Lets just pretend for a moment that the US never got involved in the second world war, and also that Hitler decided NOT to try and invade Britain...how do you think it would have played out over the course of decades?

The Nazis may have suceeded in conquering Russia, and then all of Europe would be within its domain, but for how long? Nothing that expansive seems to last for long, and there would always be disruptive forces within the Nazi leadership itself...Hitler was almost assassinated!

I stopped reading this post at the ignorant assumption that the Nazis would have won if the US hadn't joined in WWII.

Are you a yank?

taking america out of the equation would have done little to tip the scales, it wolud just mean a slightly longer battle before the allied victory. taking the USSR out is a different story:

lets assume that the nazis never broke the molotov-ribbentrop pact, and that german forces werent drawn to the eastern front. on top of this they would have had soviet economic(and partial military) support. if they had massed their forces on the western front and left italy to fight its own war in abyssinia then they would have been an unstoppable force.

So many other things would be different if the Allies hadn't won the war. Japanese rule would not have ended in China. Mao would not have prevailed. Imperial Japan would also rule Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and all of southeast Asia. That would put almost two billion people under its domain today!

If the USA hadn't entered the war it would not be the superpower it is today. If the Germans occupied Russia, the Cold War would not have happened. Without American hegemony and communist Cuba, the development of Latin America would be much different. Who can imagine what would happen in Africa--all those black people within reach of the Third Reich? Or a Middle East without Israel?

Whether the Nazi Party would have survived this long is not by far the only important question. But if it had...

Germany and Japan would be the two superpowers. That would be the new Cold War. But... one racist and genocidal state and one racist and xenophobic state? It would probably not have remained Cold for 45 years like ours did. They'd have been at each other's throats a long time ago. Germany would certainly have developed nuclear weapons, ICBMs, probably even military satellites. It's been argued that out of practical necessity Japan probably would have developed technologically about the way it did even without the American Reconstruction, so Sony and Honda would be building some really dandy military electronics and machinery.

Yes maam, it would be quite a different world.

I stopped reading this post at the ignorant assumption that the Nazis would have won if the US hadn't joined in WWII.

Are you a yank?
No, not a yank. And yes I am assuming that Germany would have taken over throughout europe without the States or Britain being involved, although I suppose its debatable whether a campaign against Russia would have succeeded.

My question has more to do with whether such a Nazi empire would have lasted anymore than say, ten years without breaking up under internal forces.

Germany and Japan would be the two superpowers. Why just two? What would prevent the US from becoming the superpower that it is today.

Why do you believe that a relatively small country like Japan could have held all of massive China for anymore than a few years...because China was poor and disorganized at the time?

Are you a yank?
even after our conversation about the wild misuse of this word, you still use it?

ok, you french fucker. :p

Hmmm, yes, I forgot about that. Hehe....

Why do you assume that the Soviets could have defeated the Germans?
They did not do all that well against the Finns.

thats because the finns had the home town advantage. if the soviets had gone directly into german occupied areas as soon as germany broke the pact then they would have lost. the eastern front was on a knifes edge for a long time, but the soviets won because they were better equipped for the winter, that allowed them to take out a lot of german forces with relative ease. only with the depleted german forces were the soviets able to push them back and take berlin.

i suppose it could also be said that if the germans were not at war with britain and their allies at the time that they would have been able to take the USSR(especially as the brits were afraid of communism, and wolud do nothing to stand in the way of germany when it was fighting communists)

however the only reason the germans went to war with the soviets in the first place was because they thought it would grant them greater resources to fight britain with. when in fact it cut off all supplies from the soviet union and merely drew troops away from britain to wander aimlessly into the USSR after stalin had ordered the scorched earth policy.

Why just two? What would prevent the US from becoming the superpower that it is today.Anything could have happened. I just picked an interesting timeline and ran with it.Why do you believe that a relatively small country like Japan could have held all of massive China for anymore than a few years...because China was poor and disorganized at the time?Look how long England held onto India. Look how long Spain held onto half of two continents. Occupation is all about organization, luring people in the occupied country into working for you, siphoning off its resources and using them to strengthen your position.

But this is an interesting point when it comes to China. China has been conquered twice, by the Mongols and by the Manchus. In each case they assimilated and then absorbed the conquerors, while changing remarkably little themselves. China ended up with both Inner Mongolia and all of Manchuria as Chinese provinces.

In a couple of hundred years, perhaps Japan too would become just another province of China and China would persevere as the world's longest running continuous civilization.

Look how long England held onto India. Look how long Spain held onto half of two continents.
Ah...forgot about them.

however the only reason the germans went to war with the soviets in the first place was because they thought it would grant them greater resources to fight britain with. And having conquered Britain the Germans would suddenly have the naval resources under their command to carry out their planned exile of the Jews to Madagascar...this was their original intention.

I stopped reading this post at the ignorant assumption that the Nazis would have won if the US hadn't joined in WWII.

Hey, your loss. The poster also mentioned if they hadn't tried to invade Britan as well.

If the U.S. and Britain were out of the picture, the Germans would still be here today. The Germans would have no longer needed as many troops in the west to protect from those forces, and could have taken out the Soviets through a war of attrition.

The Soviets were already getting their asses handed to them and shot themselves in the foot with all the burning of their crops as they pulled back into their Motherland. Without the U.S. or Britain to resupply them, especially with food due to their self-destroyed crops, they would have been gone. However, who knows if they would have used the tactics they did if they knew they were on their own.

And that's not even taking into account the Japanese on their other side. The Soviets later broke their agreement with the Japanese so who's to say the Japs wouldn't have done the same, especially when the Soviets would have been weaker than they already were?

- N

Lets just pretend for a moment that the US never got involved in the second world war, and also that Hitler decided NOT to try and invade Britain...how do you think it would have played out over the course of decades?

The Nazis may have suceeded in conquering Russia, and then all of Europe would be within its domain, but for how long? Nothing that expansive seems to last for long, and there would always be disruptive forces within the Nazi leadership itself...Hitler was almost assassinated!
Hey, that's the plot of that famous episode of Star Trek with Joan Collins. Kirk is mentally deranged due to some illness, ends up going thru a time portal to pre-WW2 US, and saves Joan Collins life. She is, unfortunately, a peace activist who manages to prevent the US from entering WW2. Next thing you know, no Federation of Planets. Spock and McCoy then must go back and fix what Kirk has messed up.

Kirk is, of course, quite torn. But ultimately makes the tough choice. Still, and as usual, he managed to get laid. :)

Hey, your loss. The poster also mentioned if they hadn't tried to invade Britan as well.

If the U.S. and Britain were out of the picture, the Germans would still be here today. The Germans would have no longer needed as many troops in the west to protect from those forces, and could have taken out the Soviets through a war of attrition.

The Soviets were already getting their asses handed to them and shot themselves in the foot with all the burning of their crops as they pulled back into their Motherland. Without the U.S. or Britain to resupply them, especially with food due to their self-destroyed crops, they would have been gone. However, who knows if they would have used the tactics they did if they knew they were on their own.

And that's not even taking into account the Japanese on their other side. The Soviets later broke their agreement with the Japanese so who's to say the Japs wouldn't have done the same, especially when the Soviets would have been weaker than they already were?

- N

The Soviets and the Japanese fought in 1938....twice, I think, and both times the Japanese got their asses kicked so bad they had to settle for peace.

The troops Germany stationed to guard themselves in the west against Britain were complete and utter shit. They were mostly divisions made of foreign troops, with one or two divisions of decent troops at the most, but it was mostly just half-trained garrisons. They wouldn't have made a difference against the Soviets.

Germany would still have lost to the Soviets, because the infamous Russian winter still would have got them. If they had taken Sevastapol, Moscow and Stalingrad before the winter, they'd probably have managed to get a peace deal with the Soviets, but that didn't happen, and having a few extra divisions of shit troops wouldn't have made any difference.

The only thing that could have made any real difference to how the Germans fared in Russia would have been an exceptionally mild winter, or no autumn or spring rains.

If there was no western front then the Germans would have had more time. Plus it was the US and the Brits who bombed the #### out of German industry and cities, NOT the Soviets. Take the B-17 and fighter escorts out of the picture and the Germans are back in the ballgame. The Germans would have produced thousands of more tanks and equipment and could have held out- possibly long enough to develop nukes.

What the Germans needed was a long range bomber.

This is of course presuming that the US stays out of the war completely and isnt helping out the Brits/Soviets with war supplies.

even after our conversation about the wild misuse of this word, you still use it?

ok, you french fucker. :pDon't insult the French.

The Soviets and the Japanese fought in 1938....twice, I think, and both times the Japanese got their asses kicked so bad they had to settle for peace.

Yes, but the Soviets weren't simultaneously fighting an even more powerful enemy on their other side. The Soviets had their hands full as it was with just the Germans, while receiving food and arms supplies from other countries.

To have the Japs in their backyard cleaning up would have been worse. Not to mention Germany could have brought forward all their fighters and bombers that were being used and shot down on/by the Brits to better fight the Soviets. There would have also been smaller resupply lines for the Germans due to have one huge concentration mass (no pun intended).

- N

It doesn't really matter if the Soviet army was comprised of old men and little girls. What stopped the Germans (as it had stopped so many invaders before) was the rainy autumn, freezing winter, and muddy spring thaws which made advancing (and even survival) almost impossible.

It doesn't really matter if the Soviet army was comprised of old men and little girls. What stopped the Germans (as it had stopped so many invaders before) was the rainy autumn, freezing winter, and muddy spring thaws which made advancing (and even survival) almost impossible.

Yes, but two nations on battling the Soviets on each side, the advancement would have been much quicker and easier as the Soviets would have had to split their forces, not to mention Germany able to bring more forces forward and a much larger airforce.

And again, the Soviets barely held out as it was with the food and arms supplies from the U.S. Without that, they would stand no chance, even just from fighting the Germans. And that's without bringing the Japs into the picture.

- N

Yes, but what's between the eastern side of the USSR and the good stuff?

Do you know how long it would take the Japanese to cross that? Do you think the Russians would just let them use their railway?

Plus it was the US and the Brits who bombed the #### out of German industry and cities, NOT the Soviets.

Allied aerial bombardment didn't become effective until 1944, with the advent of the Mustang fighter and US control of Italy. This is well after the German army had its back broken at Kursk. As much as I am proud of my country's role in the defeat of the Nazis, the Allied invasion was pretty much a clean-up job, if a particularly nasty one.

Without Western involvement, it's possible the Nazis could have gotten a reasonable settlement out of the war (probably with more territory than they started with). But a decisive victory over the USSR seems pretty far-fetched. Given Hitler's attitude towards compromise and surrender, you have to wonder if Germany wouldn't eventually have suffered a total defeat even without Allied intervention.

Anyway, as to the original question, I think the costs of ruling over a large sphere of disparate, nationalistic peoples would have exhausted Germany after a few decades, just as it did the USSR.

The Germans would have no longer needed as many troops in the west to protect from those forces, and could have taken out the Soviets through a war of attrition.

Wars of attrition are usually not a winning plan when the other side has triple your population. Notice how almost every Nazi victory was the result of high-intensity, rapid-deployment tactics. You could go so far as to argue that Soviet attrition tactics are what ultimately defeated Germany.

Lets just pretend for a moment that the US never got involved in the second world war, and also that Hitler decided NOT to try and invade Britain...how do you think it would have played out over the course of decades?

The Nazis may have suceeded in conquering Russia, and then all of Europe would be within its domain, but for how long? Nothing that expansive seems to last for long, and there would always be disruptive forces within the Nazi leadership itself...Hitler was almost assassinated!
A better question would be what if WWII never happened? Germany would likely be a superpower today, especially with Hitler's level of political prowess.
But I think Russia was a pretty important factor in the war too. I think that Germany and Japan would attack Russia at 2 fronts(like the Allies did to Germany), and eventually take it. Then They would have taken Britain, then with help from Mexico, America would have to fight a war from 3 sides. We prolly wouldn't have the atom bomb, so things would be a lot better.

What makes america so great in this hypothetical scenario that Germany and Japan can so easily take Britain AND the USSR but there is not even the slightest question that the same thing would happen to your beloved america?

What makes america so great in this hypothetical scenario that Germany and Japan can so easily take Britain AND the USSR but there is not even the slightest question that the same thing would happen to your beloved america?
because every man, woman, and child in the nation would have picked up a gun (yes, there are that many) and shot a soldier dead before allowing an enemy to take a meter of american soil.

that is without considering the national guard, and the countless militia groups (most notably in michigan and montana).

no foreign power will ever successfully invade the US while it is still the US, specifically for the reasons i give above. the invader would have to kill every living soul in the country.

What makes america so great in this hypothetical scenario that Germany and Japan can so easily take Britain AND the USSR but there is not even the slightest question that the same thing would happen to your beloved america?
Basically..the UK and Russia are pussies compare the the greatest generation of Americans(from WWII era).

Nazis would have lasted for a really long time if they stayed united. I've read somewhere that SS planned a creation of their own country so this could mean war. But anyway, after of defeat of Russia they would have enough slaves (Slavs) for producing food and preparations, etc. They had the best scientists in the world (who mostly escaped to USA after the WWII) and of course they would develop nuclear weapons. So there would be only a matter of time when they would totally destroy Britain and USA.

They had the best scientists in the world
Rubbish.
of course they would develop nuclear weapons.
Except for the fact that they didn't actually belive in "Jewish science" and were going off at tangents to accepted nuclear theory.

because every man, woman, and child in the nation would have picked up a gun (yes, there are that many) and shot a soldier dead before allowing an enemy to take a meter of american soil.

that is without considering the national guard, and the countless militia groups (most notably in michigan and montana).

no foreign power will ever successfully invade the US while it is still the US, specifically for the reasons i give above. the invader would have to kill every living soul in the country.

LOL....more proof that americans think they are better than the rest of the world simply because they were born in the US.

Is there something in the water we don't know about that makes you superhuman?

LOL....more proof that americans think they are better than the rest of the world simply because they were born in the US.

Is there something in the water we don't know about that makes you superhuman?

No. It's a shot that they give us at the hospitals.

Americans make nice wide targets for invaders.

And Schleebenhorst makes a good point here. Having guns or militia will not stop an invading army. There were more assault rifles in Iraq then there will ever be in the US among the civilian population. My iranian friend actually had 2 kalashnikovs when he was still in Iran because they were so cheap and easy to get.

Mentality of the people is what counts.

Interestingly during WW2 the Soviets were expecting that the german people would fight them as guerillas when they entered german soil. Because that is what a russian would do. To their surprise they were as docile as sheep and obedient. All the german civilians wanted was to get some order again. Not fight.

What are the americans like? They can't get anywhere without their cars. They put up with corruption, bureacracy and rights being taken away without any protest. Is that the people who will get of their fat arses when a foreign army invades? I seriously doubt it.

A few militia will make the difference? Does it make a difference in Iraq?

Sure, now America couldn't defend itself from invaders, but in WWII, I think we could have. I mean it was the greatest generation we've had. Plus, people didn't know how to control their emotions back then, which I'm not sure, but I think was a result of the depression. They weren't nearly as pussy as America is today.

Could be. The best units in the American army were easily as good as the best german ones during WW2.

But that was then. Past glory.

Like which?

Like the 101st airborn.

LOL....more proof that americans think they are better than the rest of the world simply because they were born in the US.

Is there something in the water we don't know about that makes you superhuman?
uh, i never said i was better than anyone.

but having lived in america for a quarter century, i think i am qualified to have an opinion about what would happen....at least moreso than you are.

and yes: flouride.

Pfff most american men are less man than the men from almost every other nation in the world.

Like the 101st airborn.

Only according to band of brothers, AKA shameless pro-yank propaganda.

underestimating someone that you consider an enemy has always been considered foolhardy.

i just consider it retarded.

Given the US reaction to 9-11 what do you think te reaction to an invasion attempt would be?

Never underestimate the resolve of a freedom loving people to hold on to their freedom.

America has just never fought at your own territory hahahah you're only invading other territories so 11th September is kinda good preview of a war over there
P.S. that doesn't mean I don't like Americans

Given the US reaction to 9-11 what do you think te reaction to an invasion attempt would be?

Never underestimate the resolve of a freedom loving people to hold on to their freedom.

And what would the reaction of the US people be if the invasion was likened to the "birth pangs" of a new America? And was allowed to carry on with ample supply of weapons being speed posted over?

What would their opinion be of the country that would do this?

The US has fought wars on it's own territoy just not recently. The Japanese paid a dear price for attacking US territory as would anyone else wo dared to attack. Never make te mistake of thinking that Hollywood is a reflection of middle America.

The US has fought wars on it's own territoy just not recently. The Japanese paid a dear price for attacking US territory as would anyone else wo dared to attack. Never make te mistake of thinking that Hollywood is a reflection of middle America.

I'm not considering an imminent attack. :cool:

I just want to know what an opinion would be in such a case.

What would the average American think about it?

Sorry. we were posting about the same time; I was not ignoring your question.
I doubt that the majority of Americans want a "new" America; we are very fond of the original as amended. I am just leaving for the afternoon but would enjoy discussing this futher at a later time.

I'm not considering an imminent attack. :cool:
you should. its going to happen.



What would the average American think about it?
there would be outrage, and unparalleled violence visited upon the offending country. that is what our history says, anyhow.

Given the US reaction to 9-11 what do you think te reaction to an invasion attempt would be?

Never underestimate the resolve of a freedom loving people to hold on to their freedom.

Funny how you only hear this kind of crap from americans.

you still never answered me about whether you have ever spent a significant (6 months or longer) period of time in the united states, whitey.

so, have you?

I have never been to the USA.

So what? I can probably name more states than most americans. I can probably tell you more about the politics and economy of the USA than most americans. I can probably tell you more about the history of the USA than most americans. Shall I go on? I have had this stupid discussion so many times before.

you cant judge a place until you have spent time there. are you really so arrogant that you think you can judge an entire nation of people without having spent time with them en masse?

you must be more awesome and empathic than you let on!

I have never been to the USA.

So what? I can problably name more states than most americans. I can probably tell you more about the politics and economy of the USA than most americans. I can probably tell you more about the history of the USA than most americans. Shall I go on? I have had this stupid discussion so many times before.
hahah word!
so much about the length of the Nazis...

I have never been to the USA.

So what? I can problably name more states than most americans.
i can name all 50 AND their capitals.

Only according to band of brothers, AKA shameless pro-yank propaganda.

They were properly trained and motivated. There even was intelligence. Something that is hard to find in the modern american army.

As a whole the german army was probably better. Shame that their leader insisted on crippling the army by setting up a rigid command structure.

That said. The Germans still got defeated by the soviets.

i can name all 50 AND their capitals.

Name 5 german states and their capitals without using the internet.

germany is for suckas.

and nazis...


oops...did i say that?

and america is filled with cowboys.

the leather kind with assless pants.

Pfff most american men are less man than the men from almost every other nation in the world.
..haha

Tell me one thing I have criticised about the US that would require me living there for an extended amount of time to know or not know.

that men from other countries are more "men" than american men.

for one.

i gotta go to bed though.

good night, pookie.

That said. The Germans still got defeated by the soviets.
and the british, and the americans.

that men from other countries are more "men" than american men.

for one.

i gotta go to bed though.

good night, pookie.

LOL

That one was kind of a joke....think about it. It's almost like a really shit riddle.

Name 5 german states and their capitals without using the internet.
uh, berlin?

America has just never fought at your own territory hahahah

That's kind of the reason why America isn't so easy to take over and why we were so powerful in WWII. Our industry was protected. Nobody could reach us.

We're on a whole 'nother continent on the other side of the world. It's not as if we're in Europe or Asia where our neighbors can reach us so easily. Good luck making that long of an amphibious assault against us. Your transports would be bombed before they got anywhere near our mainland.

The only way anyone would have any luck invading the U.S. is if they first landed in Canada, Mexico, or South America and worked their way up on land, through the desert and jungles. Otherwise there's two huge ass oceans on each side of us keeping ya'll at bay.

- N

Name 5 german states and their capitals without using the internet.
East Prussia? Beyurn? Hessen? Berlin? Munich? All guesses though, so don't get mad if none of them are right.

the name 'ruhr valley' keeps running through my mind for some reason.

Hitler was born on a river, can't remember the name though.

and the british, and the americans.

That's debatable. The German might was already broken in the east before the Americans, British, Polish, Canadians, Dutch, French. the australians, the belgiums, the Czechs, the greeks, the New Zealanders, and the Norwegians landed on the french beaches of Normandy under British, American and Canadian command.

Needless to say the British forces were defeated with ease in the beginning of the war leading to the retreat in Dunkirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dynamo).

Americans always easily forget how they joined the War in Europe after the deciding battles had been fought already at the east front. The battle of Stalingrad commenced in 1942. The Germans lost their 6th army there. About half a million Axis forces lost in one battle. That's more than the US lost in the entire war.

US Forces entered Italy in september 1943 and didn't even establish a western front in France till june 1944. May I remind you that in may 1944 the Soviet forces had just captured 250.000 german and romanian troops by one offensive against the German seventeenth Army. That was just one offensive of many that had been going on since stalingrad.

The soviet union could easily have swepped over Europe without a Western front. The opposite isn't so sure.

Were any of my states right?

East Prussia? Beyurn? Hessen? Berlin? Munich? All guesses though, so don't get mad if none of them are right.

From wikipedia.
1 Baden-Württemberg Stuttgart
2 (Free State of) Bavaria Munich
3 Berlin - Berlin -
4 Brandenburg Potsdam
5 (Free Hanseatic City of) Bremen Bremen
6 (Free and Hanseatic City of) Hamburg -
7 Hesse Wiesbaden Hessen
8 Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Schwerin
9 Lower Saxony Hanover
10 North Rhine-Westphalia Düsseldorf
11 Rhineland-Palatinate Mainz
12 Saarland Saarbrücken
13 (Free State of) Saxony Dresden
14 Saxony-Anhalt Magdeburg
15 Schleswig-Holstein Kiel
16 (Free State of) Thuringia Erfurt

I guess 2(Berlin and Hessen) are good enough.

That's debatable. The German might was already broken in the east before the Americans, British, Polish, Canadians, Dutch, French. the australians, the belgiums, the Czechs, the greeks, the New Zealanders, and the Norwegians landed on the french beaches of Normandy under British, American and Canadian command.

Needless to say the British forces were defeated with ease in the beginning of the war leading to the retreat in Dunkirk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dynamo).

Americans always easily forget how they joined the War in Europe after the deciding battles had been fought already at the east front. The battle of Stalingrad commenced in 1942. The Germans lost their 6th army there. About half a million Axis forces lost in one battle. That's more than the US lost in the entire war.

US Forces entered Italy in september 1943 and didn't even establish a western front in France till june 1944. May I remind you that in may 1944 the Soviet forces had just captured 250.000 german and romanian troops by one offensive against the German seventeenth Army. That was just one offensive of many that had been going on since stalingrad.

The soviet union could easily have swepped over Europe without a Western front. The opposite isn't so sure.

Well, we Brits could say we took out the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine....not that Germany had much of a navy apart from submarines.

That's kind of the reason why America isn't so easy to take over and why we were so powerful in WWII. Our industry was protected. Nobody could reach us.

We're on a whole 'nother continent on the other side of the world. It's not as if we're in Europe or Asia where our neighbors can reach us so easily. Good luck making that long of an amphibious assault against us. Your transports would be bombed before they got anywhere near our mainland.

The only way anyone would have any luck invading the U.S. is if they first landed in Canada, Mexico, or South America and worked their way up on land, through the desert and jungles. Otherwise there's two huge ass oceans on each side of us keeping ya'll at bay.

- N
yeah Boeings 747 which destroyed WTC were kept at bay really good I must say

yeah Boeings 747 which destroyed WTC were kept at bay really good I must say
1. the air force was ordered to stand down.
2. that has nothing to do with the conversation. stuff it.

Weren't they 757s?

Americans always easily forget how they joined the War in Europe after the deciding battles had been fought already at the east front.

america entered the war on dec. 7, 1941 with a grand total of 4 aircraft carriers.
at that time we were already in a 2 front war. japan in the west and germany in the east.
the reason it took so long for us to get to europe was because of germanys submarine fleet. their u-boats was sinking pratically everything we put on the water.

as far as britain goes hitler didn't lose the men he did at russia, but he was stopped dead in his tracks at the english channel.
why is that? given the v weapons and buzz bombs and the luftwaffe?
there are 3 things that came together at that time.
one britain had radar which alerted the british to an airstrike before the planes left the french coast.
two the hurricanes and spitfires had the ability to takeoff and land on grass airstrips.
and to a lesser effect three the buildup of american goods
after america figured out how to defeat the german wolfpacks germanys fate was sealed.

bla bla

Nothing you said denied that the Russians did the work.

russia was rockin' in ww2.

mostly cuz of russia, germany was stuck in an:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h52/The_Devil_Inside_666/ironmaidencover.jpg

bla bla

Nothing you said denied that the Russians did the work.
i am not trying to deny the russians place in ww2.
the germans suffered their first major defeat at the hands of the russians.
it's hard to say what effect that had on the german psyche.
but it did lay to rest the notion of an undefeatable germany.

Im saying that if there was no Western front the Germans could have halted the Russian advance. Granted crazy Hitler would have done something stupid...

Given enough time the Germans would have no doubt developed Nuclear weapons. After that...game over for everyone.

People seem to forget that Americans are crazy...

People seem to forget that Americans are crazy...
we arent "crazy"..its more that we are zealous!

Im saying that if there was no Western front the Germans could have halted the Russian advance. Granted crazy Hitler would have done something stupid...
.

No. They couldn't. Read 'road to berlin'

No, we're crazy. All the different Religious, Political, and Ethnic backgrounds thrown together...

Spurious,

Germany with its Industry/Military untouched vs the Russians with the Germans in a defensive role and you say the Russians win?

The defensive role got the sixth German army eliminated at Stalingrad.

I guess I should take Hitler out of my theory. With his madness the Germans are bound to lose.

Yep.

Im saying that if there was no Western front the Germans could have halted the Russian advance.
i'm confused.
the russian advance?
it was the germans that were advancing on russia.
all russia was doing was defending her borders.

the russian plan was to encircle their cities with a series of perimeters.
as each perimeter was breached by the germans the perimeter fell back to the next one.
the effect of that was to draw the germans further and further into russian territory and in doing so they overstreched their supply lines.
and add to that the siberian winters and what you have is a disaster in the making for the germans.

Germany with its Industry/Military untouched vs the Russians with the Germans in a defensive role and you say the Russians win?
the defenders of stalingrad kicked germanys ass.

I dont think Germany could have ever taken over Russia. Im looking at Germany on the Defensive side of things with no Western front. A pure Russia vs Germany. You would have to throw out Hitler though as he'd do something stupid.

i'm confused.
the russian advance?
it was the germans that were advancing on russia.
all russia was doing was defending her borders.

the russian plan was to encircle their cities with a series of perimeters.
as each perimeter was breached by the germans the perimeter fell back to the next one.
the effect of that was to draw the germans further and further into russian territory and in doing so they overstreched their supply lines.
and add to that the siberian winters and what you have is a disaster in the making for the germans.

The Germans were nowhere near Siberia.

The Germans were nowhere near Siberia.
you don't need to be anywhere near the north pole to get north pole weather

Well you should have just said "cold" then.

The Nazis may have suceeded in conquering Russia, and then all of Europe would be within its domain, but for how long? Nothing that expansive seems to last for long, and there would always be disruptive forces within the Nazi leadership itself...Hitler was almost assassinated!

Nazism was not Hitler.

The NSDAP viewed what we know as "Nazism" as a transitional phase.

References: Kershaw, Ian: Hitler. Speer, Albrecht: Inside the Third Reich.

The NSDAP viewed what we know as "Nazism" as a transitional phase.
Oh, I thought 'Nazi' was just a short nickmane for the NSDAP?

What then was their goal?

the defenders of stalingrad kicked germanys ass.Yes, perhaps, but the foot became very bloody doing so.

Have you read the book, by a famous reporter of yesteryears, whose name I can not now recall, which is called, I think, simply 1000 days? The book tells just how bloody that foot became. - a story of the heroic Russian efforts to avoid the fall of Leningrad, or even better, the city named St. Petersburg.

"Peter the great" made the city from a swamp. It was his "window on the west." He worked as a common laborer in a shipyard (in the Netherlands, I seen to recall) to learn how to build ships. - He was "great" - the honor of that cityname should revert to him, certainly not to Stalin, one of history's truly evil men.

I still remember some details from the book. - the effort to keep the people from starving (They had already eaten their belts and shoes etc.) by trucks driving over the melting ice of lake ladog even though many were falling thru.

The story of St Petersburg's resistance is one all humanity can be proud of and should know. One man, who was the guardian of a depository of some recently developed seeds that had high yield, literally starved to death beside his seeds, but did not eat the precious seeds. I do not remember the numbers but less than half the population survived, but they did not give up the city. I wonder if the citizens of Beirut will do the same. The will to resist the invaders usually seems to grow stronger the more you have lost.


If some one reading can confirm the book name and author, please do so. later by edit: Google is good. I should use it more often: book is by Harrison E. Salisbury and called 900 days.

Yes, perhaps, but the foot became very bloody doing so.

not only did they defeat the germans they put to rest the notion that germany was unbeatable. that fact alone probably killed many more germans through loss of moral than would have occured otherwise.

Was his name is Vasily Grossman , and the books I know of are, "1000 Days," "Life and Fate," "Gody Voiny" I would guess there are more.

Was his name is Vasily Grossman , and the books I know of are, "1000 Days," "Life and Fate," "Gody Voiny" I would guess there are more.You must have commented before my last revision. Last paragraph ends with:

book is by Harrison E. Salisbury and called 900 days.

I think they needed war to hold the Germans together. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves in peacetime.

There is no way they could leave Britain alone, just the propaganda war itself demanded that.

And the US was vital to saving your ass, Schleebenheimer! Britain had to import most of it's food, remember? They would have starved to death.

How did the propaganda war demand not leaving Britain alone?

As for your assertion that Britain would have starved to death, the Royal Navy was winning the war against the U-boats by the time america joined the war. We certainly didn't starve to death and you can't really prove that we would have. The price Britain had to pay for the US's help in gold and military access (there are still american airbases here to this day) were so high that you could argue that it did more damage to the British economy than the fucking Germans did.

As for your assertion that Britain would have starved to death, the Royal Navy was winning the war against the U-boats by the time america joined the war.
sure they were. that's why america lost practicaly every ship we put on the water, because britain was winning the war of the atlantic.

tell me, how did ahem britain win the war of the u-boats?

Practically every ship? Figures please.

As a result, Axis submarines exploited Allied weaknesses to sink more than 623 vessels along the eastern sea frontier of the United States between January and August 1942.
http://www.mariner.org/atlantic/bb.htm

that is a figure for only 6 months.

Are those Royal Navy ships?

Are those Royal Navy ships?
i would assume that it was both british and american ships with 90% or more being american.
although britain had a formidable navy it was being spread all over the globe protecting britains outlying resources.

During the second happy time, Axis submarines sank 609 ships totaling 3.1 million tons for the loss of only 22 U-boats. This was roughly one quarter of all shipping sunk by U-boats during the entire Second World War, and constituted by far the most serious defeat ever suffered by the US Navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_happy_time

as you can see the figures i mentioned include approx. 20 british ships

So basically the US navy sucked then.

G. F. Schleebenhorst, no the Royal Navy, sucked, they didn't have the ships, it was Americas ship building capability, that turned the tide, not only in providing ship for our forces but also for the Royal Navy, and for the Merchant Marine, as for combat vessels we transferred 184 of them to the British Navy, and as soon as I can find the numbers on merchant vessels I will post them to. If it wasn't for the U.S. the British would have run out of merchant vessels to bring the supplies in for the war, and eventually you would have starved and lost the war.

Bla bla bla. You are the least objective person in the world with regards to this, because in your opinion anything from the US is perfect and infallible.

You sent us some rusty WWI destroyers for a completely ridiculous price.

As for your comments on the entire UK starving....prove it.

How did the propaganda war demand not leaving Britain alone?
The loyalty of the German masses was preserved by a vigorous campaign of propaganda. All opposing media was destroyed. In fact, this is a huge reason why the Jews were targeted for destruction, the Jewish press was vehemently opposed to National Socialism. Britain could broadcast radio programs that undermined the Nazis, like they did in occupied France.

So basically the US navy sucked then.
yeah that's right, the U.S. navy sucked

how about answering my question about how the british defeated the wolfpacks.

As for your comments on the entire UK starving....prove it.

For nearly six years, Germany launched over 1,000 U-Boats into combat, in an attempt to isolate and blockade the British Isles, thereby forcing the British out of the war. It was a fight which nearly choked the shipping lanes of Great Britain, cutting off vital supplies of food, fuel and raw materials needed to continue fighting.
http://www.uboataces.com/

That's proof?

That's proof?
how about the answer to my question, or are you avoiding it for some reason.

It's silly to debate which nation played a greater role in defeating the Nazis, they worked together. My Grandfather, an American, joined the Canadian Air Force and delivered aircraft from British factories to their airbases. Most of his pilot friends never came back from their missions.

how about the answer to my question, or are you avoiding it for some reason.

I will answer it when you punctuate your demand properly. I don't have to answer questions that aren't questions.

I will answer it when you punctuate your demand properly. I don't have to answer questions that aren't questions.
what's up? can't find any?

As for your comments on the entire UK starving....prove it.If you were to give me a few days to locate it I could post a copy of my ration card. Rationing continued in the UK into the early fifties, six or seven years after the war ended. Starving may be mild hyperbole (Can you get mild hyperbole? Wouldn't that just be exageration?), but the food situation in the UK was critical. Underfed, undernourished, ona restricted calorie intake, all might be a better terms than starving, but the sense is there.

the american navy DID suck...even our monitoring of our own water sucked. the morning of the pearl harbor attack, the japanese made themselves known to american surveilance not once, not twice, but thrice...and still no action taken because they couldnt verify what it was they had seen.

can you imagine what would happen NOW, if such a thing happened? oh god, there would be 24 hour news stations talking about "CRISIS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO", with some patriotic music playing in the background.
in other words, it took quite a bit of time for the U.S. navy to reach fighting form.

the morning of the pearl harbor attack, the japanese made themselves known to american surveilance not once, not twice, but thrice...and still no action taken because they couldnt verify what it was they was seen.Are you referring exclusively to the radar hits? If so, this hardly counts as radar was then in its infancy, essentially unknown and unreliable. [Should they have used psychics? :eek: ]

Are you referring exclusively to the radar hits? If so, this hardly counts as radar was then in its infancy, essentially unknown and unreliable. [Should they have used psychics? :eek: ]
no, im referring to visuals the japanese subs had resort to, to know where they were once they were in the bay.

some of the subs even used their periscopes.

The Devil Inside, History says otherwise,

CDNN :: Hawaii Researchers Find Japanese Submarine at Pearl Harbor
Hawaii researchers find WWII Japanese midget submarine at Pearl Harbor ... casualties when the USS Ward sank the approaching Japanese sub at 6:45 am on Dec. ...
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i020829/i020829.html

what's up? can't find any?

You managed that OK.

the american navy DID suck...even our monitoring of our own water sucked. the morning of the pearl harbor attack, the japanese made themselves known to american surveilance not once, not twice, but thrice...and still no action taken because they couldnt verify what it was they was seen.

can you imagine what would happen NOW, if such a thing happened? oh god, there would be 24 hour news stations talking about "CRISIS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO", with some patriotic music playing in the background.
in other words, it took quite a bit of time for the U.S. navy to reach fighting form.

Exactly....putting all your eggs in one basket isn't exactly a shining example of naval strategy.

Actually, that's the principle behind the convoy- a brilliant naval strategy.

No, that would be putting all your eggs in an armour plated steel basket and then surrounding them with big fucking guns. Slightly different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
On the morning of the attack, the Army's Opana Point radar station detected the Japanese force, but the warning was confused, at the only partially active Intelligence Center to which the report was sent, with the expected arrival of U.S. B-17 bombers and discounted. Some commercial shipping may have reported "unusual" radio traffic, in the preceding days. Several U.S. aircraft were shot down as the air attack approached land; one, at least, radioed a somewhat incoherent warning. Other warnings were still being processed, or awaiting confirmation, when the shooting began. <---one of these "warnings" was visual sighting of japanese periscopes. i promise you, buffalo.

this is disregarding the foreknowledge fdr already had of the attack, and his desire to insert american forces into the conflicts already being waged.

The Devil Inside

this is disregarding the foreknowledge fdr already had of the attack, and his desire to insert american forces into the conflicts already being waged.

Your proof?

Not unusual for a situation were you aren't at war, and don't know that you are soon to be under attack, I would be interested in how well you would do in a situation like this with no foreknowledge of the events.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “…the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow…”
When Thomas Dewey was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about America’s ability to intercept Japan’s radio messages, and thought this knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of the attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan’s naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Dewey’s speeches could have sacrificed America’s code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2003/tle250-20031207-04.html
http://www.devvy.com/pdf/fdr_top_secret.pdf
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23951 (<--conjecture, but thought provoking)
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7110

and:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1095g.asp
most notably...

During the naval inquiry in 1944, Captain Laurence Safford, the leading cryptologist responsible for decoding intercepted Japanese messages, testified that from May 1941 on, it was clear that Japan was planning hostilities in southeast Asia. On December 1 and 4, 1941, Safford said there had been "definite information . . . that Japan would attack the United States and Britain, but would maintain peace with Russia. . . . At 9:00 P.M. (Washington time), December 6, 1941, we received positive information that Japan would declare war against the United States. . . . Finally at 10:15 A.M. (Washington time), December 7, 1941 [about 5:00 A.M. Hawaiian time], we recorded positive information . . . that the Japanese declaration of war would be presented to the Secretary of State at 1:00 P.M. (Washington time) that date."

All decoded messages, Safford explained, had gone to the president and other selected civilian and military members of the government in rapid time.
there ya go.

I would be interested in how well you would do in a situation like this with no foreknowledge of the events.
better than you think, bucko. my stepfather was a michigan militia man.

only in your humble oppinion.

So all you proved is that we positively knew on Dec. 7, 05:00 Hawaii time that the Japanese would declare War, we didn't know the war was already in progress on the Japanese side, and it still would have taken several hours to get this information to Hawaii, and the attack took place at 07:55 hr, great case genius, you yell that we didn't wait long enough when we took Saddam out and then you yell that we didn't act quick enough in Hawaii in WWII, you truly are a genius-not

So all you proved is that we positively knew on Dec. 7, 05:00 Hawaii time that the Japanese would declare War, we didn't know the war was already in progress on the Japanese side, and it still would have taken several hours to get this information to Hawaii, and the attack took place at 07:55 hr, great case genius, you yell that we didn't wait long enough when we took Saddam out and then you yell that we didn't act quick enough in Hawaii in WWII, you truly are a genius-not
actually, my links PROVE what i said. see?: On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “…the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow…”
and no, it wouldnt take several hours...telephones existed in the 1940's, guy. in fact, they were commonly used by people of all walks of life.
i dont yell anything about how long we should have waited to take saddam out, because i dont believe our country's military should be used to serve special interests.

but, i suppose i win...you DID resort to insults.
then again, i shouldnt be expecting you to know how to read...being a republican apologist and all.....i know, i know...the tv tells you what to think.

its ok, little guy....georgie pordgie puddin' pie will satiate your bloodlust, im sure.

only in your humble oppinion.
:) drop us in the wilderness and give us each a checkpoint to reach before eachother.
that is the only way to find out, now isnt it?

oh, and "oppinion" only has 1 "p".

o-p-i-n-i-o-n.

You managed that OK.
anybody that reads the thread, especially the last 2 pages, knows the story.

I meant punctuation. Congratulations on that, by the way. Keep it up. There's a good boy.

There was no phone link that went directly to Hawaii, and yes we knew something was up but we had not completely broken Japanese code yet.

I love your site proof this one is a white supremacist group

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7110

Racist Skinhead Project: White Supremacists and Racist Skinheads
The Creativity Movement, a white supremacist group formerly known as World Church ... or be completely supplanted by National Vanguard or a group like it. ...
http://www.adl.org/racist_skinheads/wsgwssm.asp

More of the same

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE



And you lable this conjecture?

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23951 (<--conjecture, but thought provoking)

By the end of November, Roosevelt knew that an attack was imminent (the United States had broken the Japanese code), but he was uncertain where it would take place. To his great surprise, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941,

to be honest i believe that pearl harbor was known to at least some people in our government.
the main reason i say that is because who did we go after? answer, germany not japan.
our main thrust after pearl harbor was to maintain britain, to get supplies to britain. practically all of our resources was put to the battle of the atlantic.
only after germany was defeated did we go after japan in earnest.

There was no phone link that went directly to Hawaii, and yes we knew something was up but we had not completely broken Japanese code yet.
hahahahahahhaaha!!!!! ok guy. you just insulted me earlier saying that it wasnt true, and now you say "yes we knew something was up".
ok buddy.

I love your site proof this one is a white supremacist group
so? they are right wing, just like you..i would think you would welcome it.



THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
you have some sort of problem with libertarianism? wow, you must realllly hate the founding fathers!



And you lable this conjecture?
yes, because the encyclopedia britannica article was supported by no sources, no citations, nothing. that is called conjecture....when someone draws a conclusion based on observation alone, without corroborating evidence: conjecture.

i think, most of all, that you cant handle having your pants pulled down and being called on your bullshit. now watch, everybody...as the furious buffalo roam rages around this thread, blustering, and calling names!

its too easy.

also, buffalo....read this VERY CAREFULLY, and your "no telephone" argument wouldnt matter anyhow, regardless of how ridiculous your claim of hawaii being isolated from the rest of the world:
On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “…the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow…”
now make sure you read it nice and slowly, guy...there is a single sentence in this paragraph that rips everything you have been saying to shreds....
a gold star to you if you find it!

now make sure you read it nice and slowly, guy...there is a single sentence in this paragraph that rips everything you have been saying to shreds.... a gold star to you if you find it!Shouldn't be too hard.The paragraph only contains three sentences.

Shouldn't be too hard.The paragraph only contains three sentences.
i wanted to narrow it down for our republican friend. :)
god forbid someone think a little bit.

Senior Radioman Ralph Briggs w9jcm there is no mention of him out side of your right wing Fascist web site, and it wouldn't be the first time that they made up information to compliment their agenda, Question, how come it seems to be you who is always quoting Right Wing White Supremacist for your source references?


[7.0] US Codebreakers In World War II
US Navy codebreakers did not make real progress on JN-25 until January 1942. They were too late to defeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they would provide ...
http://www.vectorsite.net/ttcode_07.html

* The IJN used a manual code system because the service hadn't had the resources to buy the quantities of cipher machines needed for the whole fleet, but JN-25 still proved very hard to crack. By the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, US Navy cryptographers were only able to read about 10% of the content of JN-25 messages.

* US Navy codebreakers did not make real progress on JN-25 until January 1942. They were too late to defeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they would provide significant help to allow America put a stop to Japan's six-month rampage across the Pacific.

Senior Radioman Ralph Briggs w9jcm there is no mention of him out side of your right wing Fascist web site, and it wouldn't be the first time that they made up information to compliment their agenda, Question, how come it seems to be you who is always quoting Right Wing White Supremacist for your source references?
.

you dont have an answer, so you go off topic? haha!

hey guy, this is the first time i have ever even LOOKED at a white supremacist site. if you are trying to imply that i am one, let me make you privy to a little fact: my father was a turkish born kurd.

seems a little self defeating to be a white supremacist, doesnt it?

"you dont have an answer, so you go off topic? haha!"

In all fairness, you were proven wrong so you ran from a thread.

huh? im not sure what you mean, tyler.

*edit: the "off topic" remark was a reference to something buffalo said in a different post tonight.

Purple code - US military name for Japanese Foreign Office code
Purple code - US military name for Japanese Foreign Office code ... had been a Red 'code' (also a cypher) used by the Japanese Foreign Office and purple was ...
http://www.japan-101.com/history/purple_code.htm

The US never found any hint of the attack on Pearl Harbor in the Purple traffic at the time, nor could they have as the Japanese were very careful to not discuss the planned attack in Foreign Office communications. In fact, no detailed information about the planned attack was even available to the Japanese Foreign Office; it was regarded by the military, particularly the more nationalistic military, as insufficiently 'reliable'. US access to private Japanese diplomatic communications (even the most secret ones) was less useful than it might otherwise have been because policy in Japan in the pre-War period was controlled largely by military groups (eg, in China and Manchuria), not by the Foreign Office. And, the Foreign Office itself deliberately kept from its embassies and consulates much of the information it did have, so the ability to read Purple transmissions was less than definitive regarding Japanese tactical or strategic military intentions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PURPLE

The decrypted PURPLE traffic, and Japanese messages generally, was the subject of acrimonious hearings in Congress post-WW-II in connection with an attempt to decide who, if anyone, had allowed the disaster at Pearl Harbor to happen and whom therefore should be blamed. It was during those hearings that the Japanese learned, for the first time, that the PURPLE cypher machine had indeed been broken.

So as usual congress spilled the beans, a great track record all the way back to 1942.

taking america out of the equation would have done little to tip the scales, it wolud just mean a slightly longer battle before the allied victory. taking the USSR out is a different story:

lets assume that the nazis never broke the molotov-ribbentrop pact, and that german forces werent drawn to the eastern front. on top of this they would have had soviet economic(and partial military) support. if they had massed their forces on the western front and left italy to fight its own war in abyssinia then they would have been an unstoppable force.

I disagree.

While the contribution of manpower by the Americans is underwhelming compared to the Russians, every world leader at the time attributed the downfall of the Nazi regime to the amazing industrial capacity of the Americans. We just swamped the Axis with materiel and men.

Besides... the thing that helped Germany the most may have been our war in the Pacific. Japan always had as its goal the acquisition of expansion room in China. Were it not for the early and amazing luck at Midway, the Japanese would have forced Russia into looking to its own second front. Let's not forget the Russo-Japanese war that wasn't so old at the time. While Stalin was fond of pressuring Churchill and FDR for a second front, he fully realized that he already had the protection of a second front, to his EAST. What he really wanted was a third front, and all Churchill wanted was more delays in the Med.


To answer the question of the original poster, the Nazis would not have tried to maintain their winnings. All they were looking for was concessions and retribution. Hitler was not looking to dominate the world, he was looking to strike back at a Europe that had snubbed Germany. He wanted the rich industrial and agricultural land to the West, and he wanted room to expell the "inferior races" that tormented his demented brain.

In all likelyhood he would have allowed some semblence of freedom to exist in these other countries, like he had planned with Austria (and which Austria fully wanted, but were denied) and Vichy France. You would have seen something like the Soviet Union, where you had various entities, but a singular drain on taxation. And it would have lasted until large enough uprisings, or a sufficient outside pressure, imploded it.

although britain had a formidable navy it was being spread all over the globe protecting britains outlying resources.

No, Britain moved all of its naval forces to the Atlantic in 1939. From Kissinger's Diplomacy:

"During [...] April 1939, [F.D.R.] inched the United States closer to de facto military cooperation with Great Britain. An agreement between the two countries freed the Royal Navy to concentrate all of its forces in the Atlantic while the United States moved the bulk of its fleet to the Pacific. This division of labor implied that the United States assmed responsibility for the defense of Great Britain's Asian possessions against Japan. Prior to Word War I, an analogous arrangement between Great Britain and France (which had led to the concentration of the French fleet in the Mediterranean) had been used as an argument that Great Britain was morally obliged to enter World War I in defense of France's Atlantic coast."

Two years later, American Naval control was extended to the western portion of the North Atlantic, leading inevitably to naval warfare. Also from Diplomacy:

"In April 1941, Roosevelt took another step toward war by authorizing an agreement with the Danish representative in Washington (whose rank was minister) to allow American forces to occupy Greenland. Since Denmark was under German occupation and since no Danish government-in-exile had been formed, the diplomat without a country took it upon himself to "authorize" American bases on Danish soil. At the same time, Roosevelt privately informed Churchill that, henceforth, American ships would patrol the North Atlantic west of Iceland - covering about two-thirds of the entire ocean - and "publish the position of possible aggressor ships or planes when located in the American patrol area." Three months later, at the invitation of the local government, American troops landed in Iceland, another Danish possession, to replace British forces. Then, without Congressional approval, Roosevelt declared the whole area between these Danish possessions and North America a part of the Western Hemisphere Defense system.

[...]

In September 1941, the United States crossed the line into belligerency. Roosevelt's order that the position of German submarines be reported to the British Navy had made it inevitable that, sooner or later, some clash would occur. On September 4, 1941, the American destroyer Greer was torpedoed while signaling the location of a German submarine to British airplanes. On September 11, without describing the circumstances, Roosevelt denounced German "piracy." Comparing German submarines to a rattlesnake coiled to strike, he ordered the United States Navy to sink 'on sight" any Germany or Italian submarines discovered in the previously established American defense area extending all the way to Iceland. To all practical purposes, America was at war on the sea with the Axis powers."

Hello Folks,

how are we doing.

we all know that it was not the intervention of the US which saved us from Nazis germany, but the Nazis invasion of the Soviet Union. If the US had remained "neutral" the whole of Europe would have been over run by the RED Army

I disagree.

While the contribution of manpower by the Americans is underwhelming compared to the Russians, every world leader at the time attributed the downfall of the Nazi regime to the amazing industrial capacity of the Americans. We just swamped the Axis with materiel and men.

That's actually what the Russians did.

Hello Spurious

thank you for your post
i hope all is going good with you.

The Us played a vital role of keeping Britain supplied etc.... However if this had not happened the Nazis still wouild have eventually been over-run along with tthe rest of Europe by the re-army. Probablysomewhere between 1947 -1949

Brtain was basically a forwarding base for US troops and hardware

Therefore the US saved us from the Red army not the Nazis

Therefore the US saved us from the Red army not the Nazis

Yes, and interestingly they choose not to save Poland for instance, which infuriated the British.

That's actually what the Russians did.

We were supplying the Russians with materiel. Lend-Lease was for the Russians as well. And we gave them almost their entire freighter fleet.

If American Isolationism had held, Germany would have had no problem handling the Russians. The forces in N. Africa would have been shifted after Rommel secured the oil reserves the German war-machine required. N. France would have been held with a pittance force, don't forget that Britain was very low on men, and hesitant to use them. That's why Monty was such a pussy general (extending the war by a year with his performance after D-Day), and why Churchill was such a pansy (keeping the Americans busy in meaningless engagements in the Med because he was sure that Overlord was going to fail).

Besides, without American materiel, Britain would have had to come to terms with Germany pretty early on. Churchill was very clear about this in his writings. He takes credit for helping win the war solely by securing an alliance with America. All of his foreign policy tactics during the war were directed towards FDR, not towards Hitler, the ground war, or the constant shelling.

Granted, Stalingrad was the turning-point of the war. No doubt. But the only reason it was the turning point was due to these other factors I mention. If it wasn't for N. Africa and the pressure to protect a cross-channel invasion, Germany would have been able to press a dozen more divisions into Russia, bringing much-needed supplies, men, and morale. Turning back the Red Tide would have been easy. And Stalin knew as much.


All of this is moot, of course. Because what the revisionists are trying to do is discount the necessity of the American War Machine in WWII that was able to supply the Allies with all the materiel needed to win the war. What they ignore, is that even if the Americans never did anything else, they were already devoted to the manufacture of the atomic bomb, thanks to Szilard's pressure. If all we did was contribute to the war a dozen of these bombs, the war would still have been ended primarily due to American manufacture, probably in late '45 or early-to-mid '46.

And still the soviet union managed to produce more tanks than the US which were even better than that of the US.

And still the soviet union managed to produce more tanks than the US which were even better than that of the US.

You are basing your claim on a difference of ~100,000 vs. ~90,000?

And if you think that tanks won the war, you got another thing coming. WWII was a war that took place in the air, above all else (pardon the pun). I know it isn't as exciting as the movement of ground troops, but the air forces and plane production was the key materiel in WWII. Hell, most of the great naval battles of WWII didn't even happen with the fleets coming into contact! At Midway, I don't think a single ship from either side spotted each other.

And the later bombing runs on Germany and Japan are what crippled both of those countries.

The only time that tanks played a crucial role was when Germany was the only country at arms, and the only country with tanks. The Blitzkrieg attacks were decisive because they were one-sided, and the defensive plans were made with WWI in mind, a stagnant war, not a war of movement.

Besides... you are talking about a 10% difference in a materiel that was tertiarary to the outcome. With all respects, what is your point?

My point being that the USSr produced just as much stuff and delivered more men.

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=23631

Great Britain received 7,411 aircraft, 5,128 tanks, 4,932 antitank weapons, 4,005 machine guns, 9 torpedo boats, 4 submarines, and 14 minesweepers. Great Britain's aid was in the thousands but the USSR's was in the millions. Beginning in the summer of 1941, the United States contributed the following materials to the USSR: 2,680,000 tons of steel 170,400 tons of aluminum 29,400 tons of tin 240,000 tons of copper, 330,000 telephone sets and some one million miles of cable 2,000 radar sets 5,000 radio receivers 900,000 tons of projectiles and explosives 3,786,000 tires 49,000 tons of leather 18 million pairs of shoes more than six million tons of provisions three million tons of gasoline 900,000 tons of chemical products and 700,000 trucks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

US deliveries to USSR
The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from the beginning of it until September 30, 1945.

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals..................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

My point being that the USSr produced just as much stuff and delivered more men.

Wrong on the first count (the above poster beat me to it), and the second point is not a very good one.

The only reason Russia threw so many men at the Germans was because it was the only resource they had, not because it was a good idea. If they had the production might that the US had, they would have been training pilots and bombing the German position in Poland. Just because they threw 35 million people to waste doesn't mean that they contributed more or less to the war effort, it just means that was all they could do. And a single bomber can not be equated with even a few thousand men. There is no easy ratio to figure out there.

What we do know is that three years of combat with their men did nothing until the Americans floated an massive amount of "stuff" across the Channel. It was then that the Germans contracted towards the West, and the Russians made a breakthrough in Poland. And it was still another year before Berlin was had by the Russians.

Look, all of the stuff you are posting is classic revisionist history. It comes from a group of intellectuals that were raised in the 60's to hate all things American, and to promote the greatness of Mother Russia. It had a huge impact in the history literature in the 80's and 90's, but it didn't do anything to really change history. We have had anti-revisionist movements and anti-anti-revisionist movements. It takes a ton of weeding through this nonsense to get an overall picture of just about anything.

But whether or not the materiel from the U.S. had a decisive (THE decisive) impact on the outcome is not really something that has gone back and forth. As a matter of fact, the revisionist historians love to lament the industrial might of the Americans, and see this as a downfall, and a chickenshit contribution to the war effort. And Eisenhower's phrase "Military Industrial Complex" has become a denigrating battle-cry of leftist fanatics that still echos around this very forum.

So even the people that lie about the history of WWII still don't possess the imagination to support your side of this issue.

tanks produced;

Tanks produced 1940 to 1945:
USA 88,500
USSR 102,300 (T34 was best tank of the war)
Germany 46,700
Japan 3,400 (you had to nuke that one).

Airplanes:
USA 301,500
USSR 157,500

Artillery includes anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons with calibres above 37 mm
Soviet Union = 516,648
United States = 257,390

Mortars (over 60 mm)
Soviet Union = 200,300
United States = 105,054

ships
USSR didn't have need for that.


1. the USSR despite being not a classic industrialized country did quite fine producing a shit load.
In fact:
Nor did the USSR enjoy an advantage in economic resources. After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons. In the same year, Soviet coal output was 75 million tons, while German output was 317 million. The USSR nevertheless out-produced Germany in the quantity (though seldom in the quality) of most major weapons, from this much smaller industrial base.

The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labour from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts. Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible.
Did you read that last sentence?
How did they do it then?
The chief explanation lies not in resources, which Germany was more generously supplied with than the Soviet Union, during the two central years of the war before American and British economic power was fully exerted. It lies instead in the remarkable reform of the Red Army and the Russian air force, undertaken slowly in 1942.

Every area of Soviet military life was examined and changes introduced. The army established the equivalent of the heavily armoured German Panzer divisions, and tank units were better organised - thanks to the introduction of radios. Soviet army tactics and intelligence-gathering were also overhauled.

Camouflage, surprise and misinformation were brilliantly exploited to keep the German army in the dark about major Soviet intentions. The air force was subjected to effective central control and improved communications, so that it could support the Soviet army in the same way as the Luftwaffe backed up German forces.

Of course, the guy is just some professor. What does he know?
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/history/staff/overy.shtml



2. The USA joined the war when it was already over.

No, Britain moved all of its naval forces to the Atlantic in 1939. From Kissinger's Diplomacy:

i don't quite believe this post of yours
at the begining of ww2 britain had the biggest navy.
if she indeed moved all of her ships to the atlantic why did the germans sink american ships at the ratio of 25 american to 1 british?

i don't quite believe this post of yours

well, again, all of the information came from Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger, so if you have a problem with it I suggest you take it up with him. It's a bit hard to find corroborating evidence of this on the web, since the agreement was secret and nations don't tend to disclose the details of their military deployments (even 60 years after the fact). This is further complicated by the fact that almost all sources on WWII tend to start in Sept. 1939, months after the agreement and redeployment.

By the same coin, however, I have yet to locate any sources which mention the Royal Navy doing anything outside of Europe from 1939 onwards. In particular, the Royal Navy was notably absent from the battles in the Pacific.


if she indeed moved all of her ships to the atlantic why did the germans sink american ships at the ratio of 25 american to 1 british?

Presumably because that figure includes American merchant shipping, not just the American Navy. Unless you can cite a source for that figure, there's not much else to say...

Because we had 25 ships to 1 in the merchant marine, and could build them fast enough to replace the loss's, you forget the convoys were escorted by both navy's and the greatest convoy loss was the PQ 17 convoy to Murmansk, which was a British show? 24 ships lost out of a convoy of 35, yes the Royal Navy was winning the war by it self.

http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_battles/3027451.html?showAll=y&c=y

For the Royal Navy, the massacre of PQ-17 and the abandonment of the convoy was one of the most shameful episodes of the war at sea. Details of the losses were kept from the public until after the war. The British decision to withdraw its protection from the convoy strained Anglo-American relations. Admiral Ernest J. King, chief of U.S. naval operations, was so enraged that he was very reluctant to have American and British ships continue operating together. Churchill lamented the fate of PQ-17 and wrote in his memoirs years later, "All risks should have been taken in the defense of the merchant ships."

We were supplying the Russians with materiel. Lend-Lease was for the Russians as well. And we gave them almost their entire freighter fleet.

If American Isolationism had held, Germany would have had no problem handling the Russians.

Bullshit.


The forces in N. Africa would have been shifted after Rommel secured the oil reserves the German war-machine required.

Which oil reserves might those be?


N. France would have been held with a pittance force, don't forget that Britain was very low on men, and hesitant to use them. That's why Monty was such a pussy general (extending the war by a year with his performance after D-Day), and why Churchill was such a pansy (keeping the Americans busy in meaningless engagements in the Med because he was sure that Overlord was going to fail).

Opinion.

Granted, Stalingrad was the turning-point of the war. No doubt. But the only reason it was the turning point was due to these other factors I mention. If it wasn't for N. Africa and the pressure to protect a cross-channel invasion, Germany would have been able to press a dozen more divisions into Russia, bringing much-needed supplies, men, and morale. Turning back the Red Tide would have been easy. And Stalin knew as much.

TWELVE divisions? Do you know what a drop in the ocean twelve divisions would have been on the Eastern Front?

Which oil reserves might those be?



In 1939 and '40, the Germans and Italians did not attack Russia as the Big Three had planned. Instead, German General Rommel rushed across North Africa to grab the Suez Canal and control all oil shipping through the canal. Rommel then planned to drive through to Persia and toss out the British from the British-Persian oil fields. Meanwhile, after a failed attack on Russia in 1939, the Japanese swept through Southeast Asia and seized all the oil holdings of Royal Dutch Shell. With the defeat of Japan in 1945, most of those Royal Dutch fields came under the control of Rockefeller's Standard Oil.

Hitler had planned to capture the oilfields in Romania by 1939 so Germany would have its own supply of oil. This was accomplished. Then Rommel was to have captured the oilfields in Persia by 1941, the oilfields in Russia in 1942. Only then would Hitler have sufficient fuel for prosecuting a war with the United States.

You should read a Pulitzer-Prize winning book called "The Prize". It is about the history of oil, and does a great job of covering how WWII was primarily a war about oil.

All you have to do is look at every major player's journal to see that this was the case. Patton and Rommel were oil-mad due to their tank-lust. The only reason the Japanese started using Kamikazee tactics late in the war was because they had plenty of planes, but not enough fuel. When they sent their last battleships into the struggle around Leyte Gulf, they sent them with one-way fuel levels. The entire reason for Pearl Harbor was to crush the only thing stopping Japan from rushing down and grabbing their own oil reserves, and that was the US Navy. The entire N. African campaign was about oil, and even the world leaders at the time knew this. There was much talk about an oil embargo against Germany while Rommel was on the move, and it would have halted his advance (Rommel even says so in his diary, as does Hitler). But the United States refused to upset the balance, and France wouldn't go along with it either, so the pipes remained open. It was a very early chance to put the breaks on Germany, Hitler knew this, but took the gambe after watching FDR make several isolationist moves (like going off the gold standard and not showing up to an international economic conference to discuss the Great Depression).

A question about the dates and supposed history, Rommel and the Africa Corps, didn't exist until Feb. 21, 1941?

A question about the dates and supposed history, Rommel and the Africa Courps, didn't exist untill Feb. 21, 1941?

Rommel was born much earlier than 1941. :bugeye:

Rommel as commander of the Africa Corps didn't exist untill Feb, 21, 1941, that is when he was given command, so Rommel and the Africa Corps didn't exist untill that date.

(Rommel even says so in his diary, as does Hitler).
Hitlers diary?

Hitlers diary?
Mein Kampf maybe?

G. F. Schleebenhorst, you lightly dismiss the force of Twelve Division, what would 2 extra division have done at Moscow, Leningrad, 8 extra Divisions at Kirks? it is amazing what a few extra divisions can do to change the balance of power in a fight.

I guess I should take Hitler out of my theory. With his madness the Germans are bound to lose.
Then just have the July Plot succeed, and the military take over from there. Without the politicians interfering, they could win the war.