysees.
Churchill pleaded with FDR throughout to enter the war. Any nudge of the US in that direction was jumped on and supported by Churchill. His "give us the tools" speech was made in support of FDR's Lend-Lease policies. You can't look at it in isolation. FDR could have proposed sending old chamber pots to the UK as scrap and Churchill would have given a speech supporting it. It doesn't change the fact he always wanted US combat participation. Getting the US involved in the war was Churchill's "job one" the day he became Prime Minister.
As for the "45 million man army", I don't care what some Turkish ambassodor said once, it would never happen. The Empire certainly had the population to do it, but even if they could have equipped and trained them, it would have never happened. Here's why. How many of those 45 million would need to come from Burma, Malaya, India/Nepal and South Africa? Answer 410 million. That leaves about 75 million for the UK, Canada, Australia/New Guinea, New Zealand and other associated territories.
The British/Commonwealth military peaked at about 7.8 million men. 2 million of them were the Indian army which would serve in no theater but India and were Indian drawn. That leaves about 5.8 million under arms, having been drawn from a population based of roughly 75 million, that's about 7.8% utilization. The rate was much higher for the UK itself and Canada versus Australia and New Zealand who actually scaled back their commitments despite their "Imperial Divisions" serving in Europe after the Japanese threat had rescinded.
Bascially, to get anywhere CLOSE to 45 million the British would have had to dip heavily into India and South Africa. In South Africa, that would have meant arming blacks, a political impossibility. The total manpower reserves of all of South Africa amount to barely 320,000 men, half of whom were suspected of having Nazi sympathies. In India, the "Regular Indian Army" units were committed to Africa, Europe, etc. However, as soon as the British tried to dive in the well, the INC started trouble. While INC leaders were locked up, the compromise was that the 2 million raised would only serve directly in defense of India against the Japanese. India's vast population of 378 million was impossible to draft into service without steep political concessions or risking outright revolution/civil war in India.
There is a reason the white Commonwealth nations and the UK itself were pressed so hard to provide soldiers and were virtually at the point of exhaustion in 1945. An army of 45 million is so far-fetched as a to be nothing more than a flight of fancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford
There are a couple of points that many Americans don't seem to take on board.
1. Hitler declared War on America it was not the other way around
2. The US didn't come in to the War until more than two years after the British by which time we had survived the Blitz and had already seen off the Germans during the Battle of Britain, whilst Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and most of the rest of the world fought alongside our side during this period.
3. The US Stripped Britain of her gold assets and wealth before even considering any help, leaving the country impoverished and later on the verge of bankruptcy. Any help given was not merely out of pure kindness.
4. The Soviet Russians who lost as many as 27 million people in WW2 were the ones who smashed the German Army and they would have taken Germany even if the Americans hadn't come in to the war. The Russian winter and the Red Army destroyed the third reich and the Russians were on the verge of defeating Germany without allied help, indeed most serious military historians generally acknowledge this.
1. True
2. True
3. True, but tell the whole story. US law required "cash and carry" for arms sales. The US accepted various payments from the British and even guaranteed loans for the same when the British fell short of cash. So, the US absolutely wanted payments. However, the British took payments from the Russians and oddly enough, Canada made Britain abide by the same terms that the US was offering including loans and "cash and carry" payments. Why is it a crime when done by the US, but overlooked when a member of the Commonwealth is doing it?
4. True and something I have argued ad nauseum on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford
Oh and lets look at a few more American Historic Myths while we are at it. D-Day was not a predominately American Operation. There were 57,000 US Troops and 72,500 mainly British and Canadian Troops landed via the Amphibious Operation. Whilst in terms of landing craft, air power and overall command of the operation they were mainly British responsibilities.
Agreed, see above post to John-UK. Overlord was primarly a British operation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford
Lets put Soviet Russia's Contribution during WW2 in to words Americans can understand despite what is written in Hollywood films.
Cheeky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Firstly, Patton was an incompetent bordering on being an idiot. The best generals on each side in WW2 were: Western allies: Montgomery, Eastern - Soviet: Zhukov, German: Rommel.
Montgomery was way above Patton in authority. They cannot be compared. Patton was a run of the mill general. Only the US spout about Patton being an exceptional general, no one else. Patton's best contribution to WW2 was doing nothing. His ghost army in Kent duped the Germans.
Montgomery was contemptuous of Patton. He disliked incompetence and egotists. Patton's actions in Sicily proved that. Mart Cark was another US incompetent general that kept on being in command like Patton. Other nations got rid of incompetents immediately.
I disagree with your list of generals...William Slim was better than Monty, though Monty was the best on the western front in Europe (a statement I've defended many time). Zhukov was good, but Chuikov should be right there with him. I'd take Guderian over Rommel anyday. Rommel was not a brilliant stategist, but he was a good tactician.
Patton was not incompetent nor an idiot. Please detail for me your reasoning and examples that justify such a statment.
Monty was not "way above Patton". From just after First Kasserine through Sicily they were equals under Alexander. In France, outside of the first two months of the invasion, Monty was equal to Bradley who was Patton's superior. Monty was "one step" above Patton in the hierarchy.
Discussions of best often come down to comparing like for like. Monty's counterparts were Jacob Devers and Omar Bradley. Of those three I would take Montgomery in a draft. However, since Monty's 21st Army Group was not functionally larger than a single US Army, you can technically compare the combat commanders. Patton commanded a force just as large as Montgomery did.
As for leaving incompetents in command, the US was good at that. See McNair for instance. However, the British have their's like Percival, Freyberg and Phillips. As do pretty much everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
He racing across pretty well undefended France. He also raced south from Normandy peeling from the fight to take some Brittany ports (never got one intact) taking one third of his force to the annoyance of Bradley. He was an egotists. Only Americans rated him because his quirkiness gave him feature film quality.
His breakout into Brittany was under the general plan developed in concert with Monty under the improvisation for completing the Normandy breakout after they failed to take Caen.
He was "racing across undefended France" precisely because he was advancing so fast that the Germans didn't have time to put up a defense. Patton should have been the spearhead of the western allied advance, not had his supplies stripped so Monty could play with the paratroopers and try to silence the V2's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
What do you think Operation Goodwood was? Monty pushed forward his tanks, losing about 300 of them, to take the Bourguébus Ridge east of Caen penetrating the five line German dug in defence. German resistance was strong, so he put all forces into a one mile wide armoured advance. He drew in the Germans away from the US breakout operation, Operation Cobra, to the south. Goodwood and Cobra were complimentary operations. Most tanks were repairable and all were immediately replaced. That operation meant the Germans concentrated their forces on the eastern flank of Normandy were the British and Canadians were. Goodwood was a rather bold operation indeed.
What he was referring to was the low replacement manpower available to Monty after the Normandy breakout. Again, despite all of your cries of "Empire" the British were stretched to the limits in terms of manpower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Some good points. By Dec 1941:
The German surface fleet was near wiped out and much could not go to sea because of fuel shortages or fear of being sunk.
The RAF was bombing German industry.
The RAF destroyed over 700 German fighters over Europe in 1941.
The unknown and underrated, Royal Navy blockade of Germany was highly effective starving Germany of food and essential raw materials.
The French navy had been near wiped out by the British being denied use by the Germans.
The German air force had been defeated over Dunkirk and over southern England by the RAF.
The Soviets counter attacked at Moscow with the first massed concentrations of the T-34 tanks. The Soviets pushed back the Germans taking 30,000 prisoners. The great gamble of defeating the USSR in one swoop failed.
The British had secured the Middle East and its oil and a rail line from the Gulf to the USSR border giving a supply route for materials and oil from the British refinery at Aberdan.
The Germany and its allies were checked in the west and in the east by Dec 1941. The Germans were going nowhere.
No. 3 above. Lend lease only came after the US had financially stripped the UK.
1. The surface fleet was not "wiped out" but it was contained and rendered ineffectual.
2. Very limited night time raids. Between 1939 and 1941 the British dropped ~44,000 tons of bombs. That's 4.7% of the total dopped in 1944 when the bombing actually began to have an impact.
3. They still did not have air superiority anywhere except over the British Isles themselves. The Germans would retain air superiority over Continental Europe until early-1944.
4. The only nations Germany might have traded with were at war with Germany by 1941 rendering the necessity of the blockade mute.
5. The French navy was not "near wiped out". There was still a large fleet in Toulon. To that end, the fleet never fell into German hands. While I agree with Churchill's decision at Mers-el-Kebir and Dakar, there is evidence that not attacking them may have resulted in greater Vichy French collaboration with the British.
6. You love the Dunkirk line, but stop spinning that into some sort of British victory. The Luftwaffe was bloodied, but still the largest air force in the world. Ultimately, the Luftwaffe, like the rest of the German military, was bled out in Russia.
I see the 45million man Indian Army theme is still going strong. Despite contemporary reportage on the poor quality of NCO worthy recruits. Then there is the Officer disparity. All armed with Stens no doubt and Churchill 6pdr tanks. They may have made the Italians look like lions if the scheme had gone through.
Firstly, Patton was an incompetent bordering on being an idiot. The best generals on each side in WW2 were: Western allies: Montgomery, Eastern - Soviet: Zhukov, German: Rommel.
Montgomery was way above Patton in authority. They cannot be compared. Patton was a run of the mill general. Only the US spout about Patton being an exceptional general, no one else. Patton's best contribution to WW2 was doing nothing. His ghost army in Kent duped the Germans.
Montgomery was contemptuous of Patton. He disliked incompetence and egotists. Patton's actions in Sicily proved that. Mart Cark was another US incompetent general that kept on being in command like Patton. Other nations got rid of incompetents immediately.
So the Brits malign a man that most Americans regard as a hero, and one of the best generals in our history? Montgomery was contemptuous of Patton? Well, that works both ways.
1st Viscount of Alemein Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery, the general that did not fight battles to win, but fought them not to lose. That is his reputation from the American point of view then, and from many military historians. Patton destested Monty, as did most American officers, and his timidity disgusted them. In fact, the overall performance of the UK forces was not held in very high regard by most Americans, with a few exceptions for specific unit's actions.
So the Brits malign a man that most Americans regard as a hero, and one of the best generals in our history? Montgomery was contemptuous of Patton? Well, that works both ways.
1st Viscount of Alemein Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery, the general that did not fight battles to win, but fought them not to lose. That is his reputation from the American point of view then, and from many military historians. Patton destested Monty, as did most American officers, and his timidity disgusted them. In fact, the overall performance of the UK forces was not held in very high regard by most Americans, with a few exceptions for specific unit's actions.
Montgomery won battles. History tells us so. The US point of view is geared from Hollywood.
In any battle the US won they outnumbered the enemy by 4 to 1. I recall all the older guys who fought in WW2. None rated US soldiers. I recall one saying "they could fight when they had to", meaning they never most of the time. US soldier's performance in Market Garden was quite poor, also in the Bulge, except for a few units. In Normandy the British ground down the Germans. Once the British broke out, little of them were left in the west. The Germans kept sending their troops into the British mincing machine, full SS units the lot.
Montgomery won battles. History tells us so. The US point of view is geared from Hollywood.
In any battle the US won they outnumbered the enemy by 4 to 1. I recall all the older guys who fought in WW2. None rated US soldiers. I recall one saying "they could fight when they had to", meaning they never most of the time. US soldier's performance in Market Garden was quite poor, also in the Bulge, except for a few units. In Normandy the British ground down the Germans. Once the British broke out, little of them were left in the west. The Germans kept sending their troops into the British mincing machine, full SS units the lot.
You keep repeating the same points. Your saying our view is geared from Hollywood doesn't make it so. I could ask old soldiers what they thought of British soldiers and would probably get the same answer about how the British weren't that great.
I can't recall any American general, or British for that matter that thought Montgomery was al that great. I do remember every single one of them complaining about his regrouping.
Without the US in the war in Europe the Iron Curtain, and I do give Churchill credit for that phrase, would surround the entire continent.
By the way even Churchill said to quit bringing up Dunkirk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
