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.
And what's the main reason for your appalling lack of grammar?
Even if you could possibly, at a stretch, make a case for Britain speaking Russian having had no support from the US, how were we going to be forced to learn Japanese?
Americans seem to think that Britons 'would be speaking German' if it wasn't for them and as a Briton I admit that attitude 'grates'. The truth is that Britain had already seen off any threat of German invasion before the US was even in the war (Battle of Britain), of course the US and Canada and Russia and Australia, New Zealand etc were all vital with the war effort. The truth is that Britain wouldn't have been able to invade Europe without assistance, D Day wouldnt have happened without the US - conversely it also wouldn't have happened without the UK. The likely scenario of a war without either Britain or the US is that the Soviets would have eventually overcome the Germans and the 'Iron curtain' would have been further West! So yes of course the US helped (along with all the other allies) but the US did not 'save our ass' as they continually harp on about!!
Without the US' lend lease program would the Soviets beat Germany? Also, think about the staggering amounts of food delivered to the USSR from the US. Soldiers won't fight so well while starving.
your instead of you're is "appalling" to brits??
No wonder you couldn't handle the Germans on yer own...
aw come on, I kid I kid
Don't matter what I say how I say it or how I spell it, as I am English whatever I say and however I say it, it will be English, you on the other hand...........
Reminded me of one I admired in the war ACM Dowding and Lawrence Olivier who played him in the Battle of Britain.
To get an idea of feeling what it was like for Dowding in command Olivier told him he had 'sat behind the latter's desk all day "pretending to be you" and was "making an awful mess of it too". Dowding's response: 'Oh, I'm sure you are." At that everybody on the set fell into laughter. Nothing like getting the truth from the fellow who was always looking up in the air.
Btw I'd think everybody's on the same page nowadays with Dowding after all the years. Not only were there Brit-US political machinations but among one's own as well. Dowding fought well for a time fighting on two 'fronts' considering his difficult situation. In the end though he won where it counted for the Crown.
Without the US' lend lease program would the Soviets beat Germany? Also, think about the staggering amounts of food delivered to the USSR from the US. Soldiers won't fight so well while starving.
Very likely, yes.
Germany's real chance to defeat the USSR was by inflicting a knockout blow in 1941. This failed. And it had already failed by the time the Lend-Lease Act was extended to include the Soviet Union in late October of 1941. Measured in monetary value, a mere 1% of Lend-Lease to the USSR was delivered by the end of 1941. Hardly a difference-maker. Germany still had an outside chance to defeat the Soviet Union in 1942, but it never came close. It's hard to conclude that American aid was the difference there.
In the end, 70% of Lend-Lease was delivered to the Soviets between 1943 and 1945. By the end of 1942 the Battle of Stalingrad was in its end game, the outcome certain. And that was the turning point. By then, Germany had no chance of victory - the USSR had the capacity to grind them down.
This is hindsight, of course. At the time this could not be known, and Stalin was far preferable - from a Western perspective - to Hitler. No chances were being taken. The materiel flow continued. But the vast majority of those arms and trucks and foodstuffs arrived once the outcome was more or less assured.
In retrospect, a more Machiavellian move (assuming we could have known that the USSR would defeat Germany anyway, of which there was no way) would have been to hold back aid, so the war would have ended with lines between the exhausted Red Army and the Western allies further east. On the other hand, that would have meant more Western deaths defeating all of Germany. From a Western perspective, it was better to let Soviet soldiers do the dying.
I know this has been a super-long, extensive discussion and I'm not bothering to read it all, but in very simple terms I think the whole World War II thing could be described as this:
The US bailed France out, but Britain was holding her own. The US helped turn the tide and helped Britain finish the job. That's how I see it.
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.
