User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 8:55:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Lol, brits all say that to save face. It's like opening a stuck top on a jar of peanut butter and your buddy says "I loosened it for you."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 8:58:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Without the US do the Nazis pummel Britain with the V-2? Serious question - I don’t know the answer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 8:59:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Our friend @Agent_Funky informed me that the United States, twice (both world wars), "joined a fight we are already winning" Original post, so any context is not lost For those of you that are scholars and military history buffs... prove or disprove his claim. Was Britain/ England/the UK "already winning" world war 2 when the United States entered the fight? ETA (2023 EDT): Fixed phone typo "the Britain/England/UK" fixed to "Britain/England/the UK" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:06:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Without the US do the Nazis pummel Britain with the V-2? Serious question - I don’t know the answer. I suspect that should that have become necessary, the British government would have recalled everything in India and the Far East for that fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:08:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In WWI, the US would be considered "late to the party". WWII, not so much. The US and British prepared for a year, together, for Operation OVERLORD - the invasion of Europe through France. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Our friend @Agent_Funky informed me that the United States, twice (both world wars), "joined a fight we are already winning" Original post, so any context is not lost For those of you that are scholars and military history buffs... prove or disprove his claim. Was Britain/ England/the UK "already winning" world war 2 when the United States entered the fight? ETA (2023 EDT): Fixed phone typo "the Britain/England/UK" fixed to "Britain/England/the UK" WWII, not so much. The US and British prepared for a year, together, for Operation OVERLORD - the invasion of Europe through France. Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939 Britain won Battle of Britain September 1940 Lend Lease started March 1941 (signed by Roosevelt into US law on 11 March 1941) Japan attacked Pearl December 1941 - US Declared war on Japan and Germany. Planning and build up started in Feb 1942 moving troops, aircraft and supplies to UK for Op Bolero - (initial invasion plan) Bolero scrapped mid 1942 Buildup and Planning recommenced early 1943 for Overlord. Overlord commenced June 1944 What Unrefined was doing was claiming that the US "Saved our asses". A common misconception and itself revisionism. That claim does however apply to the rest of Europe. Germany lost interest in trying to invade Britain in 1940. If we hadn't won the Battle of Britain in 1940, defended our islands in '40 '41 and '42 while still taking the fight out to the enemy in Europe, the Atlantic, Middle East and Africa the US would have had great difficulty getting a foothold in the European theatre. What I pointed out was that we saved our own asses, and then carried on fighting on our own until, while buying equipment and supplies from the US, until the US joined the War in December 1941. That is not revisionism, Much as Unrefined might like to portray it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:09:18 PM EDT
[#6]
Didn’t American citizens have gun drives to donate arms to Britain, so that their citizens could fight the Nazis?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:12:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Define “Join”. We were supporting them way before the declaration of war. Some folk are confusing US logistical help with the "fight" aspects of the war. Britain had a higher death toll on the Home Front among the civilian population, than deaths in combat/overseas of the country's military. And Great Britain, pre-1947 had one hell of a manpower pool to draw from; the British Empire A lot of Commonwealth countries never even got around to military age conscription to supply troops for WW2. Then again, Great Britain never started conscription in WW1 before manpower shortages started to be an issue in 1916 That US submarine capturing an Enigma machine from a U-Boat was a great help to the British war effort though...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:16:01 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn’t American citizens have gun drives to donate arms to Britain, so that their citizens could fight the Nazis? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:18:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn’t American citizens have gun drives to donate arms to Britain, so that their citizens could fight the Nazis? American Citizens generously donated guns. They were never needed as Germany never gained a foothold in the UK thankfully, but they were gratefully received. Many guns were handed back at the end of the war to be returned with thanks, but they were refused entry to the US and many ended up dumped at sea or never made it out of the UK. The Royal Armouries in Leeds still have some of the guns that were donated some still with the tags and messages of support from the Americans who donated them. Last time I was there they had a display dedicated to the gun drive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:23:37 PM EDT
[#10]
When the US joined the fight in December 1941, Britain was not fighting WWII alone; Hitler was busy squandering millions of crack German troops in Russia, which took a massive amount of pressure off the British.
Before Operation Barbarossa started Britain was definitely on the defensive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:24:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Lol are you serious right now?! If Germany didn’t decide to try to 87 things at the same time they would have dominated all of Europe.
If it weren’t for the USA the world today would look MUCH different. Back to back undefeated world war champs and we can do it again if need be! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:30:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This Some folk are confusing US logistical help with the "fight" aspects of the war. Britain had a higher death toll on the Home Front among the civilian population, than deaths in combat/overseas of the country's military. And Great Britain, pre-1947 had one hell of a manpower pool to draw from; the British Empire A lot of Commonwealth countries never even got around to military age conscription to supply troops for WW2. Then again, Great Britain never started conscription in WW1 before manpower shortages started to be an issue in 1916 That US submarine capturing an Enigma machine from a U-Boat was a great help to the British war effort though... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Define “Join”. We were supporting them way before the declaration of war. Some folk are confusing US logistical help with the "fight" aspects of the war. Britain had a higher death toll on the Home Front among the civilian population, than deaths in combat/overseas of the country's military. And Great Britain, pre-1947 had one hell of a manpower pool to draw from; the British Empire A lot of Commonwealth countries never even got around to military age conscription to supply troops for WW2. Then again, Great Britain never started conscription in WW1 before manpower shortages started to be an issue in 1916 That US submarine capturing an Enigma machine from a U-Boat was a great help to the British war effort though... 
The first capture of a naval Enigma machine with its cipher keys from a U-boat (U-110) was made on 9 May 1941 by HMS Bulldog. RN also captured additional ciphers from U-559 in 1942. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:32:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We were also in a de facto naval war with the Germans after they sank SS Robin Moor in June 41 off of the coast of Africa and then blew USS Reuben James out of the water on Halloween 41. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Didn’t American citizens have gun drives to donate arms to Britain, so that their citizens could fight the Nazis? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:33:18 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Without the US do the Nazis pummel Britain with the V-2? Serious question - I don’t know the answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:33:59 PM EDT
[#15]
No. However, they had punched way above their weight for the preceding years while waiting for us to enter. Lot of resentment due to that. Not capable of winning without US.
I suppose a fair question is whether we could have won without the UK. Certainly in the Pacific, probably not in Europe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:36:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because it's a fun position take... The UK volunteered itself for both world wars. The only reason it was in a position to involve itself in the second is because of US material support in the first. The US's great error was in providing support to the UK and France during WWI. While I have no philosophical problem with selling shit to people that need it the fact is that the only reason the UK needed that support was because they volunteered for the war. And in hindsight the result of that US support was a long, drawn-out Entente victory on the Western Front, rather than a reasonably quick victory for the Central Powers. Had such a victory taken place, the conditions that set WW2 in motion would not have existed, to the betterment of the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:36:25 PM EDT
[#17]
YES IF THE US HAD NOT JOINED THE WAR ON DEC8TH THE UK & SOVIETS WOULD MOST LIKLEY STILL DEFEATED THE AXIS AS LONG AS THE JAPANESE IDEAS TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS IN RUSSIA NEVER MATERIALIZE.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:37:26 PM EDT
[#18]
By the time Germany (stupidly) declared war on the United States, the end result of the war was already a foregone conclusion.
Germany could not win a war against the British Empire and Soviet Union. Add the United States to the mix and they just sped up the inevitable by about 5 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:39:16 PM EDT
[#19]
Germany was going to beat itself to death on Russian rocks long before they invaded GB.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:48:03 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. However, they had punched way above their weight for the preceding years while waiting for us to enter. Lot of resentment due to that. Not capable of winning without US. I suppose a fair question is whether we could have won without the UK. Certainly in the Pacific, probably not in Europe. Then again, I disagree with @Agent_Funky that the UK was "winning" when the US won the war. At best, I'd say the UK was able to maintain a temporary stalemate while the Nazis ground themselves down upon the rock of a land campaign against the Soviet Union (Hitler learned nothing from Napoleon!). Without the aid of the US to bolster UK forces and create a formidable two front war against Axis forces, I believe the Soviets would have fallen and the UK soon after. A stalemate while your ally is ground pounded is not winning, but it isn't losing either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:56:00 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The UK won the Battle for Britain...and thats it. They were out of all resources and so were the Germans. Without attacking the Germans on all fronts, with massive aid from the US nobody was going to beat the Germans. Certainly not the British. There is a good reason why high command gave total authority to an American. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:58:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The War in Europe started in 1939 Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939 Britain won Battle of Britain September 1940 Lend Lease started March 1941 (signed by Roosevelt into US law on 11 March 1941) Japan attacked Pearl December 1941 - US Declared war on Japan and Germany. Planning and build up started in Feb 1942 moving troops, aircraft and supplies to UK for Op Bolero - (initial invasion plan) Bolero scrapped mid 1942 Buildup and Planning recommenced early 1943 for Overlord. Overlord commenced June 1944 What Unrefined was doing was claiming that the US "Saved our asses". A common misconception and itself revisionism. That claim does however apply to the rest of Europe. Germany lost interest in trying to invade Britain in 1940. If we hadn't won the Battle of Britain in 1940, defended our islands in '40 '41 and '42 while still taking the fight out to the enemy in Europe, the Atlantic, Middle East and Africa the US would have had great difficulty getting a foothold in the European theatre. What I pointed out was that we saved our own asses, and then carried on fighting on our own until, while buying equipment and supplies from the US, until the US joined the War in December 1941. That is not revisionism, Much as Unrefined might like to portray it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our friend @Agent_Funky informed me that the United States, twice (both world wars), "joined a fight we are already winning" Original post, so any context is not lost For those of you that are scholars and military history buffs... prove or disprove his claim. Was Britain/ England/the UK "already winning" world war 2 when the United States entered the fight? ETA (2023 EDT): Fixed phone typo "the Britain/England/UK" fixed to "Britain/England/the UK" WWII, not so much. The US and British prepared for a year, together, for Operation OVERLORD - the invasion of Europe through France. Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939 Britain won Battle of Britain September 1940 Lend Lease started March 1941 (signed by Roosevelt into US law on 11 March 1941) Japan attacked Pearl December 1941 - US Declared war on Japan and Germany. Planning and build up started in Feb 1942 moving troops, aircraft and supplies to UK for Op Bolero - (initial invasion plan) Bolero scrapped mid 1942 Buildup and Planning recommenced early 1943 for Overlord. Overlord commenced June 1944 What Unrefined was doing was claiming that the US "Saved our asses". A common misconception and itself revisionism. That claim does however apply to the rest of Europe. Germany lost interest in trying to invade Britain in 1940. If we hadn't won the Battle of Britain in 1940, defended our islands in '40 '41 and '42 while still taking the fight out to the enemy in Europe, the Atlantic, Middle East and Africa the US would have had great difficulty getting a foothold in the European theatre. What I pointed out was that we saved our own asses, and then carried on fighting on our own until, while buying equipment and supplies from the US, until the US joined the War in December 1941. That is not revisionism, Much as Unrefined might like to portray it. If Britain had simply given up and sued for peace when France fell in 1940 then there's no way the United States could have taken on the Nazis. Worse, if Britain had been defeated and occupied by the Nazis then America would have been struggling to build up an army and fight against a coming Nazi invasion... Remember that this would mean the Nazis probably captured Royal Navy ships and had access to all the shipbuilding industry in Britain. If the Soviets had rolled over and surrendered in early 42 then the combined forces of Britain and the United States couldn't have defeated them. However the Nazis could not have managed to take Britain once America got rolling... Stalemate. And if the United States had remained truly neutral and not supplied (either selling or giving) so much aid to Britain and the Soviets then the Soviet Union would have collapsed and Britain would have either had to sue for peace or face an invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 9:59:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Britain won Battle of Britain September 1940 Germany lost interest in trying to invade Britain in 1940. If we hadn't won the Battle of Britain in 1940, defended our islands in '40 '41 and '42 while still taking the fight out to the enemy in Europe, the Atlantic, Middle East and Africa the US would have had great difficulty getting a foothold in the European theatre. To the main question, Albert Speer indicated a steady increase of production by Germany through the end of the war. Look at bombing of Dresden, tragic but necessary as a way to suppress internal production. Without the US it would have been an eventuality. US involvement saved GB’s ass and their own. To your point US would have been hopeless without firm ground to invade France. So perhaps more appropriate to say we saved each other’s Asses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:00:09 PM EDT
[#24]
If England only had to fight Germany they probably would have prevailed alone but they were also at war with Japan and England was being soundly defeated in SE Asia.
Japan had a good navy and had it been able to grow without U.S. intervention, Japan would have become too strong for the Royal Navy to stand against. In other words, England would have lost without America. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:01:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Saddler and Agent_Funky:
Are we bros and do we not have a history of helping one another? I would argue we are, and we have. Did we throw away the British to establish our Republic? I'd argue 100% that we did, and furthermore we founded the finest country on the planet. To your credit, our bicameral legislature is based on yours. Do we have disagreements, even modern day? Certainly. Is there any stronger alliance between two countries in the entire world? I would say no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:01:37 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you say is true. If Britain had simply given up and sued for peace when France fell in 1940 then there's no way the United States could have taken on the Nazis. Worse, if Britain had been defeated and occupied by the Nazis then America would have been struggling to build up an army and fight against a coming Nazi invasion... Remember that this would mean the Nazis probably captured Royal Navy ships and had access to all the shipbuilding industry in Britain. If the Soviets had rolled over and surrendered in early 42 then the combined forces of Britain and the United States couldn't have defeated them. However the Nazis could not have managed to take Britain once America got rolling... Stalemate. And if the United States had remained truly neutral and not supplied (either selling or giving) so much aid to Britain and the Soviets then the Soviet Union would have collapsed and Britain would have either had to sue for peace or face an invasion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Our friend @Agent_Funky informed me that the United States, twice (both world wars), "joined a fight we are already winning" Original post, so any context is not lost For those of you that are scholars and military history buffs... prove or disprove his claim. Was Britain/ England/the UK "already winning" world war 2 when the United States entered the fight? ETA (2023 EDT): Fixed phone typo "the Britain/England/UK" fixed to "Britain/England/the UK" WWII, not so much. The US and British prepared for a year, together, for Operation OVERLORD - the invasion of Europe through France. Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939 Britain won Battle of Britain September 1940 Lend Lease started March 1941 (signed by Roosevelt into US law on 11 March 1941) Japan attacked Pearl December 1941 - US Declared war on Japan and Germany. Planning and build up started in Feb 1942 moving troops, aircraft and supplies to UK for Op Bolero - (initial invasion plan) Bolero scrapped mid 1942 Buildup and Planning recommenced early 1943 for Overlord. Overlord commenced June 1944 What Unrefined was doing was claiming that the US "Saved our asses". A common misconception and itself revisionism. That claim does however apply to the rest of Europe. Germany lost interest in trying to invade Britain in 1940. If we hadn't won the Battle of Britain in 1940, defended our islands in '40 '41 and '42 while still taking the fight out to the enemy in Europe, the Atlantic, Middle East and Africa the US would have had great difficulty getting a foothold in the European theatre. What I pointed out was that we saved our own asses, and then carried on fighting on our own until, while buying equipment and supplies from the US, until the US joined the War in December 1941. That is not revisionism, Much as Unrefined might like to portray it. If Britain had simply given up and sued for peace when France fell in 1940 then there's no way the United States could have taken on the Nazis. Worse, if Britain had been defeated and occupied by the Nazis then America would have been struggling to build up an army and fight against a coming Nazi invasion... Remember that this would mean the Nazis probably captured Royal Navy ships and had access to all the shipbuilding industry in Britain. If the Soviets had rolled over and surrendered in early 42 then the combined forces of Britain and the United States couldn't have defeated them. However the Nazis could not have managed to take Britain once America got rolling... Stalemate. And if the United States had remained truly neutral and not supplied (either selling or giving) so much aid to Britain and the Soviets then the Soviet Union would have collapsed and Britain would have either had to sue for peace or face an invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:02:32 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Had the UK fallen, I don't think we would have won the war. Without the intelligence services of the UK, the geographic location of the UK, the military and logistical support of the UK.... I cannot envision a US victory in Europe. Then again, I disagree with @Agent_Funky that the UK was "winning" when the US won the war. At best, I'd say the UK was able to maintain a temporary stalemate while the Nazis ground themselves down upon the rock of a land campaign against the Soviet Union (Hitler learned nothing from Napoleon!). Without the aid of the US to bolster UK forces and create a formidable two front war against Axis forces, I believe the Soviets would have fallen and the UK soon after. A stalemate while your ally is ground pounded is not winning, but it isn't losing either. Had Hitler sued for peace at that point he might have averted disaster but as others have pointed out his real goal was to destroy Bolshevism and create more Lebensraum in the Ukraine and Belorussia. The gross incompetence of the Soviet Army in the Winter War with Finland convinced Hitler that he could easily destroy the Soviet Union while still fighting Britain. So on the 22nd of June he invade Russia and thus sealed his fate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:05:41 PM EDT
[#28]
I find the argument that the Allies would have won WWI without the United States more obnoxious than the WWII argument.
There's an excellent book by Geoffrey Wawro, Sons of Freedom. It goes into great detail about the status of the Allies and the effect of American involvement. The Allies were totally spent by the time the American Army arrived in France. They were totally incapable of pushing the Germans out of France or ending the war on their terms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:06:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The best they could have hoped for was a negotiated peace |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:07:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Saddler and Agent_Funky: Are we bros and do we not have a history of helping one another? I would argue we are, and we have. Did we throw away the British to establish our Republic? I'd argue 100% that we did, and furthermore we founded the finest country on the planet. To your credit, our bicameral legislature is based on yours. Do we have disagreements, even modern day? Certainly. Is there any stronger alliance between two countries in the entire world? I would say no. Canada is not just our hat, bro. They are our closest trading partner and life long friend (well, for 204 years at least). It seems unfair to just lump them in with the rest of the commonwealth or disregard them for their tiny older brother, what remains of the British Empire. To be fair.... our relationship with Britain is likely better than Britains relationship with the other countries that share an archipelago with it.... ...
We damn sure like Britain better than Mexico.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:11:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Up to June 21st, 1941 by any measure Germany was winning the war against Britain. The Afrika Korps was pushing the British WDF back into Egypt, the Wehrmacht had overrun the Balkans and Greece, and aside from Switzerland Hitler controlled all of Europe from the Pyrenees to the Soviet border. Britain was still suffering huge merchant losses to the U-boats, not to mention the psychological loss of the Hood. Had Hitler sued for peace at that point he might have averted disaster but as others have pointed out his real goal was to destroy Bolshevism and create more Lebensraum in the Ukraine and Belorussia. The gross incompetence of the Soviet Army in the Winter War with Finland convinced Hitler that he could easily destroy the Soviet Union while still fighting Britain. So on the 22nd of June he invade Russia and thus sealed his fate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Had the UK fallen, I don't think we would have won the war. Without the intelligence services of the UK, the geographic location of the UK, the military and logistical support of the UK.... I cannot envision a US victory in Europe. Then again, I disagree with @Agent_Funky that the UK was "winning" when the US won the war. At best, I'd say the UK was able to maintain a temporary stalemate while the Nazis ground themselves down upon the rock of a land campaign against the Soviet Union (Hitler learned nothing from Napoleon!). Without the aid of the US to bolster UK forces and create a formidable two front war against Axis forces, I believe the Soviets would have fallen and the UK soon after. A stalemate while your ally is ground pounded is not winning, but it isn't losing either. Had Hitler sued for peace at that point he might have averted disaster but as others have pointed out his real goal was to destroy Bolshevism and create more Lebensraum in the Ukraine and Belorussia. The gross incompetence of the Soviet Army in the Winter War with Finland convinced Hitler that he could easily destroy the Soviet Union while still fighting Britain. So on the 22nd of June he invade Russia and thus sealed his fate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:12:59 PM EDT
[#32]
The British are proud and I don’t blame them. They took lots of what the Nazis threw at them and “won” the Battle of Britain. They prevented the invasion of mainland Britain by the Nazis.
Many people confuse “winning” the Battle of Britain as an offensive victory which it was not. Britain bought themselves time but had neither the industrial might, material, or men to do anything but fight a defensive war to thwart the invasion of the British mainland AT THAT TIME. If Germany did not have a 2 front War and Britain remained isolated on their island without force projection then Germany would have at least stalemated the Soviets at some point because they would not have split their forces in a two front war. If their was an armistice between the Germany and the USSR then Germany would have eventually got it right with the invasion of the UK. The U.K. only had the hope of holding out until joined by the War Machine that was US industrial might and manufacturing. The Brits weren’t going to be landing just Brit forces onto fortress Europe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:14:06 PM EDT
[#33]
They would have had to sue for peace eventually
Their horizon was getting pretty short |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:16:31 PM EDT
[#34]
I’d be a lot more prepared to agree with that statement WRT WWI than WWII. I doubt either the Germans or British could have successfully invaded each other to end things decisively either direction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:18:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, brits all say that to save face. It's like opening a stuck top on a jar of peanut butter and your buddy says "I loosened it for you." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:19:11 PM EDT
[#36]
they live on an island... soo... it's pretty hard for them to "lose" in a decisive way, and it allowed them to continue to harass the Germans..
winning?... I dunno... I guess that's winning compared to France.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:20:26 PM EDT
[#37]
BTW, the Germans could not have been defeated but for the Red Army crushing most of the Wehrmacht. Of course, they suffered heavily for it, but the majority of destruction or loss of tanks, AFVs, wheeled vehicles, artillery, airplanes, and manpower was on the Eastern Front. That's why Stalin was so anxious for a second front and not the side show he thought Africa or Italy was.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:32:30 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We were also in a de facto naval war with the Germans after they sank SS Robin Moor in June 41 off of the coast of Africa and then blew USS Reuben James out of the water on Halloween 41. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Didn’t American citizens have gun drives to donate arms to Britain, so that their citizens could fight the Nazis?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:34:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I pointed out was that we saved our own asses, and then carried on fighting on our own until, while buying equipment and supplies from the US, until the US joined the War in December 1941. That is not revisionism, Much as Unrefined might like to portray it. In any event it’s silly for any of us to feel any pride or shame about that war. Nearly everyone who fought in it is dead and gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:37:20 PM EDT
[#40]
No. Britain was on the ropes, but the saving grace might have eventually been the Russkies coming from the East. No way to tell. If we hadn't entered, the Russkies would have owned mainland Europe and Britain would have nothing to say about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:38:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Let's be honest, the Soviet Union defeated Germany. We did as much as we could considering the logistics involved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:38:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The UK had the Royal Navy and the economic might of the Empire on hand. Solely against Germany, the UK could have won a protracted war. But if the Japs focused all their attention on British Far East assets. A peace agreement would have been brokered. There was a lot of cooperation between the Brits and Americans in the 1939 to pre Dec 7, 1941 period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:44:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very kind words, but..... Canada is not just our hat, bro. They are our closest trading partner and life long friend (well, for 204 years at least). It seems unfair to just lump them in with the rest of the commonwealth or disregard them for their tiny older brother, what remains of the British Empire. To be fair.... our relationship with Britain is likely better than Britains relationship with the other countries that share an archipelago with it.... ...
We damn sure like Britain better than Mexico. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Saddler and Agent_Funky: Are we bros and do we not have a history of helping one another? I would argue we are, and we have. Did we throw away the British to establish our Republic? I'd argue 100% that we did, and furthermore we founded the finest country on the planet. To your credit, our bicameral legislature is based on yours. Do we have disagreements, even modern day? Certainly. Is there any stronger alliance between two countries in the entire world? I would say no. Canada is not just our hat, bro. They are our closest trading partner and life long friend (well, for 204 years at least). It seems unfair to just lump them in with the rest of the commonwealth or disregard them for their tiny older brother, what remains of the British Empire. To be fair.... our relationship with Britain is likely better than Britains relationship with the other countries that share an archipelago with it.... ...
We damn sure like Britain better than Mexico. But Britain is a true special relationship. The Japanese are probably more strategic in that area of the world, and Australians are also a great ally, but often inconsequential for most of the things we wish to do to ensure stability. Aussies can fight, but they're not often a part of the plan due to geography. Not shitting on them as an ally, just geography. Brits and the French have proven to be solid bros. They ally with us based on their own needs, which is understandable. Only a few "allies" I dislike, Turkey and Germany come to mind |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:45:23 PM EDT
[#44]
Germans could have defeated the Soviets if it were not for Lend Lease.
Logistics wins wars. The Soviet Union was close to defeat. 40-55% of War goods provided by the US during the war. During some low points, the So jets only had Us equipment. 60% of aviation fuel. Food, armored vehicles, trucks etc... An IS-2 is a formidable armored vehicle, but it’s a death trap if it runs out of fuel because Soviet fuel trucks didnt make it. Stalingrad would have been a German victory as Soviet Forces would have been much lower in the city. Then the Germans would have all of the oil they needed to finish off the Soviet Union. “If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny then I must finish [liquidieren; "kill off", "liquidate"] this war.” —?Adolf Hitler |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:47:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It’s more complex than that. Britain was an island, the Germans did not have the naval logistical and war fighting capability to cross the channel and keep their invasion flotilla away from the Royal Navy. Which at the time was enormous. Had the Germans tried to cross the channel, the Royal Navy would have curb stomped them. Might have cost half the Royal Navy to do it, but just like at Jutland, the Royal Navy could afford to lose them. The Germans could never have invaded Britain. Their military was NEVER designed from its inception and ideology to fight Britain. It’s difficult to describe the mental mind fuck the German Kriegsmarine officer corps carried into WW2 from their defeat by the Royal Navy at Jutland in 1916. Additionally, the whole ideology of National Socialism and the German military were based on 4 things: 1). Alliance with Britain against Bolshevism. This MUST happen for everything else to work. 2). Greater Germany in the East. Most importantly capturing the oil supplies in the caucuses. 3). Revenge on the French. 4). Keep the United States out of another European war. When you look at the goals of the German military and National Socialism, and the strength of the Royal Navy, Britain was NEVER in danger of invasion by Germany. What would in all likelihood have happened had the Battle of Britain continued for another month or so and the loses began to become ever more unsustainable, is that Churchill would have been removed in a vote of “no confidence” and replaced by the non-compromised Lord Halifax, who would have made a peace deal with the Germans. This very nearly happened on a few occasions. Britain was never in danger of militarily losing WW2. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: True there. I think one word describes the British in WW2 and what would continue to happen without the US.....DUNKIRK Britain was an island, the Germans did not have the naval logistical and war fighting capability to cross the channel and keep their invasion flotilla away from the Royal Navy. Which at the time was enormous. Had the Germans tried to cross the channel, the Royal Navy would have curb stomped them. Might have cost half the Royal Navy to do it, but just like at Jutland, the Royal Navy could afford to lose them. The Germans could never have invaded Britain. Their military was NEVER designed from its inception and ideology to fight Britain. It’s difficult to describe the mental mind fuck the German Kriegsmarine officer corps carried into WW2 from their defeat by the Royal Navy at Jutland in 1916. Additionally, the whole ideology of National Socialism and the German military were based on 4 things: 1). Alliance with Britain against Bolshevism. This MUST happen for everything else to work. 2). Greater Germany in the East. Most importantly capturing the oil supplies in the caucuses. 3). Revenge on the French. 4). Keep the United States out of another European war. When you look at the goals of the German military and National Socialism, and the strength of the Royal Navy, Britain was NEVER in danger of invasion by Germany. What would in all likelihood have happened had the Battle of Britain continued for another month or so and the loses began to become ever more unsustainable, is that Churchill would have been removed in a vote of “no confidence” and replaced by the non-compromised Lord Halifax, who would have made a peace deal with the Germans. This very nearly happened on a few occasions. Britain was never in danger of militarily losing WW2. It’s an interesting topic. Could Britain have forced Canada and India to contribute everything to the war effort? It was nice that the former colonies joined in, but maybe they would have made a separate peace if things turned really bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:51:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The War in Europe started in 1939 Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939 Britain won Battle of Britain September 1940 Lend Lease started March 1941 (signed by Roosevelt into US law on 11 March 1941) What about those 50 destroyers we turned over to you in 1940? Japan attacked Pearl December 1941 - US Declared war on Japan and Germany. Germany declared war on us on Dec 11th. We responded by declaring war on them a few hours later Planning and build up started in Feb 1942 moving troops, aircraft and supplies to UK for Op Bolero - (initial invasion plan) Bolero scrapped mid 1942 Buildup and Planning recommenced early 1943 for Overlord. Overlord commenced June 1944 What Unrefined was doing was claiming that the US "Saved our asses". A common misconception and itself revisionism. That claim does however apply to the rest of Europe. Germany lost interest in trying to invade Britain in 1940. Hitlers own staff had told him without control of the air and the sea, the invasion would fail. He was also pressing up against his prior planning for the invasion of Russia. If we hadn't won the Battle of Britain in 1940, defended our islands in '40 '41 and '42 while still taking the fight out to the enemy in Europe, the Atlantic, Middle East and Africa the US would have had great difficulty getting a foothold in the European theatre. What I pointed out was that we saved our own asses, and then carried on fighting on our own until, while buying equipment and supplies from the US, until the US joined the War in December 1941. That is not revisionism, Much as Unrefined might like to portray it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:53:06 PM EDT
[#47]
The two biggest reasons for the German defeat in WWII
1. US industrial might 2. Hitler's derp . . . . Britain is way way down on the list, and ended up financially broken, saddled with socialism, it's once great empire, gone forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:56:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Our friend @Agent_Funky informed me that the United States, twice (both world wars), "joined a fight we are already winning" Original post, so any context is not lost For those of you that are scholars and military history buffs... prove or disprove his claim. Was Britain/ England/the UK "already winning" world war 2 when the United States entered the fight? ETA (2023 EDT): Fixed phone typo "the Britain/England/UK" fixed to "Britain/England/the UK" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:57:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What you say is true. If Britain had simply given up and sued for peace when France fell in 1940 then there's no way the United States could have taken on the Nazis. Worse, if Britain had been defeated and occupied by the Nazis then America would have been struggling to build up an army and fight against a coming Nazi invasion... Remember that this would mean the Nazis probably captured Royal Navy ships and had access to all the shipbuilding industry in Britain. If the Soviets had rolled over and surrendered in early 42 then the combined forces of Britain and the United States couldn't have defeated them. However the Nazis could not have managed to take Britain once America got rolling... Stalemate. And if the United States had remained truly neutral and not supplied (either selling or giving) so much aid to Britain and the Soviets then the Soviet Union would have collapsed and Britain would have either had to sue for peace or face an invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:57:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Draw. Neither Britain nor Germany had the ability to invade the other. To "win" Britain would have to survive the U-Boat blockade until Russia reached Berlin. ETA: I doubt Russia reaches Berlin or Britain doesn't starve without American Lend-Lease. The US might not have won the war but they certainly wouldn't have won without us. ETA2: He might be right about WWI. We definitely shortened the war but Germany lost the war at the Miracle at the Marne. Everything after that was just grinding to the inevitable. Remember that WWI Germany didn't lose on the battlefield, they ran out of food. Our entry didn't change that. It takes a lot less resources to defend, and French troops were starting to revolt en mass by that point of the war, the English troops were not far behind. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
