Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-08-2019, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
16,459 posts, read 10,478,892 times
Reputation: 36304

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
The British were the prime agents in the defeat of the Axis. Not the Soviets, not the USA.

Picture a scenario in which the Soviet Union is so beaten down by Barbarossa that they sue for peace. And further, picture a scenario in which the United States is so enraged by Japan's sneak attack against Pearl Harbor (which wouldn't have happened if we followed my original post, sorry for the digression) that they focus all of their might against Japan and fail to intervene in the European war aside from sending convoys of supplies. Neither of these scenarios is entirely implausible, IMO. If both of them happened, do you suppose that the British could have held out against Hitler by themselves? Probably yes. But could they have defeated Nazi Germany on their own? I seriously doubt it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2019, 11:40 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,793 posts, read 2,783,911 times
Reputation: 4920
Default Buckets of sunshine over Germany?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
Picture a scenario in which the Soviet Union is so beaten down by Barbarossa that they sue for peace. And further, picture a scenario in which the United States is so enraged by Japan's sneak attack against Pearl Harbor (which wouldn't have happened if we followed my original post, sorry for the digression) that they focus all of their might against Japan and fail to intervene in the European war aside from sending convoys of supplies. Neither of these scenarios is entirely implausible, IMO. If both of them happened, do you suppose that the British could have held out against Hitler by themselves? Probably yes. But could they have defeated Nazi Germany on their own? I seriously doubt it.
Even if IJ hadn't attacked the US, I think the US would have joined the war against the Axis in time. We were beginning to convoy & escort transports out to mid-Atlantic. It was only a matter of time before German submarines began attacking our navy escorts. We wouldn't have stood for that for long, a declaration of war (the US against Germany) would have followed.

Our sympathies lay with the Allies, & we were selling arms, ammo, transport, food, finished goods, semi-finished goods as fast as we could load & transport them across the Atlantic. & we were extending credit too, I believe, @ least to the Allies.

Then IJ might have declared war on the US in sympathy (by treaty? Not sure if IJ was bound to declare war in that case or not). The difference in timing might have been six months to a year - but that's crucial - assuming that the ETO lasted as long in this scenario as it did in the real world, then the atomic bomb would have been available to deploy against Germany.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2019, 08:42 PM
 
Location: New York Area
34,750 posts, read 16,767,477 times
Reputation: 29888
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88 View Post
Our sympathies lay with the Allies, & we were selling arms, ammo, transport, food, finished goods, semi-finished goods as fast as we could load & transport them across the Atlantic. & we were extending credit too, I believe, @ least to the Allies.
Through a good part of the war we were selling to the Axis as well. Only as their defeat became inevitable did Big Business buy into the "economic war." Up until then the "economic war"consisted of making the peons suffer with tire and gas rationing and wage and price controls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2019, 01:11 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
I am not citing Hollywood, John-Bull.

I am merely point out your relentless, chest-thumping Nationalism.
I point out facts debunking Hollywood.
Eisenhower to Montgomery after WW2 on US writers distorting history:

"I am truly sorry that people like yourself, Alex, Tedder, Bradley, Cunningham and so on, cannot, because of holding official positions, undertake now to write the true story about an unparalleled experience in international co-operation and understanding. The fact is that the tremendous accomplishment of the Allied force is, through its handling by narrow-minded people, being made to look small and insignificant; great concessions on the part of two governments in order to establish field unity are lost sight of in the anxiety to put over some pettifogging little idea held in the mind of a writer."

"Entirely aside from the damage to British-American friendly relationship that hundreds of loyal officers labored so hard to advance, I have the personal fear that writers of the kind we are now talking about will succeed in damaging warm friendships that I have formed with men for whom I will always have the highest regard and admiration. The whole thing makes me a trifle ill. Incidentally, one of the defenses made by one of these authors when I taxed him for bad judgment and inaccuracy, was to pull out a bunch of clippings taken from the British papers about the time of the Bulge battle. He said: ‘British writers did not hesitate to criticize you bitterly and unjustly. Why should we be so shy and retiring?’ My answer of course was that those reporters wrote during the heat of action and were motivated to some extent by fear. Moreover, in later writings they did their utmost to correct what they themselves must have felt to have been hasty judgment. This was an entirely different thing from writing deliberately and from the attitude of ‘pure history,’ which these books are certainly not."

Last edited by John-UK; 03-09-2019 at 01:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2019, 01:17 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
But could they have defeated Nazi Germany on their own? I seriously doubt it.
They were doing a decent job before the US came along. The British were surrounding Germany with its navy and air force, economically strangling the Axis. The so called invincible Germany army could not defeat the British in the desert and were eventually beaten by the British.

Look at the situation as it was before entering into what ifs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2019, 01:28 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
1938: Munich Conference: Well, Britain did something here. You wet your pants, capitulated to Hitler, and helped him tear Czechoslovakia in half. "Peace in our Time." A great euphemism for cowardice.
I suggest you read the Wages of Destruction by Prof Adam Tooze. He makes it clear that if Hitler had wanted war on 1 October 1938, he could have had it. The French and British had reached the point at which they could make no further concessions. The French and Soviet armies had mobilized with the Royal Navy stood at full alert. In September 1938 it was Hitler who stepped back not his opponents. Hitler was hearing expressions of concern not only from Beck and Krosigk, but also from Goering and most importantly from Mussolini, who intervened personally on 28 September 1938. Goering or Mussolini did not want to risk a war against Britain and France in 1938. In 1938 the Germans would have been soundly defeated.

Last edited by John-UK; 03-09-2019 at 01:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2019, 01:34 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Where was the oil embargo before the Fall of France?
The Royal Navy imposed a blockade of Germany on the first day of the war - it lasted until the last day. When Italy entered the war they were also blockaded - the British controlled both entrances to the Med and the eastern Med. The effect was so great the Italian navy could not put to sea in May 1941 as they had no oil. The British had oil refineries in Palestine and Suez with British forces in the desert and eastern Med well supplied with oil.

Last edited by John-UK; 03-09-2019 at 01:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2019, 01:40 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,043,295 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
And the serious effort to stop the Fall of France or Norway?
The French had a massive army in 1940. British forces in France in 1940 were just 9% of total allied troops - a token force. The huge French army in front of the small British force capitulated. The British committed troops to northern Norway. Also the Royal Navy effectively wiped out the German surface fleet in Norway.

Last edited by John-UK; 03-09-2019 at 01:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2019, 03:32 PM
 
Location: New York Area
34,750 posts, read 16,767,477 times
Reputation: 29888
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
The British committed troops to northern Norway. Also the Royal Navy effectively wiped out the German surface fleet in Norway.
Ever hear of the debacle involved in losing Norway? Less famous than Dunkirk or Dieppe but still pretty bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2019, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,588 posts, read 6,602,681 times
Reputation: 17966
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
They were doing a decent job before the US came along. The British were surrounding Germany with its navy and air force, economically strangling the Axis. The so called invincible Germany army could not defeat the British in the desert and were eventually beaten by the British.

Look at the situation as it was before entering into what ifs.
Defeating the Reich would have involved British troops marching into Berlin, and there was no conceivable way y'all were going to make that happen by yourselves. You had no way to get a conquering army onto the Continent. You might have stalemated Hitler into a negotiated truce - which would certainly have been nothing to be ashamed of - but "defeat" them? Never.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top