What WARS has America ever won on its own ?

And we could also postulate that without the Lend-Lease Act + the U.S. fighting for the allied forces, the Germans would have won the war. We will never know. But again, why postulate such things? WWII brought many countries together to defeat a nazi regime and pretty much save democracy, isn't that a good thing? Or would you rather be yelling sieg heil all day with everyone who isn't Aryan being sent to a death camp?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually the good old USA had technological advantages, material addvantages, manufacturing advnatages and one of the greatest modern military thinkers of all time. When we entered WWII we were out producing the entire world lumped together. We had stabilized tank turrets. We had tanks that were tougher and tanks that were faster than the german panzers. We had bombers that flew higher that AA Flak could reach. We had vastly superior fighter pilots. We had every advantage. Truth be told the Russian and Britsh both know that without our aid that they would have been defeated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how succesful would the soviet union have been?

Their progress would have been slower since most of their transport was dependent on rail and american trucks. Without american trucks the local transport would have been much slower. that is one thing I know about. Don't know where the rest of the money went. I would imagine quite a lot of it went in Stalin's deep pocket and other smaller pockets.

But the day i can't think or speculate anymore I must be in the US (sarcasm intended).

So I will speculate, and will keep wondering what kind of opposition the americans would have met when Germany and the USSR never had broken their agreement.

Crack fucking german troops. Their best armour divisions in the west. Plenty of oil.

It would have been an epic battle. And although the allied forces had the best logistics (which could easily be speculated - if I may - that this won them the war) it is questionable if the allied forces could have 'opened' the beachhead with firmer opposition? Because for the invasion to succeed the allied forces needed space to deploy their enormous supply of troops and equipment.

Of course, maybe such an invasion in france would never even been tried in this case and maybe a long and hard battle had to be fought from the south.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really?

Best tank was the Russian T34 (IMHO)

or maybe the german tiger/king tiger for monstrosity's sake, or G panther for its allround capabilities. Or maybe the Russian JS-II.

The american M26 pershing was a very late entry into the war. I assume you are talking about that one.

 

the americans only claim they won ww2 because they nuked hiroshima and nagosaki. what they dont tell you is that the soviets had already taken outlying islands on japans northwestern front, and were a mere few days away from a full invasion into mainland japan. japan had been ready to surrender since they lost on the soviet front, and without soviet troops waiting to invade, americas nukes would have done nothing at all to stop japanese resistance on the mainland.

 

Quarkmoon:

We can only speculate on how successful the Soviets would have been without the Lend-Lease Act. My bet is that they still would have drawn German troops away from the West and kept them occupied, due to
1. Superior Russian manpower.
2. Highly defensible position.

Quite simply, it is thanks to the sacrifices of the Soviets that an invasion from the West was feasible. The Allies may have lent the Soviets some weaponry, but the Russians were the ones who were dying on the Eastern Front...

Which was in response to an oil embargo that America imposed on Japan. Japan needed oil which America would sell it, otherwise its economy would collapse (which is rather bad during a war, when you need lots of oil...). So the obvious solution is to take those oil fields by force.

Japan didn't 'thrust' America into war, the Americans goaded the Japanese to attack by cutting off their oil supply.

 

Quite simply, without the $11 billion the Soviet Union would have taken more casualties and possibly would have lost. Your anti-American views are clouding your judgment, you can't possibly downplay the amount of aid the Lend-Lease Act provided the Soviet Union (and it was all FDR could do without the Republicans impeaching him for bringing the U.S. into a "foreign war").

Again, it was all FDR could do to help the allied forces. The Republicans (and sadly some Democrats) would not let him fully declare war on Japan or Germany, so he did the next best thing. But I wouldn't call that "goading". Did the Japanese honestly believe the U.S. would continue to sell them oil? The biggest mistake Japan ever made was to attack the U.S., if they wouldn't have attacked, WWII might have had a different outcome. You can make the claim that the Soviets played a huge role in the overall victory, but can you honestly say that without the U.S. the allied forces would have won? Keep in mind the allied forces barely won even with the United States' tens of millions of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars in weaponary (not to mention those two nukes).

 

So you're saying the Japanese would have been stupid enough to continue the war after the U.S. just dropped two atom bombs in their faces? I would give the Japanese a little more credit than that, I think they would have backed off just a little bit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Half an hour! wow. Like I said it is about 9/11, which has nothing to do with Iraq.

 

Quarkmoon:

Correct.

'Possibly'. They still would have drawn the finest German troops away from the West for a while, allowing the Allies to stage an invasion.

Ad hominem attack. Who ever said that I had anti-American views?

Who's 'downplaying' it? It seems to me that your anti-Soviet views are clouding your judgement...

Actually, I would call it goading, and you just unwittingly admitted that FDR wanted to declare war on Germany. This is the same man who promised that public that America would only join the war if America itself was attacked. I'll let you piece two and two together.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What they believed or didn't believe is irrelevant. The Japanese needed the oil, and the U.S wouldn't sell it to them.

No, it was the only legit choice they had. The biggest mistake that Japan ever made was that they didn't raid the north eastern coast of the U.S.A.

Yes. Japan's war machine and economy would have collapsed in less than a year. Oil was essential back then as it is today. Especially since Japan was occupying China.

Perhaps. But merely because the U.S finally tipped the scales does not mean they should be given the majority of the credit for winning the war. Can you understand this logic? Just because a basketball player makes the tie-breaking, game-winning shot, does not mean that he should receive all of the credit for the won game...

Yes, the U.S of A tipped the scales. But who did the majority of the fighting? Who ensured that there was a war to fight in the first place?

 

the veatamese war was only lost because the politisions were fighting it at home in politics instead of letting the generals do their job

 

A diversion only works if it is properly backed. Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have taken casualties so fast the Germans could have gotten back.

Your other posts and your attempt to downplay the United States' efforts and affect on the war.

You are downplaying it. Read your own posts, the U.S. only tipped the scales? [sarcasm] Yeah, that's all they did. [/sarcasm]

Ah, I see. You have just revealed yourself as an anti-American conspiracy nut. Those people who say FDR urged an attack and let it happen. I'm not going to get in an argument about that because it's futile to argue with a nut. I will say this, it was known that FDR did not want to block oil, but instead block steel. FDR had no intention of discontinuing oil transactions.

No, they got cocky. The U.S. was intent on not joining the war, it made us look weak. Japan got cocky and struck, a strike that led to their downfall. "The intent of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to neutralize American naval power in the Pacific, if only temporarily, as part of a theater-wide, near-simultaneous coordinated attack against several different countries." And invading the East Coast? Please tell me how such an attack would have been possible, considering their plan was for a sneak attack. And even if they just planned a full on invasion, how does Japan attack us from the East without us knowing about it well in advance and putting up our defenses? Your common sense is now being clouded, not just your judgment.

No it wouldn't have, they had control of oil fields in the East Indies. The intent of the attack was to buy some time for a bigger assault. They got cocky, plain and simple.

The U.S. merely tipped the scales? This revisionist history is disgusting. Read a history book, from any country, and it will tell you the U.S. didn't simply just tip the scales. Unless you call dropping an elephant on a scale that was weighing a couple of rats just "tipping the scale".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I almost want to ask if you are smoking crack. We chose Omaha beach becuase it was the toughest place in the seawall. We wanted to show them they had no chance.

 

quarkmoon;

how long did the pointless(because of the soviet scorched earth policy) german attack go on without any major battles before it was finally sent back to berlin at stalingard? there was plenty of time for a british attack if they had sent more troops to egypt/southern front, rather than trying to push their way back through france on the western front.

 

Hmmm...The landing itself was the easiest part of the invasion (the casualty figures of the first days aren't really that high if you compare it with a day at stalingrad. It was mostly the first waves that got the shit kicked out of them).

9000 casualties during D-Day, the butcher's bill.

Most casualties occurred amongst the airborn troops and at omeha beach. Another beach landing just resulted in about 200 casualties with over 20.000 troops landed on the beach. You think the real battle was on D-Day?

And is 9000 in total really a lot?
Stalingrad:

One attack...10.000 men blown to smithereens.




Deployment of enough forces to mount a proper offensive requires space.

If you read some analyses of D-day and the subsequent weeks of invasion you will see that the analysts that Hitler dug his own grave by insisting on static defenses (initial tough, but once broken through useless) and paralyzing the chain of command with the divisions present at the scene by insisting they couldn't act without authorization of hitler himself.

The real battle would have been in normandy. If the allied forces didn't have the space to deploy their armour and other troops and the space to move them around you are basically depended on the actions of the enemy.

Now imagine the allied forces have a beach head. They have all this equipment and troops. They can pile them up on the beach and a bit inland, but there is no room to deploy the reserves.

Germany attacks with their best tank armies (who were wasted in real life at the ostfront). Germany still has some air support left (which was also wasted at the ostfront, not just at the battle of England). Historians do have speculated on the matter you know.

So I don't think I am on crack.
------------------------------------------

Would the soviet union have won without the allied invasion in the west?

Sure. They were already winning. The war at the ostfront was already won in Stalingrad. After that is was just mopping up (at great cost of life). That was in 1942-43 (january 1943). D-day was in june 1944.

Would the soviet union been capable of beating the germans without US support.
I think so, just add a few more million victims at the soviet side. That wouldn't really have mattered to the Soviet leadership.

 

Well, I believe this thread was posted as a counter-point to a previous thread entitled “What Wars has France Won?”, an example of the utterly ridiculous and un-warranted notion that the French are poor fighters. If someone is going to claim that the French haven’t “won” any wars then exactly the same poor logic can be applied to the arrogant US of A.

 

America's greatest achievment is not her awesome ability to make war but rather her great compassion in making the peace. That is why inspite of many mistakes she remains the shining city on the hill.

 

Did you leave out an emoticon? Please don’t tell me you are being serious! USA making peace?!?!?!?!


1953
US overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. US installs Shah as dictator.

1954
US overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.

1963
US backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975
American military kills 4 million people in South East Asia.

Spetember 11, 1973
US stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected President Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.

1977
US backs military rulers in El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.

1980’s
US trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981
Regan administration trains and funds “Contra” rebels. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982
US provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983
White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989
CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. US invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties.

1990
Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from US.

1991
US enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998
Clinton bombs “weapons factory” in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991-present
American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. UN estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-2001
US gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in “aid”.

 

I did not suggest that the US has a perfect record only that the peace treaties proposed by the US have been marked by their forgiving nature.

 

what the hell? americas 'peace' deals have led to nothing more than another war for them to profit from.