China to worry about? You honestly think China was ever a threat to Russia?
China was under occupation by the Japanese during the war with two different and very distinct resistance movements operating against the army of occupation.
Following the Maoist takeover, China was an ally of the Soviet Union and vice versa. The split between them did not occur until the 1960's I believe.
In other words, China's role in the post-war years was not decided until I believe 1949 when Mao consolidated control over the country.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
But dunk wasn't taking into consideration mutually assured destruction, which is basically what prevented WWIII during the cold war. So, no, it wouldn't have been communism for us too.
M.A.D. (mutally assured destruction) did not become an issue until the late 1950s or the early 1960s.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
So was the comment that I was responding to: that Russia was only out for itself. The fact that the Nazis had invaded their country and reached the doors of Moscow, and murdered between 30 - 40 million of their people is of no concern to you sitting comfortably today. For the Russians at that time, I think there was slightly more at stake than the opportunity of a mere land grab.
wow. america had just as much to do with defeating hitler as any country. very shitty of you to marginalize their deaths becuase some country had a higher death toll. well done
You are just plain ignoring history. Poorly done. :rolleyes:
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
China was under occupation by the Japanese during the war with two different and very distinct resistance movements operating against the army of occupation.
Following the Maoist takeover, China was an ally of the Soviet Union and vice versa. The split between them did not occur until the 1960's I believe.
In other words, China's role in the post-war years was not decided until I believe 1949 when Mao consolidated control over the country.
Still...never considered a threat to Russia. The point I was trying to make was that it's not reasonable to say that China could have prevented Russia from single-handedly wrestling control from the nazis.
Your bias is showing.......the co-ordination was between the Allied naval powers as a whole..........Liberty Ships.........better sonar.......radar coordination of naval flights........better convey tatics....or are you going to claim that the British forces staved off the U-boats alone.
There is no bias here. The thought hadn't crossed my mind. I could be wrong about this, but as far as I know the U.S navy was concentrated in the Pacific between 1941 - 45. The reason the U-boats were finally defeated in the Atlantic was due to a combination of - as you mention - Liberty Ships.........better sonar.......radar coordination of naval flights........better convey tatics, and the breaking of the enigma code. I am of the belief that U.S air force pilots concentrated on heavy bombing missions over occupied Europe and weren't involved to any large degree in the Atlantic. Again, I could be wrong about this.
I'm sorry, but the only way I can answer your post is by stating quite frankly that it's utter crap. You say that "If the allies had been turned back on June 6th, 1944, then the Germans would have probably won the war." I mean why say something that is blatently untrue? By June 1944, the German army in the East was on the run from the Russians. Most of the German army had been sent to the eastern front to bolster up the defence of Berlin. Do you honstly believe that the german army was capable in June 1944 of mounting a successful counter-attack? They had already stood their last stand at Kursk in 1943 and lost. By June 1944 the game was up for Nazi germany.
You state that "Somehow you have been severly stigmatized towards America." Really? How so? I was merely responding to a post which stated that without the U.S we'd be speaking German now. That statement wss bollocks. And I have posted links on here which give plenty of support to my arguments. I have nothing against America, but I do have an issue with anyone who spouts crap. I will always do my best to deconstruct arguments or statements which I know to be false, or unfounded.
Sure, the Germans were losing in the East in June 1944, but that does not mean that the war was already over. Stalin desperately needed the Americans and British to open up the Western front.
Yes, it is widely accepted that the successful outcome of the D-day invasion is nothing short of a miracle. One major factor that lead to an allied victory is the fact that Rommel had all of his Panzer's relocated north due to a brilliant deception plan by the allies. If that diception had not have worked, Rommel's Panzers would have surely thrown the allies back into the channel.
I feel that you ignore the success and contributions of the Americans in North Africa and Italy during 1942/43. You also seem to downplay the importance of the battle for the North Atlantic, with American convoys of liberty ships keeping Britain from sucombing to the Germans.
Furthermore, it was the Americans who led the charge in the Pacific. And lastly, it was America that rebuilt Western Europe from the rubble and ashes of WWII. It was American divisions that kept the Soviet Union from overrunning the democratic countries of Europe.
WWII would not have been one without the Americans, and the last 50 years of stability are coutesy of American power.
we practically had it... Russia could have invaded us but we would have held out for a while... i'd like to think we might not have used it though.. morally speaking
EDIT: i missed the start bit out
That's an interesting read. I couldn't google anything on mr. perrin, but I am aware that the development was a collaborative effort of scientists from a number of countries. Just the same: a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. The project was physically in the US, and scientists didn't have cell phones back then. Who is to say the UK would've developed it on their own and physically been able to produce a finished product in time? After all, Mr Perrin a brit reporting on the contribution made by brits. How objective can such a report really be?
After all, Mr Perrin a brit reporting on the contribution made by brits. How objective can such a report really be?
the same as an american forum user reporting on the contribution made by the Yanks during WW2. How objective can such a report really be?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
That's an interesting read. I couldn't google anything on mr. perrin, but I am aware that the development was a collaborative effort of scientists from a number of countries. Just the same: a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. The project was physically in the US, and scientists didn't have cell phones back then. Who is to say the UK would've developed it on their own and physically been able to produce a finished product in time? After all, Mr Perrin a brit reporting on the contribution made by brits. How objective can such a report really be?
The American effort increased rapidly and soon outstripped the British. However separate research continued in each country with some exchange of information. Several of the key British scientists visited the USA early in 1942 and were given full access to all of the information available. They were astounded at the momentum that the American atomic bomb project had then assumed.
The slow neutron research at Cambridge, which the British had thought was not relevant to bomb-making, suddenly acquired military significance, because it provided the route to plutonium. The British Government wanted the Cambridge team to be relocated in Chicago, where the American research was being done but the Americans had became very security-conscious. Only one of the six senior scientists in the Cambridge group, which had originated in Paris, was British. They were therefore sent to Montreal, Canada.
In June 1942 the US Army took over process development, engineering design, procurement of materials and site selection for pilot plants. As a result the information flow to Britain dried up. The Americans stopped sharing any information on heavy water production, the manufacture of uranium hexafluoride, the method of electromagnetic separation, the physical or chemical properties of plutonium, the details of bomb design, or the facts about fast neutron reactions. This was a bombshell to the British and the Canadians who were collaborating on heavy water production and on several other aspects of the research program.
The Montreal team in Canada depended on the Americans for supplies of heavy water from the US heavy water plant in Trail, British Columbia, as well as technical information about plutonium. The Americans said that they would only give heavy water to the Montreal group only if it agreed to direct its research along the limited lines suggested by du Pont. Despite doing much good work, by June 1943 work at the Montreal Lab had come to a complete standstill. Morale was low and the Canadian Government proposed cancelling the project.
Winston Churchill then sought information about building Britain's own diffusion plant, a heavy water plant and an atomic reactor in Britain, despite its immense cost. However in July 1943 in London American officials cleared up some major misunderstandings about British motives, and after many months of negotiations the Quebec Agreement was finally signed by Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 19 August 1943. The British then handed over all of their material to the Americans and in return received all the copies of the American progress reports to the President. The British effort was then subsumed into the Manhattan Project until after the war.
In a section of the Quebec Agreement formally entitled "Articles of Agreement governing collaboration between the authorities of the U.S.A. and UK in the matter of Tube Alloys", Britain and the USA agreed to share resources to bring the Tube Alloys [i.e. the Atomic Bomb] project to fruition at the earliest moment.
The leaders agreed that
we will never use this agency against each other,
we will not use it against third parties without each other's consent, and
we will not either of us communicate any information about Tube Alloys to third parties except by mutual consent.
It was also agreed that any post-war advantages of an industrial or commercial nature would be decided at the discretion of the U.S. President.
Later in the war, tube alloy came to refer specifically to the synthetic element plutonium, whose very existence was secret until its use in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I feel that you ignore the success and contributions of the Americans in North Africa and Italy during 1942/43. You also seem to downplay the importance of the battle for the North Atlantic, with American convoys of liberty ships keeping Britain from sucombing to the Germans.
Furthermore, it was the Americans who led the charge in the Pacific. And lastly, it was America that rebuilt Western Europe from the rubble and ashes of WWII. It was American divisions that kept the Soviet Union from overrunning the democratic countries of Europe.
WWII would not have been one without the Americans, and the last 50 years of stability are coutesy of American power.
Firstly, the subject of Africa and Italy has been mentioned on here already, but as far as the battle of El Alamein and the defeat of Rommel, this was a British and Canadian victory. The Americans were involved in Italy, sure.
Secondly, I mentioned the importance of America's supplying the Atlantic convoys on one of the first pages of this thread. Although as far as the actual destruction of the U-Boats in the Atlantic, I could be wrong, but I've always been of the impression that this was carried out mainly by the British navy and air force.
Thirdly, I've stated a few times here that America's biggest fight and sacrifice was in the Pacific.
Lastly, I still don't believe that the German army couldn't have been defeated without the Americans. The Ruskies were running the Germans into the ground on their own - although, again the allied air-drops into Russia were a big help to them.
Again, the main thrust of my starting this thread was to emphasize the enormity of the Russian campaign and the fact that their acheivements dwarf those of the allies on the Western front. The statistics speak for themselves.
There is no bias here. The thought hadn't crossed my mind. I could be wrong about this, but as far as I know the U.S navy was concentrated in the Pacific between 1941 - 45. The reason the U-boats were finally defeated in the Atlantic was due to a combination of - as you mention - Liberty Ships.........better sonar.......radar coordination of naval flights........better convey tatics, and the breaking of the enigma code. I am of the belief that U.S air force pilots concentrated on heavy bombing missions over occupied Europe and weren't involved to any large degree in the Atlantic. Again, I could be wrong about this.
and the Liberty ships came from where???????
The American Air Army Corps (it's not the Air Force until 1945) began their efforts in North Africa as part of the Allied effort on that continent (theater).
The navy's planes, while concentrated in the Pacific, still maintained anti-submarine efforts within their limited reach from the coastal areas. Aircraft carriers were not a major factor in the Atlantic simply due to the less than optimal operating conditions on that body of water. The H.M.S. Ark Royal did play a pivotal role in the sinking of the Bismarck, but it's main theater of operation was the Med., where it was sunk in 1941 or 1942 (that information is not within my reach at the moment and I don't use wikipedia). What I am trying to say is that aircraft were of secondary importance in the war against the U-boats mainly due to their then limited ability to extend beyond the coastal regions. As the flight duration abilities of planes increased, thus did their importance in the Battle of the Atlantic.
Why was anti-submarine warfare important??? Because U-Boat activity interdicted movement of food, goods, arms, and men from British lands (Canada, especially) and from their allies (mainly the U.S.). The British and their allies were fighting on multiple fronts.......North Africa, Burma, the south Pacific. Goods were required to maintain all of these efforts. Goods from Britain proper, Canada, South America, Australia and proportionally the United States. These same allies also had to bolster resistance movements in France, China, SE Asia and Norway. They also had to help feed and arm Russia. Supplies were shipped to the Russian far east and to the north of Russia. The Northern route was guarded by U-boats, coastal defenses (including the Luftwaffe) in occupied Norway and ice. There are many graves of allied sailors, of all nationalities, at sea long this northern supply route.
Would Russia had survived without this effort? Probably not. If over 1/4 of the German army was not tied down or lost in North Africa or guarding Fortress Europe would the Russins have prevailed. Very debatable. Was eastern Russia safe form the Japanese??? Not for long if the Japanese did not have the Americans to contend with.......Siberia would have been a nice piece of the co-prosperity sphere.
As to you.....you have been attempting systematically to deny any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II. May I ask why? The majority of the U.S. posters in this thread have not belittled any nation's efforts in the war, but you continue to grind against giving any significance to the U.S. war effort. Did an American girl dump you? What's at the heart of your beef?
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
As to you.....you have been attempting systematically to deny any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II. May I ask why? The majority of the U.S. posters in this thread have not belittled any nation's efforts in the war, but you continue to grind against giving any significance to the U.S. war effort. Did an American girl dump you? What's at the heart of your beef?
Firstly, Did you read the first post on this thread?
Secondly, please provide just one example of when I have 'denied any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II.
Firstly, Did you read the first post on this thread?
Secondly, please provide just one example of when I have 'denied any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II.
Originally Posted by jlew24asu
exactly, his only point was to downplay the significance of america's involvment in the war. which he admits to marginalizing the americans death. or as he calls "put into prespective"
Would Russia had survived without this effort? Probably not. If over 1/4 of the German army was not tied down or lost in North Africa or guarding Fortress Europe would the Russins have prevailed. Very debatable. Was eastern Russia safe form the Japanese??? Not for long if the Japanese did not have the Americans to contend with.......Siberia would have been a nice piece of the co-prosperity sphere.
This is all hypothesis. This thread should be about facts.
Firstly, the subject of Africa and Italy has been mentioned on here already, but as far as the battle of El Alamein and the defeat of Rommel, this was a British and Canadian victory. The Americans were involved in Italy, sure.
Secondly, I mentioned the importance of America's supplying the Atlantic convoys on one of the first pages of this thread. Although as far as the actual destruction of the U-Boats in the Atlantic, I could be wrong, but I've always been of the impression that this was carried out mainly by the British navy and air force.
Thirdly, I've stated a few times here that America's biggest fight and sacrifice was in the Pacific.
Lastly, I still don't believe that the German army couldn't have been defeated without the Americans. The Ruskies were running the Germans into the ground on their own - although, again the allied air-drops into Russia were a big help to them.
Again, the main thrust of my starting this thread was to emphasize the enormity of the Russian campaign and the fact that their acheivements dwarf those of the allies on the Western front. The statistics speak for themselves.
There was more to North Africa than El Alamein....that battle just turned the tide and prevented the German Army from properly conquering Egypt, a small part of North Africa but very key to the overall war (Suez Canal). North Africa is where Allied troops under the command of Eisenhower got their first taste of amphibous landing/assualt at Casablanca. The North African theater was very widespread with multiple fronts and a diverse group of allies (Brits, Canadians, Free French and yes, Americans.) The U.S. 15th Air Force also got its feet wet in North Africa.
The U-boat destruction was a joint allied effort. The movements of supply ships were guarded by war vessels of either ally. The majority of Liberty ships were carrying the U.S. flag and were built or re-fitted there. In the beginning, the only effective planes against the U-boats were directly defending coastal regions due to limited flight ranges. Later as the technology improved, planes from both sides of the Atlantic became more involved in the effort. Yes, your impression was wrong.
Yes, the initial war effort by the U.S. was in the Pacific. That was where an enemy was closed to either taking our territory or directly threatening our homeland. It was also an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt that the U.S. would focus in that direction initially. Remember the Japanese also threatened Australia and India, and the U.S. effort and aid directly helped to prevent further Japanese movement towards Australia.
However, the U.S. did provide a large number of men and arms to fight in the ETO. The 8th Air Force that flew with the RAF out of Britain to bomb Germany. The 15th Air Force flying first in North Africa, then Italy. It was this air force that attacked the soft European underbelly of the would-be Nazi empire by bombing petro-chemical assets in Romania (which directly helped the Russians and the Yugo resistance), and it helped in the daylight bombing of Germany itself. The Army that invaded and conquered Italy was heavy in American men and arms. The army that invaded France was heavy in American men and arms. Sounds like a strong effort to me.
If you really want to prove your point.......compare the actual populations of the Allies during the war. I think that you would find that the population of Russia was probably greater than any of the other Allies, thus they had more to give in terms of lives lost. Russia had more land to give. These two factors have been Russia's ace up the sleeve in three major wars against three very different opponents. They have always had more cannon fodder than their opponent and more land to give in retreat. Just ask Charles XII of Sweden....or ask Napoleon....or ask Hitler. This has been their mode of invasion resistance for centuries. It also tends to be the only wars that they win. They can beat Napoleon, but get hammered invading the Ottoman Empire or attacking Japan or Afghanistan.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
This is all hypothesis. This thread should be about facts.
And all you have stated has been facts??? :rolleyes:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Firstly, Did you read the first post on this thread?
Secondly, please provide just one example of when I have 'denied any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II.
Yes, I gave nice answers to your questions.
I think that Paperplates answered that one quite nicely.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
I think that Paperplates answered that one quite nicely.
Really? How so? Please provide one example of a post where I have denied any importance to the role played by the U.S in World war 2.
Paperplates didn't answer that question. I stated: 'Not just the death count. But the efforts and their overall significance', when referring to the fact of Russia's greater effort in World war 2, which is indisputable. So what's your point?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
You detailed the allied efforts on the Western front. You didn't answer any of my questions, but just supplied a load of hypothesis regarding what 'may' have happened 'if' so-and-so had happened e.t.c. e.t.c.
If you really want to prove your point.......compare the actual populations of the Allies during the war. I think that you would find that the population of Russia was probably greater than any of the other Allies, thus they had more to give in terms of lives lost. Russia had more land to give. These two factors have been Russia's ace up the sleeve in three major wars against three very different opponents. They have always had more cannon fodder than their opponent and more land to give in retreat.
Right, so their effort can be trivialised as being simply the ability to provide greater cannon fodder. Therefore we can dismiss it. Nice and simple.
It obviously had nothing to do with a wealth of factors including the ability for the entire country to unite and concentrate their efforts, the sheer determination to drive out the invader, tactical stealth and awareness once Stalin handed control to the generals - mainly the most important figure in World war 2 on the allied side: General Zhukov - the Russian character, and the bravery of it's people in the face of a more advanced and better equipped enemy. No. None of this counts. We can write them off as mere cannon fodder.
Right, so their effort can be trivialised as being simply the ability to provide greater cannon fodder. Therefore we can dismiss it. Nice and simple.
It obviously had nothing to do with a wealth of factors including the ability for the entire country to unite and concentrate their efforts, the sheer determination to drive out the invader, tactical stealth and awareness once Stalin handed control to the generals - mainly the most important figure in World war 2 on the allied side: General Zhukov - the Russian character, and the bravery of it's people in the face of a more advanced and better equipped enemy. No. None of this counts. We can write them off as mere cannon fodder.
Yes it does......if Country A has 1000 people and Country B has 100,000 people....Country B can trot an impressive death toll of say, 1000 people, where Country A may only have a death toll of 250 people. Who gave the greatest effort? the greatest sacrifice?
War is about sacrifice....if you have more to sacrifice, you have greater ability to win. If I can kill three of yours for everyone of mine.......I'll take those odds. Cannon fodder is a basic tenet of war and has been for centuries.
The Russian effort was great. They beat what initially was a better force using a combination of factors. The Nazis would not have been defeated without the eastern front, however the eastern front would have been different if there had not been a western front, a southern front and an African theater. You can't say for certain how it would have played out if circumstances would have been different.
Of all the combatants in the war, Germany was probably had the least ability to maintain a multi-front war (Italy is included with Germany, because they were basically a puppet state). That is why they adopted the Blitzkrieg style of warfare. You quickly neutralize your opponent where you don't have to endure protracted combat which would put a drain on your weak supply line and over-burdened industrial base. Blitzkrieg was designed to "live off the land" as they conquered it. It was also designed to work in the smaller confines of Western Europe. Russia used "scorched earth" to wipe the first factor, and a vast land mass to wipe out the second. They sacrificed land and resources because they had both to give, as where the Belgians did not. Without the Blitz, the Wehrmarcht was an ordinary army. They, the Germans, learned some lessons from WWI, but they did not learn enough.
The industrial base for any of the Allies (non-conquered) would in the long run always out strip Nazi Germany's given the time.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Now I have a question. Did the US help rebuild Europe after WWII?
I missed the last pages of this thread, and its probably been done to death already, but the short answer is yes. The Americans put a lot of money into rebuilding Europe after the war.
Basically, people cannot realistically downplay what the Americans did in WW-II. Sure, they did a lot less of the ground fighting against the Germans, it was the Soviets who lost 20 million men in that fight. But they did shoulder the burden against the Japanese ... They did build the air armada that crippled the German's industrial capabilities, probably enabling a Soviet victory ... The Soviets generally got outfought by the Germans, badly. They won because of sheer numbers and because the German war machine/industry was being pounded from the air. This was a joint effort. And finally, the Americans did more than any other nation to help rebuild in the aftermath.
I missed the last pages of this thread, and its probably been done to death already, but the short answer is yes. The Americans put a lot of money into rebuilding Europe after the war.
Basically, people cannot realistically downplay what the Americans did in WW-II. Sure, they did a lot less of the ground fighting against the Germans, it was the Soviets who lost 20 million men in that fight. But they did shoulder the burden against the Japanese ... They did build the air armada that crippled the German's industrial capabilities, probably enabling a Soviet victory ... The Soviets generally got outfought by the Germans, badly. They won because of sheer numbers and because the German war machine/industry was being pounded from the air. This was a joint effort. And finally, the Americans did more than any other nation to help rebuild in the aftermath.
Hitler's Germany was never really defeated. It still exists in ideological form. Point in fact, Hitler's Germany was merely an extension and culmination of pre-existing beliefs. So, a more accurate term for Hitler's Germany would be Germany's Hitler.
Comments
Following the Maoist takeover, China was an ally of the Soviet Union and vice versa. The split between them did not occur until the 1960's I believe.
In other words, China's role in the post-war years was not decided until I believe 1949 when Mao consolidated control over the country.
So was the comment that I was responding to: that Russia was only out for itself. The fact that the Nazis had invaded their country and reached the doors of Moscow, and murdered between 30 - 40 million of their people is of no concern to you sitting comfortably today. For the Russians at that time, I think there was slightly more at stake than the opportunity of a mere land grab.
You are just plain ignoring history. Poorly done. :rolleyes:
nowadays hits you when you're young
Still...never considered a threat to Russia. The point I was trying to make was that it's not reasonable to say that China could have prevented Russia from single-handedly wrestling control from the nazis.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yes, I know this. I was cutting to the chase. The US's possession of the bomb would have kept the Russians at bay until MAD.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
There is no bias here. The thought hadn't crossed my mind. I could be wrong about this, but as far as I know the U.S navy was concentrated in the Pacific between 1941 - 45. The reason the U-boats were finally defeated in the Atlantic was due to a combination of - as you mention - Liberty Ships.........better sonar.......radar coordination of naval flights........better convey tatics, and the breaking of the enigma code. I am of the belief that U.S air force pilots concentrated on heavy bombing missions over occupied Europe and weren't involved to any large degree in the Atlantic. Again, I could be wrong about this.
Sure, the Germans were losing in the East in June 1944, but that does not mean that the war was already over. Stalin desperately needed the Americans and British to open up the Western front.
Yes, it is widely accepted that the successful outcome of the D-day invasion is nothing short of a miracle. One major factor that lead to an allied victory is the fact that Rommel had all of his Panzer's relocated north due to a brilliant deception plan by the allies. If that diception had not have worked, Rommel's Panzers would have surely thrown the allies back into the channel.
I feel that you ignore the success and contributions of the Americans in North Africa and Italy during 1942/43. You also seem to downplay the importance of the battle for the North Atlantic, with American convoys of liberty ships keeping Britain from sucombing to the Germans.
Furthermore, it was the Americans who led the charge in the Pacific. And lastly, it was America that rebuilt Western Europe from the rubble and ashes of WWII. It was American divisions that kept the Soviet Union from overrunning the democratic countries of Europe.
WWII would not have been one without the Americans, and the last 50 years of stability are coutesy of American power.
That's an interesting read. I couldn't google anything on mr. perrin, but I am aware that the development was a collaborative effort of scientists from a number of countries. Just the same: a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. The project was physically in the US, and scientists didn't have cell phones back then. Who is to say the UK would've developed it on their own and physically been able to produce a finished product in time? After all, Mr Perrin a brit reporting on the contribution made by brits. How objective can such a report really be?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
the same as an american forum user reporting on the contribution made by the Yanks during WW2. How objective can such a report really be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUBE_ALLOYS
The American effort increased rapidly and soon outstripped the British. However separate research continued in each country with some exchange of information. Several of the key British scientists visited the USA early in 1942 and were given full access to all of the information available. They were astounded at the momentum that the American atomic bomb project had then assumed.
The slow neutron research at Cambridge, which the British had thought was not relevant to bomb-making, suddenly acquired military significance, because it provided the route to plutonium. The British Government wanted the Cambridge team to be relocated in Chicago, where the American research was being done but the Americans had became very security-conscious. Only one of the six senior scientists in the Cambridge group, which had originated in Paris, was British. They were therefore sent to Montreal, Canada.
In June 1942 the US Army took over process development, engineering design, procurement of materials and site selection for pilot plants. As a result the information flow to Britain dried up. The Americans stopped sharing any information on heavy water production, the manufacture of uranium hexafluoride, the method of electromagnetic separation, the physical or chemical properties of plutonium, the details of bomb design, or the facts about fast neutron reactions. This was a bombshell to the British and the Canadians who were collaborating on heavy water production and on several other aspects of the research program.
The Montreal team in Canada depended on the Americans for supplies of heavy water from the US heavy water plant in Trail, British Columbia, as well as technical information about plutonium. The Americans said that they would only give heavy water to the Montreal group only if it agreed to direct its research along the limited lines suggested by du Pont. Despite doing much good work, by June 1943 work at the Montreal Lab had come to a complete standstill. Morale was low and the Canadian Government proposed cancelling the project.
Winston Churchill then sought information about building Britain's own diffusion plant, a heavy water plant and an atomic reactor in Britain, despite its immense cost. However in July 1943 in London American officials cleared up some major misunderstandings about British motives, and after many months of negotiations the Quebec Agreement was finally signed by Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 19 August 1943. The British then handed over all of their material to the Americans and in return received all the copies of the American progress reports to the President. The British effort was then subsumed into the Manhattan Project until after the war.
In a section of the Quebec Agreement formally entitled "Articles of Agreement governing collaboration between the authorities of the U.S.A. and UK in the matter of Tube Alloys", Britain and the USA agreed to share resources to bring the Tube Alloys [i.e. the Atomic Bomb] project to fruition at the earliest moment.
The leaders agreed that
we will never use this agency against each other,
we will not use it against third parties without each other's consent, and
we will not either of us communicate any information about Tube Alloys to third parties except by mutual consent.
It was also agreed that any post-war advantages of an industrial or commercial nature would be decided at the discretion of the U.S. President.
Later in the war, tube alloy came to refer specifically to the synthetic element plutonium, whose very existence was secret until its use in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.
Firstly, the subject of Africa and Italy has been mentioned on here already, but as far as the battle of El Alamein and the defeat of Rommel, this was a British and Canadian victory. The Americans were involved in Italy, sure.
Secondly, I mentioned the importance of America's supplying the Atlantic convoys on one of the first pages of this thread. Although as far as the actual destruction of the U-Boats in the Atlantic, I could be wrong, but I've always been of the impression that this was carried out mainly by the British navy and air force.
Thirdly, I've stated a few times here that America's biggest fight and sacrifice was in the Pacific.
Lastly, I still don't believe that the German army couldn't have been defeated without the Americans. The Ruskies were running the Germans into the ground on their own - although, again the allied air-drops into Russia were a big help to them.
Again, the main thrust of my starting this thread was to emphasize the enormity of the Russian campaign and the fact that their acheivements dwarf those of the allies on the Western front. The statistics speak for themselves.
The American Air Army Corps (it's not the Air Force until 1945) began their efforts in North Africa as part of the Allied effort on that continent (theater).
The navy's planes, while concentrated in the Pacific, still maintained anti-submarine efforts within their limited reach from the coastal areas. Aircraft carriers were not a major factor in the Atlantic simply due to the less than optimal operating conditions on that body of water. The H.M.S. Ark Royal did play a pivotal role in the sinking of the Bismarck, but it's main theater of operation was the Med., where it was sunk in 1941 or 1942 (that information is not within my reach at the moment and I don't use wikipedia). What I am trying to say is that aircraft were of secondary importance in the war against the U-boats mainly due to their then limited ability to extend beyond the coastal regions. As the flight duration abilities of planes increased, thus did their importance in the Battle of the Atlantic.
Why was anti-submarine warfare important??? Because U-Boat activity interdicted movement of food, goods, arms, and men from British lands (Canada, especially) and from their allies (mainly the U.S.). The British and their allies were fighting on multiple fronts.......North Africa, Burma, the south Pacific. Goods were required to maintain all of these efforts. Goods from Britain proper, Canada, South America, Australia and proportionally the United States. These same allies also had to bolster resistance movements in France, China, SE Asia and Norway. They also had to help feed and arm Russia. Supplies were shipped to the Russian far east and to the north of Russia. The Northern route was guarded by U-boats, coastal defenses (including the Luftwaffe) in occupied Norway and ice. There are many graves of allied sailors, of all nationalities, at sea long this northern supply route.
Would Russia had survived without this effort? Probably not. If over 1/4 of the German army was not tied down or lost in North Africa or guarding Fortress Europe would the Russins have prevailed. Very debatable. Was eastern Russia safe form the Japanese??? Not for long if the Japanese did not have the Americans to contend with.......Siberia would have been a nice piece of the co-prosperity sphere.
As to you.....you have been attempting systematically to deny any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II. May I ask why? The majority of the U.S. posters in this thread have not belittled any nation's efforts in the war, but you continue to grind against giving any significance to the U.S. war effort. Did an American girl dump you? What's at the heart of your beef?
Firstly, Did you read the first post on this thread?
Secondly, please provide just one example of when I have 'denied any importance to the role played by the United States in World War II.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
This is all hypothesis. This thread should be about facts.
There was more to North Africa than El Alamein....that battle just turned the tide and prevented the German Army from properly conquering Egypt, a small part of North Africa but very key to the overall war (Suez Canal). North Africa is where Allied troops under the command of Eisenhower got their first taste of amphibous landing/assualt at Casablanca. The North African theater was very widespread with multiple fronts and a diverse group of allies (Brits, Canadians, Free French and yes, Americans.) The U.S. 15th Air Force also got its feet wet in North Africa.
The U-boat destruction was a joint allied effort. The movements of supply ships were guarded by war vessels of either ally. The majority of Liberty ships were carrying the U.S. flag and were built or re-fitted there. In the beginning, the only effective planes against the U-boats were directly defending coastal regions due to limited flight ranges. Later as the technology improved, planes from both sides of the Atlantic became more involved in the effort. Yes, your impression was wrong.
Yes, the initial war effort by the U.S. was in the Pacific. That was where an enemy was closed to either taking our territory or directly threatening our homeland. It was also an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt that the U.S. would focus in that direction initially. Remember the Japanese also threatened Australia and India, and the U.S. effort and aid directly helped to prevent further Japanese movement towards Australia.
However, the U.S. did provide a large number of men and arms to fight in the ETO. The 8th Air Force that flew with the RAF out of Britain to bomb Germany. The 15th Air Force flying first in North Africa, then Italy. It was this air force that attacked the soft European underbelly of the would-be Nazi empire by bombing petro-chemical assets in Romania (which directly helped the Russians and the Yugo resistance), and it helped in the daylight bombing of Germany itself. The Army that invaded and conquered Italy was heavy in American men and arms. The army that invaded France was heavy in American men and arms. Sounds like a strong effort to me.
If you really want to prove your point.......compare the actual populations of the Allies during the war. I think that you would find that the population of Russia was probably greater than any of the other Allies, thus they had more to give in terms of lives lost. Russia had more land to give. These two factors have been Russia's ace up the sleeve in three major wars against three very different opponents. They have always had more cannon fodder than their opponent and more land to give in retreat. Just ask Charles XII of Sweden....or ask Napoleon....or ask Hitler. This has been their mode of invasion resistance for centuries. It also tends to be the only wars that they win. They can beat Napoleon, but get hammered invading the Ottoman Empire or attacking Japan or Afghanistan.
alrighty then...didn't know that.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I think that Paperplates answered that one quite nicely.
Please provide evidence to the contrary.
Really? How so? Please provide one example of a post where I have denied any importance to the role played by the U.S in World war 2.
Paperplates didn't answer that question. I stated: 'Not just the death count. But the efforts and their overall significance', when referring to the fact of Russia's greater effort in World war 2, which is indisputable. So what's your point?
interesting stuff huh?
You detailed the allied efforts on the Western front. You didn't answer any of my questions, but just supplied a load of hypothesis regarding what 'may' have happened 'if' so-and-so had happened e.t.c. e.t.c.
Right, so their effort can be trivialised as being simply the ability to provide greater cannon fodder. Therefore we can dismiss it. Nice and simple.
It obviously had nothing to do with a wealth of factors including the ability for the entire country to unite and concentrate their efforts, the sheer determination to drive out the invader, tactical stealth and awareness once Stalin handed control to the generals - mainly the most important figure in World war 2 on the allied side: General Zhukov - the Russian character, and the bravery of it's people in the face of a more advanced and better equipped enemy. No. None of this counts. We can write them off as mere cannon fodder.
War is about sacrifice....if you have more to sacrifice, you have greater ability to win. If I can kill three of yours for everyone of mine.......I'll take those odds. Cannon fodder is a basic tenet of war and has been for centuries.
The Russian effort was great. They beat what initially was a better force using a combination of factors. The Nazis would not have been defeated without the eastern front, however the eastern front would have been different if there had not been a western front, a southern front and an African theater. You can't say for certain how it would have played out if circumstances would have been different.
Of all the combatants in the war, Germany was probably had the least ability to maintain a multi-front war (Italy is included with Germany, because they were basically a puppet state). That is why they adopted the Blitzkrieg style of warfare. You quickly neutralize your opponent where you don't have to endure protracted combat which would put a drain on your weak supply line and over-burdened industrial base. Blitzkrieg was designed to "live off the land" as they conquered it. It was also designed to work in the smaller confines of Western Europe. Russia used "scorched earth" to wipe the first factor, and a vast land mass to wipe out the second. They sacrificed land and resources because they had both to give, as where the Belgians did not. Without the Blitz, the Wehrmarcht was an ordinary army. They, the Germans, learned some lessons from WWI, but they did not learn enough.
The industrial base for any of the Allies (non-conquered) would in the long run always out strip Nazi Germany's given the time.
I missed the last pages of this thread, and its probably been done to death already, but the short answer is yes. The Americans put a lot of money into rebuilding Europe after the war.
Basically, people cannot realistically downplay what the Americans did in WW-II. Sure, they did a lot less of the ground fighting against the Germans, it was the Soviets who lost 20 million men in that fight. But they did shoulder the burden against the Japanese ... They did build the air armada that crippled the German's industrial capabilities, probably enabling a Soviet victory ... The Soviets generally got outfought by the Germans, badly. They won because of sheer numbers and because the German war machine/industry was being pounded from the air. This was a joint effort. And finally, the Americans did more than any other nation to help rebuild in the aftermath.
Very well put for your 8,000th post!
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825