Did the U.S defeat Hitlers Germany?

redrock wrote:

Germany - and thus Russia in your scenario, would have had the bomb if they wanted to. The Germans had the knowledge and capability to build a bomb but 'they weren't bothered' (to put it very simply), they had been working on one but it was not a priority at the time. The beginning of the war was going great for them. No need to spend valuable resources on a weapon they didn't need. After the soviet counter-attack, they rethought their position on that and for the first time challenged the scientists. While it was clear that they could build atomic bombs in principle, they would require a great deal of resources to do so. Instead, they put all their resources into building rockets, on the scale of what the Americans invested in the Manhattan Project.

Heisenberg and his team of scientist just didn't push hard enough.

Though, during the last months of the war Diebner and his team (and Gerlach) did build and test a nuclear device.

So..... Should the Russians have 'conquered' Europe, they would have had a nuclear bomb (albeit in it's infancy) but it only needed a few more months....

America would have been next....

...hence the term "mutually assured destruction." That's what I mean by Russia not invading....

We would've had the bomb...they would've had the bomb...as its been for the past several decades.

The only way Britain would've had the bomb before being invaded by Russia is if the US gave them the bomb, which again is why I say that Britain would be communist had it not been for US involvement.

sponger wrote:

China to worry about? You honestly think China was ever a threat to Russia?

After the Marco Polo Bridge incident they were both shitting in their pants (figure of speech) and thought best to enter into a non-aggression pact. Couldn't trust each other...

sponger wrote:

The only way Britain would've had the bomb before being invaded by Russia is if the US gave them the bomb, which again is why I say that Britain would be communist had it not been for US involvement.

On the day Nagasaki was destroyed, 9 August 1945, the United States government published a book written by Henry De Wolf Smyth entitled Atomic Energy for Military Purposes, giving its account of the origins of this extraordinary phenomenon. The book would become an international bestseller, but when the first copy reached London later that month it caused outrage in government circles, for it gave the clear impression that the atomic bomb was an exclusively American achievement.

A senior scientific civil servant at the British ministry of supply, Michael Perrin, was immediately ordered to write a complementary work telling it from the British point of view, and so urgent was the need felt to be that he was given only 24 hours to write it.

Perrin’s brief history described how the first blueprint for the weapon was written in Britain and how the first feasibility studies were carried out at British universities by British scientists. He told how all the data and discoveries were given freely and promptly to the Americans, even before they entered the war, and how in 1941 Winston Churchill established a British A-bomb programme. Then, as the vastly bigger US Manhattan Project got under way after Pearl Harbor, Perrin explained how most of Britain’s top bomb scientists transferred to the United States.

What he did not say, though he might have, was that once in America these scientists made vital contributions to bomb design and were involved right up to the final stages – it was a professor from Imperial College, London who calculated the optimum height for the detonation of the bombs over Japan. Nor, for diplomatic reasons, did Perrin mention that Churchill had initialled a memo, which was transmitted to the Americans, giving Britain’s authorisation for the weapons to be used.


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

Byrnzie wrote:

True. The decision to attack u-boats from the air in co-ordinated attacks between the Navy and RAF dealt them a serious blow. The co-ordination between the Navy and RAF was a new development.

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.

sponger wrote:

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.

jlew24asu wrote:

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:

tybird wrote:

M.A.D. (mutally assured destruction) did not become an issue until the late 1950s or the early 1960s.

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.

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

sponger wrote:

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?