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.
The Russians did but the US would have had Stalin not sent in his entire army and the US would have likely had less loses. The Russians had numbers but their soldiers were terrible.
If the UK hadn't won the Battle of Britain, driving back the much larger Luftwaffe and causing Hitler to postpone and then cancel his plans to invade and take over England, the U.S. wouldn't have had airfields within range of most of Germany to carry out most of its (and England's) aerial bombing campaign.
And if they hadn't sunk large numbers of U-boats, and the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz, the Germans might have sunk enough convoy ships to starve the English and force them to surrender.
And there wouldn't have been a staging area just off the coast of Europe, to build up the huge supplies, equipment, and troops to prepare for the D-Day invasion of occupied France, and then to launch that invasion and keep it supplied.
In April 1941 - eight months before Pearl Harbor - The Air Force called for the design of a bomber with a 10,000 mile range. The B-36 was the eventual result. The AF needed it because it looked for a while like England would surrender to Germany, and Germany would then begin a campaign against the U.S. If that happened, the Air Force would need a plane that could take off from the continental U.S., fly to Germany, drop a big bomb load, and fly all the way back (in-flight refueling was not well enough developed at the time).
Though Russia did the most fighting and dying in WWII, Britain did quite a lot, and held up long enough to keep Germany from delivering a knockout blow and then defeating Russia, winning the war.
Someone must have forgotten to inform Rommel. Man, what a lot of trouble he could have saved.
And the IJA in Burma, too...
The old cliche about the Brits buying the Allies time, the Americans supplying the money and the Russians buying their share with blood is not entirely off.
The whole North Africa campaign was a tea time war, with scheduled breaks so the boys could catch up on their rest. The Pacific is another topic, though.
uhm... England was in the battles back in39.... England DID DO a lot..... rearming Poland...all while the US sat on their arse
and England remained highly involved all the way through 45
But what did England accomplish with their involvement? I'll give the RAF a lot of credit, as well as Bletchley Park and the Royal Navy. They did have notable accomplishments. But until D-Day, it was a Russo-German war that was fought with American arms and material and Soviet blood.
The Russians did but the US would have had Stalin not sent in his entire army and the US would have likely had less loses. The Russians had numbers but their soldiers were terrible.
In 1941, yes. In 1944, the Red Army was professional, battle-hardened and, as a whole, extremely competent.
I know the bankers won the war. They win every war.
Kinda funny how that works out.
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.
