UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Page 12




 
--
Boots
 
March 11th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
1) Had Britain not been available as a base the US could not have been able to attack Europe.

2) Believe it or not Britain, the Commonwealth and other European troops (The Free French, Dutch, Poles , Norwegians etc.) had already defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, the Kreigsmarine in the battle of the atlantic and Africa Corps by the time the US decided to show up, there is no reason to assume they would not have carried the war into Italy as well.

3) By 1942 the Germans were over stretched on all fronts and the British/Commonwealth/Russians had developed counters to German tactics which were working quite effectively.

The only thing the US gave the western allies was the manpower and material to open a second european front and end the european war sooner which on your own you couldnt have done so how about refering the WW2 victory to an allied effort rather than trying to claim it as a solo US victory which it obviously wasnt.
I agree with 1. America wouldn't have had the capability to send enough of anything over to the other side of the Atlantic to fight the Nazis.

I disagree with 2. The War in Africa wasn't won yet. American troops which first arrived in Africa were shot at by the Vichy French. Also, the credit you gave to the non UK forces are too high. They had roles, but they were actually very, very small. The Battle of Britain was to the UK's credit though and that ensured Britain's survival for a few more years allowing the US to get their stuff over to the other side. 2 suggests that World War II could have been won without the Americans. That is pure fantasy.

By 1942 eh? Then explain why by 1944, Practically all of Western Europe (save Switzerland, Spain and the UK) was still under Nazi control? And why was it that Stalin was just crying out for the Western front to be opened because his Army was getting slaughtered like crazy by the Nazis who had practically left the Western front to 3rd rate troops like Hitler Youth and the old?

World War II was an allied effort. The US ended up playing the biggest part in it along with the USSR in winning it. Plus the US also had to fight in the Pacific, something the Russians didn't do as extensively as the Americans did. Only a few battles (though key ones) against the Japanese for the USSR.

If it wasn't for the US, the Axis would have won in Asia without any doubt. Without the US, the allies stuck in England wouldn't have made it across to the continent and the Nazis would have been able to put all their efforts into fighting the Soviets who made their breakthrough after the Western Front was opened.
March 11th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
I disagree with 2. The War in Africa wasn't won yet. American troops which first arrived in Africa were shot at by the Vichy French. Also, the credit you gave to the non UK forces are too high. They had roles, but they were actually very, very small. The Battle of Britain was to the UK's credit though and that ensured Britain's survival for a few more years allowing the US to get their stuff over to the other side. 2 suggests that World War II could have been won without the Americans. That is pure fantasy.
I dont think I am giving non-UK troops anywhere near enough credit.
- The efforts of the Free French, Polish, Norwegian and Commonwealth airmen in the battle of Britian and the efforts of the Free French, Polish and Commonwealth, in both the North African and Italian campaigns are severly under acknowledged.
The actions of the Australian division at Tobruk handed the Germans their first major defeat of the war, Commonwealth troops in Crete effectively destroyed the German paratroop plans for the entire war are just a few examples and while this was going on the US was still flipping a coin as to who to support.

Lets be realistic had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbour and Hitler not declared war you would still be flipping the coin.


Quote:
If it wasn't for the US, the Axis would have won in Asia without any doubt.
I would tend to agree with you here however US efforts in the Pacific "I believe" far out weighed there impact in Europe.
I also think that you are over looking two other factors.
1) The Japanese were at the limit of their supply lines.
2) It was the Australians that stopped the Japanese advance through New Guinea.
3) British and Commonwealth (mainly Indian) troops were halting the Japanese advance into Burma and towards India.

So in essence other than a few victories in the early days the Japanese advance was halted in the major areas (larger nations) rather rapidly.


Quote:
Without the US, the allies stuck in England wouldn't have made it across to the continent and the Nazis would have been able to put all their efforts into fighting the Soviets who made their breakthrough after the Western Front was opened.
Say what?.

By late June 1944 the Russians were fighting in Poland I am pretty sure that it was in fact the Russian front consuming German units that allowed the Allies to get ashore in France, after all a large propotion of the altantic wall was manned by units being rebuilt and rested from duty on the eastern front.

However this is all getting away from the point I am trying to make and that is that the US made a significant contribution to the allied war effort in europe but and it was on the winning side but it was a joint effort and hardly a solo effort as you seem to be claiming.
March 12th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
You make some pretty big claims.
You're practically saying World War II could have been won without the US, just maybe it would have taken a bit longer.
Who did most of the work in the Battle of Britain? Yes there were free Polish units etc., and in fact this was the time the Belgian Paracommandos were founded as a unit in the British SAS. But the contributions of these people in the scope of the whole war was miniscule.
In which major operation did they play a large and I mean significantly large role? Commonwealth troops should be for all practical reasons be counted almost as if they were British troops because they were used like it.

And you're replying like I am American which I am not. Do you know of Korea's contribution during the 2nd World War? We killed generals, killed the Governer General of Korea (who was a strong opponent with a war against the US) but as much as the acts etc. were brave etc., I know that in the bigger scope of things, Korea's role in World War II was miniscule. Koreans fought against the Japanese in Manchuria as well.
--
Boots
March 12th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
I think that if US wouldn´t have joined WWII Hitler would have won by 1946. Nazis were developing the atomic bomb and they were really close
. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...511154,00.html
March 12th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
The U.S. did not need England to invade Nazi Europe. In fact, America actually did invade Nazi Europe from staging areas not in Europe, they where in Africa.
March 12th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by "MontyB

Lets be realistic had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbour and Hitler not declared war you would still be flipping the coin.



So lets really be realistic Kiwi.

Had Japan not attacked the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor and drawn the US into the War. Then you my friend would be eating sushi speaking Japanese and your currency would be the Yen.
March 12th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
You make some pretty big claims.
You're practically saying World War II could have been won without the US, just maybe it would have taken a bit longer.
The European part of WW2 yes I am saying that.
At the very worst France would have been speaking Russian, but most definately the Germans would not have won.

The war in the Pacific well thats an entirely different argument as without the US navy defeating the Japanese navy it would have been a very different war. Although to be fair for the US to have not entered the war it would have meant that the Japanese hadnt attacked them in which case the pacific war would not have happened.

Quote:
Who did most of the work in the Battle of Britain? Yes there were free Polish units etc., and in fact this was the time the Belgian Paracommandos were founded as a unit in the British SAS. But the contributions of these people in the scope of the whole war was miniscule.
I would not consider the efforts of the "free" units in any theatre miniscule that really does show a lack of understanding of their operations.
I would also suggest studying up a bit on the formation of the SAS especially from its roots as the Long Range Desert Group as you will probably find that outside of its command it wasnt a particually British group.

Quote:
Do you know of Korea's contribution during the 2nd World War? We killed generals, killed the Governer General of Korea (who was a strong opponent with a war against the US) but as much as the acts etc. were brave etc., I know that in the bigger scope of things, Korea's role in World War II was miniscule. Koreans fought against the Japanese in Manchuria as well.
No I dont know Korea's contribution to WW2, what I do know is that to belittle whatever efforts were made by giving or allowing someone else the credit is wrong.

Dont misunderstand my position here, I am not saying that the American role in WW2 wasnt significant I am simply saying that the USA did not win the war solo nor could it have won the war on its own and that the outcome of WW2 was because of a joint effort by many nations.



Quote:
So lets really be realistic Kiwi.

Had Japan not attacked the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor and drawn the US into the War. Then you my friend would be eating sushi speaking Japanese and your currency would be the Yen.
Umm not wishing to point out the obvious here but:
1) Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbour then there wouldnt have been a pacific war.

2) I love sushi.

3) I do speak limited Japanese (very limited) and I am in Japan roughly twice a year for work so I have all the yen I need.
March 12th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB


Quote:
So lets really be realistic Kiwi.

Had Japan not attacked the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor and drawn the US into the War. Then you my friend would be eating sushi speaking Japanese and your currency would be the Yen.
Umm not wishing to point out the obvious here but:
1) Had tha Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbour then there wouldnt have been a pacific war.

2) I love sushi.

3) I do speak limited Japanese (very limited) and I am in Japan roughly twice a year for work so I have all the yen I need.

So really believe the IJA would have stopped their march across Asia. And their implementation of the "Greater Sphere of Asian Co Prospierty" with their Gains in China? .

Japan then as now is a Nation that is poor in Natural Resources. Oil, tin, wood, minerals. The March would have continued the Bushido Boys were bent on Colonization of the Pacific rim. Malayasia, Philippines, Austraila, New Zealand , India, Burma, Siam. Were all Targeted whether or not the US was at war or not. Read back over the Rhetoric of the time from Tojo and others. Europeans were "badly using Asians" and Japan was "protecting them". Protecting them at places like Nanking.

Your assertation that without Pearl Harbor there would have been no Pacific war is naive. Japan had plans to expand it's empire and would have done it on the Asian Mainland and on the Pacific Rim. Albiet without Pearl Harbor they'd have rolled it up much quicker with out those Pesky Yank Marines, Soliders, Sailors and Airman there to help the vaunted UK/Commonwealth forces.
March 12th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Ok since reading an entire post seems to be too difficult for some, here are a couple of parts to read.

Quote:
The war in the Pacific well thats an entirely different argument as without the US navy defeating the Japanese navy it would have been a very different war.
and

Quote:
Dont misunderstand my position here, I am not saying that the American role in WW2 wasnt significant I am simply saying that the USA did not win the war solo nor could it have won the war on its own and that the outcome of WW2 was because of a joint effort by many nations.
So please tell me how these statements are wrong?

Quote:
Albiet without Pearl Harbor they'd have rolled it up much quicker with out those Pesky Yank Marines, Soliders, Sailors and Airman there to help the vaunted UK/Commonwealth forces.

To be honest I really would love to discuss this topic with an American that was actually there rather than ones who think they know it all, it would interest me to see if they felt like they won the war single handed.
March 12th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
America defeated the Axis single-handed? I don't think anybody here has been foolish enough to suggest that. I have, however, seen the idiocy of statements alluding to the idea that the rest of the Allies could've done it without us.

Oh yeah,

"Although to be fair for the US to have not entered the war it would have meant that the Japanese hadnt attacked them in which case the pacific war would not have happened."

Are you perhaps forgetting a little place called Singapore? The Japanese attacked it within days of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war would've happened even without Pearl Harbor.