UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Page 13




 
--
Boots
 
March 12th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
And I was responding to the part of your statement which I qouted. Not your statement in total. To believe the Japanese would have held to their gains in China neglects the root causes of their empire building schemes.
March 12th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
And I was responding to the part of your statement which I qouted. Not your statement in total. To believe the Japanese would have held to their gains in China neglects the root causes of their empire building schemes.
Thats probably very true but it gets into the realms of "what if" which is very hard to prove because you could argue that they had just confined themselves to "non-US" areas of the pacific they would simply have run out of resources (oil in particular as Indonesian oil wasnt tapped at that point I think).

Another question is how long they could have held their gains in China as they were slowly being ground to a halt there as well.

My personal opinion is that without any other help (US/UK etc.) the Russians would have finished off the Germans they simply ground them down in a war of attrition, and to some degree Japan was going the same way in China in the end I think the axis just bit off more than they could chew world wide.

But again this is all opinion as the result is in the history books.
March 12th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Yes, the oil fields of Indonesia were in operation and were a _prime_ target of the Japanese in WWII. Just ask the Dutch.

You still haven't commented on my point about Singapore being attacked virtually at the same time as Pearl Harbor. Even without the US, the Pacific war would've happened and with far more countries than just China against the Japanese.

As to your point about Russia grinding down Germany eventually? That's open for debate quite easily. Lend Lease was a key element in the Russians ability to fight. The US sent them huge amounts of armaments without which no amount of manpower would've saved them. They had factories moved to the Urals sure, but Stalin knew how much he needed Lend Lease as his constant demands for more and more equipment bear out.

BTW, a mod should split this from the topic as we're going way off topic here now and it should be moved to the Military History forum as well. Could some kind mod please help us out?

--
Boots
March 17th, 2005  
Lupos
 
 
Well Monty, you have become what you hate. I really am getting tired of this Flipping a Coin crap. As charge mentioned, the Lend Lease Act allowed us to support the Allies with Weapons and ammo without sending troops. We never considered joining the Axis powers. The USSR may have before Hitler turned on Stalin, but we did not. You constantly using that phrase is now irritating me, so knock it off.
March 19th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
I believe the war on the Eastern Front became what many people like to call a "War of Attrition(sp?)" essentially two countries throwing men into a meatgrinder and the victor is the one who is able to sustain the heaviest losses. It came down to a country of 50 million against a country of 130 million. Even if Germany had been victorious in Russia their aggressions would have been halted for decades. Tell me, what was so odd about the Russian railways during WWII? The guages were different than essentially the rest of the world. Germany would have to completely rip up and rebuild all of Russia's railways before they could continue, that or always face constly delays while switching men and supplies to and from different trains. There can be no doubt that Russia relyed heavily on American goods VIA Lend-Lease, but Russia is also a large country, with many natural resources, they could have rebuilt and at the very least resisted Germany, I find it unlikely that America and Britain would just sit by after the downfall of Russia, they would have either invaded Western Europe or America would have sent troops into Russia from the Pacific.