Random Discussion #2

[Skanvak]

Quote "WW1 would not have been won, indeed, it would have been lost had America not come in the side of the Allies. If you disagree, you haven't read enough about the war. If you think you have read enough, you haven't, so read more."

That's Wrong, there are 2 reason two german defeat and US is not part of it. First there are the armored offensive of 1918 (french/english) and the Autro-hungarian surrendered (French). USA give fresh troop, fine but not decisive. Germany was closer to upheaval than France. (From what is written by Lidell Hart).

For WW2, I would like to had that your discussion cannot through out Hilter evilness and goal, otherwise you should too through out Allied doctrinal mistake and Germany would have been defeated, no way germany could win the war if the anglo-french army have had the kind of Command structure and doctrine used in the 20's.

((Though WW2 is a US victory, no doubt)).

PS : US did fail to save France in an european War. They were defeated and end up on the losing side.

[ September 04, 2004, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Avatar:

WW2 would not have been won, indeed, it would have been lost had America not come in the side of the Allies. If you disagree, you haven't read enough about the war. If you think you have read enough, you haven't, so read more.

I hate to burst your bubble, but even taking into account Lend Lease, the Soviets were somewhat involved in defeating Germany, and the tide had been turned while US soldiers were getting their feet wet in North Africa.

[jon_j_rambo]

North Africa was just pre-game. "What were you thinking? Have you ever heard of General Motors!" --- shouting soldier the mini-series, Band of Brothers.

[Avatar]

America's entry into WW1 did more than just add manpower to the Allied effort. It added badly badly needed moral support. Moral support added to the allies, and subtracted from the central powers. You can't just add the tangible items. Regarding WW2, without their lendlease to either UK or USSR, both those countries would have been direly short of many many things. Do you have any idea the number of tanks/trucks/airplanes/many other items that were shipped to USSR? It's unreal. Who's to say that USSR could have pulled off what they did in 42/43 without America's unflinching support? USA trebled the allies' fleet, and because of them it became possible to defeat the u-boats.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Avatar:

without their lendlease to either UK or USSR, both those countries would have been direly short of many many things. Do you have any idea the number of tanks/trucks/airplanes/many other items that were shipped to USSR?

And how many did they produce themselves? You can make a case that it helped them, but it wasn't the decisive factor. You can't argue that Lend Lease won the war for the Soviet Union.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Seawolf:

... The English speaking poeple have saved Europe 3 times in the last century, WW1, WW2, and the Cold War...

Ahem, what exactly was saved from what in WW1? You can't compare WW1 with WW2.

Anyway, WW1 and WW2 were decided by the war entry of the USA. This is a fact.

Originally posted by John_J_Rambo:

...

Your soccor is very below average. The only way I'll watch if only if in High Definition & the Brits are burning down the stands or something. For God's sake, you have hands, play a sport that allows using them! Kicking a ball for 3-hours for a 0-0 tie is boring!

Ha! Wearing helmets and armor isn't heroic either.

Fair enough to say, that in the end it doens't matter which sports you are watching, as long as you can hang out with good friend, have some cold beer (Beck's, please) and things like that. After all we are even watching all those olympic sports like hurdles, swimming and even sailing every four years. All we need is a good show, or am i wrong?

[JerseyJohn]

Mr X ...

"Anyway, WW1 and WW2 were decided by the war entry of the USA. This is a fact."

Well put and what I was attempting to say earlier. It isn't a matter of whether or not the United States won the war, the point is United States entry decided both wars. To claim otherwise is absurd.

One thing nobody mentions regarding WWI is the German U-boats freely dominated the Atlantic, the first act the U. S. accompolished was to free the sea lanes for ships and convoys to reach Great Britain in the first place without being decimated in the process.

If WWI would only have ended in a stand-off Germany would have had all of Poland and large parts of Russia added to it's borders. Additionally the Baltic States and the Ukraine were set up as German protectorates.

Great Britain and France wanted to recognize those changes, conceded by Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, along with the return of all of Imperial Germany's colonies on condition she withdraw from Belgium and Northern France.

If the gain of important territory doubling the original size of the country isn't a victory, then the word needs to be re-defined.

In World War Two the argument that the United States didn't decide the issue -- I didn't say win the war, I said decide the issue -- is too absurd to even discuss.

Sirocco, what you're talking about is called revisionist history. Read the accounts of people like Winston Churchill and you'll see exactly what his thoughts were on the matter. He had no intentions of surrendering, but he also had no delussions about Britain's future if the United States remained neutral.

As for Stalingrad dooming Germany -- that's bull. Take away the need to keep a hundred divisions in France and Italy and the Eastern Front suddenly looks a lot different!

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Sirocco, what you're talking about is called revisionist history. Read the accounts of people like Winston Churchill and you'll see exactly what his thoughts were on the matter. He had no intentions of surrendering, but he also had no delussions about Britain's future if the United States remained neutral.

As for Stalingrad dooming Germany -- that's bull. Take away the need to keep a hundred divisions in France and Italy and the Eastern Front suddenly looks a lot different!

There's no question that Churchill was desperate for US entry into the war. But Germany wasn't about to invade England after 1940. After turning East the die was cast for Germany.

Were those divisions in France and western and southern Europe there just to repel US divisions? I don't think so. In 1943 and 1944 the Commonwealth was still shouldering a great part of the effort. Of course as time went on the US stepped further to the forefront.

[JerseyJohn]

Sirocco

Fair enough, now we're talking along lines I think are much more realistic -- and I don't mean that in a condescending manner, you've made many excellent points clarifying the original remarks along these lines.

Regarding SeaLion first. I don't think it ever had a chance in terms of Germany crossing the channel and assaulting the beaches of Southern England the way the Allies did with France.

I believe instead that there was a good possibility before Barbarossa that the Luftwaffe could have controlled the skies over that region and enabled a huge paratroop operation with the goal of taking a port such as Dover or Portsmouth and the surrounding airfields. From there reinforcements could have been brought in by freighters captured in French ports or flown in using the captured air strips.

-- Problems encountered here were that for one thing Germany didn't have a large enough paratroop force in 1940 and it was in need of reorganization after it's operations in Norway and the Low Countries. After the summer / fall of 1940 the British defenses became more formidable and after the spring of 1941 they were a real barrier.

Germany's only real hope of defeating the UK was through a much more intense U-boat campaign. Which brings us back to the possibility of the United States entering because FDR was determined to have the U. S. Navy providing escorts to mid-Atlantic and beyond. But it's a certainty that Germany could have doubled it's U-boat efforts and also stopped using them stupidly, such as placing ocean capable subs on a picket line off the coast of Norway! Doenitz spent most of the Battle of the Atlantic with one arm bound behind his shoulder.

There are other ways that Germany might have defeated the U. K., in terms of forcing a peace treaty, that would not have directly involved an invasion but what I've stated above seems, to me, to be the most sensible.

The British conducted a very fine strategic bomber campaign but it was so tied in with the U. S. bomber campaign as to be a supporting arm. British bombers for much of the period conducted night attacks. Damaging, but not devastating. Without the U. S. bombers and long range escorts fighting with them it seems doubtful that the British bomber wing could have successfully held up. Losses, even from night bombing, were severe and, as the war progressed, it became ever more difficult to replace crews. Britain was already strained for manpower by 1943 and, without the United States infusion of forces, would soon have been reduced to drawing upon boys and old men to fill the ranks. Much as Germany was to end up doing after it's catastrophic losses of 1943.

Victory or defeat in Russia is a difficult subject. Certainly the Russian people were capable of fighting even if European Russia were lost. The questions are whether they would have and whether the Germans would have woke up and begun treating them like human beings and attempting to recuit them along with reducing the large numbers who left the villages to fight as partisans.

How can anyone venture a guess here? We're talking about a hundred million people (of European USSR) who were tyranized by the invader but also by their own government! If Germany would have won them over in the initial stages they might well have won it all by the end of 1942. Instead they chose to become Stalin's best ally!

All in all I think it's safe to say that, without the U. S. entering the war, the Eastern Front is a standoff.

Not an easy situation to analyze as so much of it would have needed to be done differently by Germany to take advantage of the U. S. not being directly involved. But I strongly suspect it would have wound up with Great Britain still in existence, as you said, but having to sue for peace and then needing desperately to rebuild itself.

Germany ends up controlling all of continental Europe and all of European Russia. The situation remains frozen that way while the Axis turns to utilizing it's gains, Adolf Hitler dies of natural causes in 1946 and the question is, who takes over Germany?

I think any of them would have been better than Hitler, both in terms of being more able and also in terms of not being a psychotic conductor of genocide -- even Himmler would have been better, he wasn't evil so much as devoid of a conscience. Hitler, on the other hand, was actually evil.

So my answer from there would depend upon whehther he's succeeded by Goering, Raeder, Doenitz, Himmler or -- who?

Regarding the units kept in the west, true, not all of them would have been sent east if the U. S. hadn't entered the war. But most of them would have. Many of the units on what would have been the quiet front would have been there to be rebuilt after taking heavy losses in the east.

[Sirocco]

I don't for a moment think Britain would have sued for peace. I think that's to completely misunderstand the British people, and I think Churchill personified that spirit.

Whether the promised return to continental Europe would have materialised, we will never know, but that was the intention. And let us not forget that the Eighth Army was at last overcoming Rommel in North Africa in 1942.

Before 1944 western and southern Europe was a backwater for Germany. A place where units, indeed, went to rest and refit. When strength in the west was being recognised as being of importance the war was already lost for Germany.

The Wehrmacht was broken in the East. And it was broken primarily on the backs of Soviet soldiers and T34's. That isn't to say that the Soviets themselves won the war alone. They benefited from US - and Commonwealth - supplies to a great deal. The Studebakers provided by the US were of particular value. But the Soviets would still have defeated the Germans without US involvement, it would just have taken longer.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

-US intervention during WW1: a decisive factor.

-US intervention during WW2 : THE decisive factor,though I agree with Sirocco that the Russians would have defeated the germans without American aid as well.But that would have taken countless of lives and the war would have been a lot longer.

-Cold War :No Cold War without the US.

[JerseyJohn]

I don't think the USSR would have defeated Germany without U. S. aid. They staved off being overrun but that isn't the same as winning. For one thing the United States sent huge numbers of trucks to Russia without which their supplies would have moved like molases.

Germany would have recovered and held and found a way, probably by recruiting Russian POWs and people from occupied lands. They needed to drop their subhuman slave insanity before making any headway and they were actually doing that in Russia, but they started too late. Even so they did put a lot of Cossacks and other Russians into their own lines. NO, they wouldn't have been defeated in Russia without the massive U. S. bombings and the mediteranean and French theaters, which the UK could not have managed unaided.

I said that Britain would have had to sue for peace if Germany had run a massively more effective U-boat campaign. So if they didn't and had no imports and exports they'd have defiantly dropped dead in the streets; they would have very soon been incapable of continueing the war without adequate imports and there's a point where defiance for defiance sake ceases. Churchill wanted a return to mainland Europe the way I'd like a new Mercedes. On it's own, the UK was not going invade Europe, there's no question on that one. None.

True, Rommel stupidly deluded himself into thinking he could use oil stocks captured at Tobruck to dash to Alexandria, Cairo and the Suez without realizing Auchinleck was preparing the Alemain defenses even while losing in Libya. The general staff advised Rommel to remain in Libya until after Malta had been taken. He went right to Hitler and convinced him to cancel the Malta campaign and send those troops directly to his Afrika Korps. It was by far his most shortsighted move and shows that he had been passed too quickly up the ladder.

Despite that it was the simulaneous landings of the primarily American Operation Torch in Morocco and Algeria that forced the issue. Troops that would have gone to rebuild his army were sent instead to Tunisia to form von Arnim's army. From there, the Axis was doomed in Africa. Ironically, it lost much more in defeat than it would have needed earlier to attain a victory. On the other hand, they could never have supplied a large army as long as Malta remained in British hands.

I like Churchill as an historic figure. But I don't feel that because he made a statement it would automatically have come to pass. Britain needed it's maritime lifeline simply to exist as a modern nation. He knew that, Doenitz knew that, it was only the Austrian corporal who didn't fully appreciate that fact. Again, sever that lifeline and Britain sues for peace, that isn't even a question. If Churchill refused he'd have been replaced by a new PM who would have. And I'm sure both Churchill and King George realized that as well.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Despite that it was the simulaneous landings of the primarily American Operation Torch in Morocco and Algeria that forced the issue.

The word "primarily" is misleading. The landings and subsequent operations were Anglo-American, the drive from the east was by Commonwealth forces, and the subsequent final destruction of Wehrmacht forces in North Afirca was Anglo-American.

[JerseyJohn]

Well, okay, I could have sworn the United States was involved in that war somehow but I guess I was wrong, maybe I was thinking of the American Civil War or something.

I've given up speaking about the Second World War, guess I've got to study the revised histories.

But on this thread I guess you win, it's become too absurd to continue with at this point.

Take the United States out of the equation and the UK and USSR win it on their own.

Sure, okay, have it your way.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Well, okay, I could have sworn the United States was involved in that war somehow but I guess I was wrong

Your position seems to be that the US was THE decisive factor in WW2. There doesn't seem to be room for the contribution of others, unless it's in an entirely subsidiary role. The US made a huge and central contribution to victory in WW2. But it was dwarfed by that of the Soviet Union. And in the west it was not the entirely dominant partner at the time of North Africa, Sicily, Italy or Normandy. It became so afterwards.

The point is that the US did not win the war single-handed, with other participants standing at the margins with their hands in their pockets. But that's not to underplay it's effort or sacrifice. It's simply to put it in a broader context and remove it from partisan bombast.

[JerseyJohn]

I never said the United States won the war singlehandedly.

-- But the line you're following is almost as though it were a minor factor.

Which is nonsense. The whole line of reasoning is nonsense. The United States was a key factor even two years before it started sending troops and when it was still neutral!

Lend Lease was a one way street, it was giveaway and absolutely vital. Without it the war ends and Hitler is left with a free hand.

I'm just tired of bickering over and quibbling over details. Aside from which things are being attributed to me that I never said. Over the past two years I've posted hundred of things regarding Russia's sacrifices and the indomnitable fighting spirt of the UK. I've defended the French, both Third Republic and Vichy. The whole nine yards. But this thread has gone off the deep end and I'm out of it, that's all.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

One thing nobody mentions regarding WWI is the German U-boats freely dominated the Atlantic, the first act the U. S. accompolished was to free the sea lanes for ships and convoys to reach Great Britain in the first place without being decimated in the process.

And all this after it were those german Handels-Uboote (merchant-subs) who opened the seas in the first for comerce and trading again (arriving at Baltimore and New London). At the early stage of WW1 germany earned some sympathy in the US with those kind of ships.

Here a picture of the "Deutschland" in New London:

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Lend Lease was a one way street, it was giveaway and absolutely vital. Without it the war ends and Hitler is left with a free hand.

Lend Lease was not a "giveaway". It did receive certain things in return. I'm not sure I'd agree with your second point, either. It's true that that US - and Commonwealth, to a lesser extent - assistance help the Soviet Union greatly, but I'm not at all sure that it would have collapsed without it.

I'm not minimising US involvement at all. What I am doing is challenging the notion that the US was THE decisive factor, and the resultant idea that without it the war couldn't have been won. That extreme marginalises others to an unfair degree. It made a huge contribution. It's entry ensured that western Europe had a democratic future.

"The English speaking poeple have saved Europe 3 times in the last century, WW1, WW2, and the Cold War."

If you ammend that to read, The United States, I'll go along with it.

I posted in this thread in response to the above comment. The revisionism is the ransacking of history. And the truth is there in the cemeteries along the path to victory.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

Your position seems to be that the US was THE decisive factor in WW2.

Read. Read more. Reading is sooooo important, Baldrick, ah, sorry, i ment: dear friend sirocco.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sir Jersey is NOT john_j_rambo, which you would surely know if you would have taken some time to read in this forum.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

Your position seems to be that the US was THE decisive factor in WW2.

Read. Read more. Reading is sooooo important, Baldrick, ah, sorry, i ment: dear friend sirocco.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sir Jersey is NOT john_j_rambo, which you would surely know if you would have taken some time to read in this forum. </font>

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I would suggest you attempt to grow up. Engaging in adult conversation will be much more rewarding in that case.

But wasn't it me who vowed never to grow up?

Sorry, but i fear we germans are bad losers...

[jon_j_rambo]

@Sirocco --- Another clueless wonder we have here. This is Legend, not Jersey, so lets clear the air. First, the USA won WW-2 on all fronts. Militarily, economically, & anyway you want to slice or dice it. We took out both the Japs & Germans which far, far, away from our homeland. Get a map, check out how far California to Hawaii to Japan is. Then check out how far it is to Anzio, N. Africa, France, etc. Germans & Japs had 10-year start, we quickly got things into gear. Without the US, England would have been a parking lot. Of course the Brits had sailors, airmen, & Churchill, but they would have lost without the USA. Next, Russia...well, if USA didn't enter to help UK, then Germany would have had a cakewalk. N.Africa was just a warmup, until we could sail supplies, weapons, & soldiers overthere.

The whole time, we trashed the Jap Navy, Island hopped, etc.

People like my Uncles headcracked the Axis. My Uncle K. was on a destroyer than sank due to U-Boats. Well, he survived & served on another ship which had the pleasure of waxing Nazis sailors. Uncle C. fought Japs. Uncle J. was in a concentration camp. Europe is a bunch of Jew hating scumbags.

"What were you thinking? Haven't you ever heard of General Motors!" --- Band of Brothers

UK & Russia alone would have lost to Hitler's madmen.

Now, bad to Belgium. You're a bunch of German wannabees. Half the population joined Hitler & endorsed him. Many joined the SS-ranks. You Belgiums tried to kill Anne Frank too. Well, you lost to the good old USA.

As you tell, those Euro-Hippie posts just ain't going to fly. "That dog ain't going hunt!". We saved from Nazis, but you were Nazis wannabees anyhow, until you know the war was a lost effort. The US is full of people that like to kick ass, America loves a winner & will not tolerate a loser.

When it comes to Iraq, Iran, or whatever country that hates US & Israel. Well, it the words of Rambo,"Murdock, I'm coming for you!".

Knock down our buildings, we're knocking to countries. Guess what? Screw proof, screw public opinion, screw Europe. If you mess with US, the big hurt is coming your way.

USA World Tour in the 3rd Millinium

[Sirocco]

You know something? I'm not even bothering to read your drivel.

[kurt88]

Nevermind Rambo, he's got **** for brains.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

But wasn't it me who vowed never to grow up?

Thanks Mr X.! That's really fantastic!

Speaking of which, last night was good and clear out here so I put my telescope in the yard and we had six neighbor kids sleeping on our sundeck when they weren't star gazing (no, it didn't have an angle to see through people's windows, sorry.) I went to look in on them a few times and all day I've been thinking don't ever grow up. Childhood should be forever.

Sirocco

It isn't that I totally disagree. I understand what you're saying, but it's like before when you talking about the independent role of the British 8th Army, it was filled with American Grant, Sherman and Stuart tanks! No single country won the war against Germany, I'd rather just leave it at that.

Okay?

And also to add that if it weren't for the USA all you Euros would have one language today, GERMAN! Okay? -- and I mean from 1918!

Okay, okay, I got a little carried away, I'm sorry. :cool:

General Rambo

You are in rare form today. After years of Idaho you've moved to a state that has an ocean, of sorts, and that salt air has inspired you to ever greater heights!

Onward! To quote one of our favorite people, "Okay, here's where we hold'em by the nose and kick'em in the ass!" I don't mean that regarding anything having to do with this thread, I just like that Patton quote; it's Americana at it's highest level.

-- I can't agree about the Belgians and other Euros being nazis, of course. To me there were millions of Europeans who, on one level or another, worked against the nazis. And a lot of them were in Germany itself!

Perhaps it would have helped if this thread had a different title?

[ September 04, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]