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.
It should be noted that Stalin's non-aggression pact with Hitler, which lasted until the middle of 1941 was hardly popular in places such as Britain.
It also should be noted that 47% of Americans believe their country saved the day, and I am sure most Russians think they were the decisive force.
Britain held out from 1939, the Royal Navy, was the largest Navy in the world at the time and Britain a naval power had control of the seas, whilst the Battle of Britain saw the Luftwaffe defeated and put an end to any German plans of invasion.
The fact the Britain held out and fought from 1939, is no small feat and by holding out Britain allowed the allies to reinvade Europe via D-Day as well as supply the Russians via the Arctic Convoys.
The fact Russia suffered so much, and much of the land battles related to Russia is well documented, as is the fact that Hitler was a poor tactician, he need only have looked at the lessons from Napoleon whose troops also persished in the Russian winter long before.
The British Commonwealth did more than most nations, indeed the turning point of the war for Britain and the Commonwealth was the Battle of Alamein in Egypt, as Churchill saw the area as Germany's soft under belly and knew that control of the region and Mediterranean would make life much more difficult for Hitler.
"Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat." - Winston Churchill
I wouldn't say Britain won the war but we had a hand in it, and we took on Germany from 1939 when other countries like Russia signed non-aggression pacts with Hitler which they would later regret.
As for Stalin, he was never really liked on the global stage, indeed he killed as many if not more people than Hitler, and there are no great statues in Britain to Stalin or Uncle Joe as Churchill used to refer to him.
FDR on the other hand was one of the greatest leaders ever alongside Chuchill and is warmy remembered, indeed there is a giant memorial to Roosevelt in Grosvenor Square and a statue of Roosevelt and Churchill together on Bond Street in London.
well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
True. The Germans should have bypassed and gone for the oilfields near the Caspian. Even if not able to hold them, knocking them out would have hindered the Soviets. German scout units came within visual of the Caspian Sea (from a highland like 80 miles away)
true enough. kncking out the caspian oil fields would have put a serious crimp in the russian war effort as they would have had to develop other sources of energy. the same reason the allies worked hard to disrupt the ploesti oil fields, it put a serious crimp in the german oil supplies.
Quote:
Germany invaded in June 41 thinking they would win by fall. They almost made Moscow. Whether that would have knocked them out is a guess.
not likely, remember that early in the war russia moved their manufacturing capability behind the ural mountains, where germany, due to the lack of long range heavy bombers, could not reach to damage that manufacturing capability. and as the germans drew near moscow, the russian government likely evacuated the city, for the most part. they could easily have also moved behind the urals and continued running the war effort from there, and again germany would not have been able to get to them.
Quote:
England. The US's best and most scenic aircraft carrier. #runslikehell
and what a grand carrier she was too.
Quote:
Germany would have won the Battle of Britain had it stayed on course of destroying the RAF. After some tit for tat Germany switched to the London Blitz which bought the RAF time at the cost of their capital city being bombed. The RAF was great but had far fewer replacements than Germany.
not likely. germanys air force was not designed to handle a drawn out air war. and while the spitfire was the symbol of the british air force, the hawker hurricane was the work horse, and did yeomans duty in knocking german planes out of the sky, especially german bombers.
Quote:
I took my son the the Army Heritage Park in Carlisle PA. They have a Sherman and a German 88. I went to the Sherman. Patted the gun. ting ting ting. "son. This is what we were shooting at them" I then went to the 88. patted the gun thump thump thump. Son this is what they were shooting at us. Yes I realize they are different guns but most of the German 75s FAR FAR FAR outclassed our crappy 75s.
true enough, german tanks outclassed the M4 sherman, better guns, either the 75 or 88 were better than our 75s. the germans tanks were diesel, and most of the shermans were gas powered. but the shermans outnumbered the germans tanks by better than 5 to 1, and the shermans were lighter and faster than the german tanks, and could get shots on target faster than the german tanks, and the allied tanks were more reliable than the german tanks, and that is why the allies won the tank war, germany didnt have enough tanks, and they were not as reliable.
another big problem for the german tank corps is that the tanks were complicated machines, compared to the simplicity of the allied tanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
A lot of countries made massive contributions to the victory. Do you think Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia did nothing? India?
moth you hit it on the head. while the efforts of australia, canada, new zealand, india and others was in the big picture small, if it wasnt for them, the war effort would have been much tougher. for instance without australia and new zealand, the effort in the south pacific would have been much harder than it already was. without australia macarthur would have had no place to put his forces while he regrouped and planned for the defeat of japan. and the island hopping campaign without aussia and nz troops would have put much more pressure on the marines, and slowed the effort considerably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
No countries on the allied side are getting denigrated but facts are facts. Germany's back was broken at Stalingrad, and they were on the run after Kursk. It was only a matter of time.
really? as i said, pull the US out of the war, and what happens? no second front in europe to help relieve the pressure on the russians, and that means hitler could have throw at least 15 more divisions against the eastern front, and that may have turned the war on that front to the germans. and it wasnt just ground forces we are talking about either, but a large chunk of the luftwaffe would have devastated the russian air force.
Quote:
Also, the war in the pacific was going to end in about the same time frame, with surrender of Japan. Sorry to be cynical about it but the purpose of using the nuclear weapons was different.
true, to a point, without the atomic bombs, we would have had to invade the japanese home islands, and that would have meant an effort that would make okinawa look like a squirt gun fight. it would have meant huge casualties on the allied side that would have made d day look like a slap fight, and a casualty rate on the japanese side of about 75%, including civilians, because they too would have been fighting the allies. and it would have gone on longer than dropping two bombs to end the war.
It should be noted that Stalin's non-aggression pact with Hitler, which lasted until the middle of 1941 was hardly popular in places such as Britain.
It also should be noted that 47% of Americans believe their country saved the day, and I am sure most Russians think they were the decisive force.
Britain held out from 1939, the Royal Navy, was the largest Navy in the world at the time and Britain a naval power had control of the seas, whilst the Battle of Britain saw the Luftwaffe defeated and put an end to any German plans of invasion.
The fact the Britain held out and fought from 1939, is no small feat and by holding out Britain allowed the allies to reinvade Europe via D-Day as well as supply the Russians via the Arctic Convoys.
The fact Russia suffered so much, and much of the land battles related to Russia is well documented, as is the fact that Hitler was a poor tactician, he need only have looked at the lessons from Napoleon whose troops also persished in the Russian winter long before.
The British Commonwealth did more than most nations, indeed the turning point of the war for Britain and the Commonwealth was the Battle of Alamein in Egypt, as Churchill saw the area as Germany's soft under belly and knew that control of the region and Mediterranean would make life much more difficult for Hitler.
"Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat." - Winston Churchill
I wouldn't say Britain won the war but we had a hand in it, and we took on Germany from 1939 when other countries like Russia signed non-aggression pacts with Hitler which they would later regret.
As for Stalin, he was never really liked on the global stage, indeed he killed as many if not more people than Hitler, and there are no great statues in Britain to Stalin or Uncle Joe as Churchill used to refer to him.
FDR on the other hand was one of the greatest leaders ever alongside Chuchill and is warmy remembered, indeed there is a giant memorial to Roosevelt in Grosvenor Square and a statue of Roosevelt and Churchill together on Bond Street in London.
Britain was certainly the stalwart among the allies. And their strategy was outstanding, in that they controlled all choke points and avenues of approach to the continent via the Atlantic and Med. There simply was no possible way that Hitler could have mounted an invasion across the channel and all speculation on that point is futile.
Once the USSR was drawn into the war, I think that even if the US never became an active participant, the combined resources of the British Empire and the USSR would have worn down Germany, but the war might have ended with a negotiated settlement in 1947 rather than surrender in 1945.
true enough. kncking out the caspian oil fields would have put a serious crimp in the russian war effort as they would have had to develop other sources of energy. the same reason the allies worked hard to disrupt the ploesti oil fields, it put a serious crimp in the german oil supplies.
not likely, remember that early in the war russia moved their manufacturing capability behind the ural mountains, where germany, due to the lack of long range heavy bombers, could not reach to damage that manufacturing capability. and as the germans drew near moscow, the russian government likely evacuated the city, for the most part. they could easily have also moved behind the urals and continued running the war effort from there, and again germany would not have been able to get to them.
and what a grand carrier she was too.
not likely. germanys air force was not designed to handle a drawn out air war. and while the spitfire was the symbol of the british air force, the hawker hurricane was the work horse, and did yeomans duty in knocking german planes out of the sky, especially german bombers.
true enough, german tanks outclassed the M4 sherman, better guns, either the 75 or 88 were better than our 75s. the germans tanks were diesel, and most of the shermans were gas powered. but the shermans outnumbered the germans tanks by better than 5 to 1, and the shermans were lighter and faster than the german tanks, and could get shots on target faster than the german tanks, and the allied tanks were more reliable than the german tanks, and that is why the allies won the tank war, germany didnt have enough tanks, and they were not as reliable.
another big problem for the german tank corps is that the tanks were complicated machines, compared to the simplicity of the allied tanks.
moth you hit it on the head. while the efforts of australia, canada, new zealand, india and others was in the big picture small, if it wasnt for them, the war effort would have been much tougher. for instance without australia and new zealand, the effort in the south pacific would have been much harder than it already was. without australia macarthur would have had no place to put his forces while he regrouped and planned for the defeat of japan. and the island hopping campaign without aussia and nz troops would have put much more pressure on the marines, and slowed the effort considerably.
really? as i said, pull the US out of the war, and what happens? no second front in europe to help relieve the pressure on the russians, and that means hitler could have throw at least 15 more divisions against the eastern front, and that may have turned the war on that front to the germans. and it wasnt just ground forces we are talking about either, but a large chunk of the luftwaffe would have devastated the russian air force.
true, to a point, without the atomic bombs, we would have had to invade the japanese home islands, and that would have meant an effort that would make okinawa look like a squirt gun fight. it would have meant huge casualties on the allied side that would have made d day look like a slap fight, and a casualty rate on the japanese side of about 75%, including civilians, because they too would have been fighting the allies. and it would have gone on longer than dropping two bombs to end the war.
Hitler could not turn things around after Stalingrad and Kursk, it was just no longer possible. D-day sped things up.
Again, it was not those two bombs that did it. Japanese infrastructure was already long destroyed by huge amount of conventional bombing. They knew, it was over. The main reason they decided to give up at that particular time was that the secret overtures to Soviets to mediate for better terms fell through. Once Soviet union started the Manchurian offensive on August 9, there was no hope for a better deal.
What’s important today is how weak the UK has become. Not only weak but corrupt and diseased with migrants who are essentially their enemy but living within their borders.
Hitler could not turn things around after Stalingrad and Kursk, it was just no longer possible. D-day sped things up.
Again, it was not those two bombs that did it. Japanese infrastructure was already long destroyed by huge amount of conventional bombing. They knew, it was over. The main reason they decided to give up at that particular time was that the secret overtures to Soviets to mediate for better terms fell through. Once Soviet union started the Manchurian offensive on August 9, there was no hope for a better deal.
once again reading comprehension is not your strong point is it? you seem to forget that is said "if you take the US out of the war" part.
and it was the two bombs, specifically the second bomb, that convinced the emperor to capitulate and surrender to the allies. up until the dropping of the first bomb on hiroshima, the emperor was still all for staying in the war, despite the damage to the infrastructure. you see he realized that the ENTIRE japanese population would get into the fighting, in fact they were being trained to fight by the military using what ever weapons they could get their hands on.
and that meant that instead of fighting just the military of perhaps what 2 million soldiers, we would have had to fight the ENTIRE population of japan amounting to something more like 50 million or more.
that first bomb gave the emperor pause that one bomb could level a city and kill 80 thousand people. but he didnt react fast enough for truman, so the second mission was sent, and nagasaki was leveled with another 100 thousand killed. even then however, there were elements in the military that refused to surrender, and they attempted a palace coup against the emperor. the emperors forces prevailed though and the surrender was sent.
once again reading comprehension is not your strong point is it? you seem to forget that is said "if you take the US out of the war" part.
and it was the two bombs, specifically the second bomb, that convinced the emperor to capitulate and surrender to the allies. up until the dropping of the first bomb on hiroshima, the emperor was still all for staying in the war, despite the damage to the infrastructure. you see he realized that the ENTIRE japanese population would get into the fighting, in fact they were being trained to fight by the military using what ever weapons they could get their hands on.
and that meant that instead of fighting just the military of perhaps what 2 million soldiers, we would have had to fight the ENTIRE population of japan amounting to something more like 50 million or more.
that first bomb gave the emperor pause that one bomb could level a city and kill 80 thousand people. but he didnt react fast enough for truman, so the second mission was sent, and nagasaki was leveled with another 100 thousand killed. even then however, there were elements in the military that refused to surrender, and they attempted a palace coup against the emperor. the emperors forces prevailed though and the surrender was sent.
If Japan hadn't come to its senses and surrendered, they would have been hit with 7 more nukes in the coming invasion, as part of Operations Coronet and Olympic. More would have been available if needed.
They were badly beaten and could have quit before Hiroshima, but they stubbornly refused. They could have quit before Nagasaki, but they stubbornly refused. As a result, they lost two cities, hundreds of thousands of lives and gained nothing.
There's a lesson in that:
Don't start a war that'll get your country reduced to rubble.
If Japan hadn't come to its senses and surrendered, they would have been hit with 7 more nukes in the coming invasion, as part of Operations Coronet and Olympic. More would have been available if needed.
They were badly beaten and could have quit before Hiroshima, but they stubbornly refused. They could have quit before Nagasaki, but they stubbornly refused. As a result, they lost two cities, hundreds of thousands of lives and gained nothing.
There's a lesson in that:
Don't start a war that'll get your country reduced to rubble.
your problem with the seven more nukes comment is that after the nagasaki bomb was deployed, we had no more bombs. if we were going to invade, it would have been without nuclear weapons until we made more.
your problem with the seven more nukes comment is that after the nagasaki bomb was deployed, we had no more bombs. if we were going to invade, it would have been without nuclear weapons until we made more.
Methinks we could have made more at a rapid clip.
Invading a nation composed of large and small islands with a then-fanatical population is not a pretty picture. They would have had women and kids running up to GIs with grenades or knives. Think of Okinawa and Iwo Jima on steroids.
And it would not have just been GIs. All the Allies would have contributed including French units and of course the Soviets coming in from the north.
Truth be told, I can imagine Truman giving MacArthur some Wehrmacht and Italian units to help out.
It would have made the Somme look like a day at the beach.
A huge Allied death toll and an even bigger civilian death toll than the two nuked cities. A Japan destroyed even more and split between a Soviet-Occupied north and an Allied-Occupied South.
All things considered, Harry Truman made the right call. The only call.
Well, the UK did stand alone at first against Germany. If it wasn't for them Germany might have had a better chance against Russia, no? Russia sure paid heavily with lives though fighting the Germans (with supply help from the US).
Invading a nation composed of large and small islands with a then-fanatical population is not a pretty picture. They would have had women and kids running up to GIs with grenades or knives. Think of Okinawa and Iwo Jima on steroids.
And it would not have just been GIs. All the Allies would have contributed including French units and of course the Soviets coming in from the north.
Truth be told, I can imagine Truman giving MacArthur some Wehrmacht and Italian units to help out.
It would have made the Somme look like a day at the beach.
A huge Allied death toll and an even bigger civilian death toll than the two nuked cities. A Japan destroyed even more and split between a Soviet-Occupied north and an Allied-Occupied South.
All things considered, Harry Truman made the right call. The only call.
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.
Largely agree. Yes, the North African campaign was mostly a British affair. We came in late. Italy, and then the European campaign after D Day had more American involvement. Also, the air war, and daylight bombing was U.S.
The U.S. was mostly responsible for winning the war against the Japanese. U.S. Marines, and carriers.
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.
