peacefuljeffrey 0 #51 January 6, 2006 QuoteNo the US didn't win it for us. Like you I am grateful for the sacrifice made by that generation of Americans, but no they didn't win it for us. I think that the question and discussion are geared toward, "Would Hitler have been defeated by the Europeans with no help from America?" And the only honest answer, I feel strongly, is, "NO." Pretty easy for you to say No to the original thread question if you don't bother to explain why you feel that way. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #52 January 6, 2006 QuoteBoth my grandfathers escaped Holland prior to the invasion and spent the rest of the war fighting. One flew many mission in south east asia for the KNIL as a pilot on a b-25 bomber. The other a captain with the Brittish infantry. I think it is pretty obvious that America could not have won this war on its own either.... It didn't start out as America's war, now did it? Whose entry into the war turned the tide for those who were already fighting it and losing? America's. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #53 January 7, 2006 For nationalistic reasons I love this photo. It says much about the good qualities of America if you study its details and background. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #54 January 7, 2006 Quote For nationalistic reasons I love this photo. It says much about the good qualities of America if you study its details and background. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! You like sea stories? www.mech.uwa.edu.au/DANotes/fracture/maritime/maritime.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #55 January 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo the US didn't win it for us. Like you I am grateful for the sacrifice made by that generation of Americans, but no they didn't win it for us. I think that the question and discussion are geared toward, "Would Hitler have been defeated by the Europeans with no help from America?" And the only honest answer, I feel strongly, is, "NO." Pretty easy for you to say No to the original thread question if you don't bother to explain why you feel that way. -Jeffrey Once Barbarossa failed to reach its objective in winter 1941, the Nazis were doomed. It might have taken the USSR until 1947 if the US wasn't involved. Hitler made the exact same mistake as Napoleon, turning on Russia while Britain was still undefeated. 1940 showed that the Nazis did not have the ability to defeat the UK. And we can thank the Greeks and Yugoslavians for the delay of the start of Barbarossa. Read some history. It's all about being ALLIES.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #56 January 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteBoth my grandfathers escaped Holland prior to the invasion and spent the rest of the war fighting. One flew many mission in south east asia for the KNIL as a pilot on a b-25 bomber. The other a captain with the Brittish infantry. I think it is pretty obvious that America could not have won this war on its own either.... It didn't start out as America's war, now did it? Whose entry into the war turned the tide for those who were already fighting it and losing? America's. -Jeffrey You need to read more real history instead of relying on the Hollywood version.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #57 January 7, 2006 QuoteIt might have taken the USSR until 1947 if the US wasn't involved. Except that the USSR would have collapsed before then had the US not supplied that empire with massive quantities of war materiel. For example, during the entire war the USSR was able to produce only 20 new locomotives due in part to Stalin’s mismanaged central planning. In comparison America shipped the USSR nearly 2,000 locomotives up through 1945. A vast empire like the USSR would have needed a lot of trains to move its troops and tanks around, especially during a war when its paranoid leader focused on transporting his domestic enemies for liquidation with nearly the same vehemence as shuttling war materiel to crush foreign invaders. Another example is aviation fuel. The USSR relied almost exclusively on the US to supply avgas else its planes could never have gotten off the ground. Essential war materiel the US supplied to the USSR during the war: 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 Noniron 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 Without these supplies from the US, not only would the USSR have failed to conquer Germany by 1947, its entire front would have collapsed. So 'hooey' to you, sir, and yes I like sea stories. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #58 January 7, 2006 Quote Once Barbarossa failed to reach its objective in winter 1941, the Nazis were doomed. It might have taken the USSR until 1947 if the US wasn't involved. Hitler made the exact same mistake as Napoleon, turning on Russia while Britain was still undefeated. 1940 showed that the Nazis did not have the ability to defeat the UK. And we can thank the Greeks and Yugoslavians for the delay of the start of Barbarossa. Read some history. It's all about being ALLIES. Too true about it being about allies, but the US's involvement certainly sped up the demise of Germany by a large margine. And if the Nazis had developed the bomb before a non-US-helped defeat could've been finished, the situation would've drastically changed. Would the UK still have held fast if London was nuked? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #59 January 7, 2006 QuoteQuote Once Barbarossa failed to reach its objective in winter 1941, the Nazis were doomed. It might have taken the USSR until 1947 if the US wasn't involved. Hitler made the exact same mistake as Napoleon, turning on Russia while Britain was still undefeated. 1940 showed that the Nazis did not have the ability to defeat the UK. And we can thank the Greeks and Yugoslavians for the delay of the start of Barbarossa. Read some history. It's all about being ALLIES. Too true about it being about allies, but the US's involvement certainly sped up the demise of Germany by a large margine. And if the Nazis had developed the bomb before a non-US-helped defeat could've been finished, the situation would've drastically changed. Would the UK still have held fast if London was nuked? Would the US have held fast if NYC was nuked? US investigators after the end of the war were amazed at how poorly the Nazis had done in developing a nuke. They were on the wrong track altogether. They had not even made a working reactor by 1945. Hitler invested his resources in V weapons, not a nuke program. You should read Richard Rhode's book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #60 January 7, 2006 Neat logic that. So when Airspeed won the World Championship, the credit all belonged to their jumpsuit makers. US troops didn't even engage any Germans until the fall of 1942. Have you even heard of Stalingrad?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #61 January 7, 2006 Quote Neat logic that. So when Airspeed won the World Championship, the credit all belonged to their jumpsuit makers. I was solely addressing your false assertion that without US involvement the USSR would have conquered the Nazis by 1947. According to Marshall Zhukov: "Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American Studebakers, we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries." Zhukov: “[w]e entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany.” Zhukov: "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance." Pimped from a website, The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945 by Boris V. Sokolov. You introduced the significance of numbers to the discussion with your apparent claim that victory over the Nazis was achieved by the powers who suffered the highest body count, and the Vietnam War among other conflicts has demonstrated the fallacy of assigning victory to bodycounts. The value of essential war materiel is indisputable, however. As for your skydiving analogy, Airspeed couldn’t have won the World Championship naked and devoid of airlift. That’s comparable to what the USSR would have been facing in the absence of American war materiel. Quote US troops didn't even engage any Germans until the fall of 1942. Like PJ has intimated, most Americans at the time didn’t believe that another war in Europe made sense for America. Why should we shed blood to protect your empires in yet another ridiculous war instigated by European men with funny mustaches? QuoteHave you even heard of Stalingrad? Ever hear of American daylight bombing raids over Germany? * 55,000 of German anti-aircraft guns, including 75% of the deadly 88mm guns, were dedicated to shooting at American daylight bombers instead of at Soviet tanks * 2 million German soldiers defended Germany against American daylight bombing raids * 75% of Luftwaffe fighters were allocated to defending German industry against American daylight bombing raids * 20% of all artillery ammunition was allocated to anti-air defense of Germany As a result * the Germans produced 35% less armor than they projected * the Germans produced 31% fewer aircraft (82% of these being fighters) than they projected * the Germans produced over 40% fewer trucks than they projected Additional unapologetic pimpage. If these resources had been available to Hitler do you honestly believe that the USSR could have defeated the Germans by 1947? Then there was that other theatre of war in the Pacific where America shouldered an overwhelming burden, together with its Chinese ally … Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #62 January 7, 2006 I'm sure that our parents and grandparents are very thankfull to those Americans that helped Europe out in it's time of need - thanks, a lot of brave men died as they tend to in these ventures... But The country of the USA made a lot of money from it and never doubt that.. Lend-lease helped A LOT and we're still paying - no we REALLY are (look it up).... In fact it looks like the debt will be settled Dec 2006. Now, that debt is between the UK & US.... I imagine (but can not find out) that a similar one exists betwee the USA and Russia, where a similar lend lease agreement existed..... I can not see that any debt repayments were made during the Cold War.... but could be wrong. Also the US of A made a fortune from aggreements based upon technoligical advances that the UK passed to them WITHOUT licensing benefits.... One primary example comes to mind The Jet Engine... the States built a major economy on this little hand-out, whilst the inventor (Sir Frank Whittle) made nowt. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #63 January 7, 2006 No one is disputing that the USA profited from the war and has emerged as its true "winner" for the time being. However, we rejected monarchies and dictatorships early in our history and arguably shouldn't have had to clean up your messes in the first place. Trace the roots of the Palestinian conflict for example and you can see how they lead back to the British Empire. We're still trying to clean up that one ... Most here can agree that victory in the last great war was the result of an allied effort. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #64 January 7, 2006 Senator.... as always, you're a scream.... Have a great evening (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #65 January 7, 2006 QuoteSenator.... as always, you're a scream.... Have a great evening Likewise. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #66 January 8, 2006 QuoteYou introduced the significance of numbers to the discussion with your apparent claim that victory over the Nazis was achieved by the powers who suffered the highest body count, and the Vietnam War among other conflicts has demonstrated the fallacy of assigning victory to bodycounts. No, I didn't introduce it, nor did I make that claim. Your reading glasses must be fogged over. I simply responded to the request for numbers at the beginning of the thread. The USSR DID kill more Nazis than all other nations combined, however.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #67 January 8, 2006 QuoteThe names will be different,but most families in the US can tell the same story My Dad served in B/C/I, one of the most underdiscussed theatre of WWII... Dad tells some great stories, especially about the one time he almost had to bail out of a plane as they crossed "The Hump" into China. But this is a thread about Europe, so I'll back out now. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #68 January 8, 2006 you can easily turn the question around and ask whether the western allies could have won without the Soviet front. Quote QuoteHave you even heard of Stalingrad? Ever hear of American daylight bombing raids over Germany? much of the breakdown of the German airforce and the resulting almost complete air supremacy of the allied forces had to do with severe fuel shortage in Germany. That in turn was related to not having access to oil fields in the Caucasus area, which in turn was a result of the loss in Stalingrad. Quote * 2 million German soldiers defended Germany against American daylight bombing raids more than half a million German soldiers were either killed or captured in just the battle of Stalingrad - an entire army was wiped out there with very few survivors. The subsequent series of German losses and breakdown of the eastern front ate up 100's of thousands, even millions more German troops. If you throw in those who were not killed or catured but just busy with the fighting and the logistic you are approaching tens of millions. And those were adult, well trained soldiers in contrast to the Luftabwehr in which to a large part older people and teenagers were operating anti-aircraft guns. If those millions of German soldiers that had been killed, captured, or otherwise pinned down in the eastern front had been lined along the coastlines of Northern France the outcome of D-Day could have easily been a very different one. Among historians Stalingrad is most often identified as the single most important turning point in the war - or the series of defeats Moscow-Stalingrad-Kursk-etc that broke and consumed German armies thoughout 1942 and early 1943. The D-day invasion more than one and a half years later was still important since it hit close to home for Germany and had a seriously demoralizing effect. It did divert troops from the east and accelerated the Soviet invaions. However, in mid 1944 Germany was already losing the war and, in size and/or significance, the Battle of Normandy was a fraction of what the Battle of Stalingrad was. What I find the more insteresting historical question is whether the US (and western allies) were right to stop their invasion at the Elbe. The Battle for Berlin was projected to be very bloody with about 100'000 more US casualties, and the decision was made to leave this final blood bath to the Soviets since the war was decided anyway. The historical result of this decision was, of course, that Germany was split in half, and, during the cold war, the Soviets considered East Germany as one of their most valuable and loyal allies. The "cold war" and Soviet empire may have ceased to exist a decade earlier than it did had the US decided to push through to Berlin in 1945 regardless of casualties. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #69 January 8, 2006 True that the Soviet Union greatly benefited from the US help. But it is highly unlikely Hitler would ever have been able to defeat the USSR. Aside from terrible military leadership (Hitler in Germany, Stalin in the USSR, neither of them true military men), the Soviet Union had not only the weather, but also size of territory on its side. At the height of the battle of Stalingrad (which German General had recommended against engaging, as bypassing it and securing the oil fields would have caused the city to fall sooner or later without a major battle), the Germans were facing a 120+ Km front. Part of it was manned by foreign Divisions (Romanians, Italians), which did not have the drive and savvyness of the German armed forces. Stalin mismanaged the war, but when he finaly turned the decision making process to real military men, they immediatly punched through this front and encircled the German troops. The fact that the Americans and allied forces had landed in North Africa, and that England had not been defeated, forced Hitler to keep some of its experienced divisions in Western Europe. In that regards, it was crucial. But because of the vastness of the Societ Union, and the fact that Stalin was throwing as many bodies as possible at the Germans, Hitler, much like Napoleon, was doomed the day he attacked the USSR. However, as Churchill inderstood early on, the war was not as much about defeating Germany, which was only a matter of time, as it was about keeping the USSR as far away from the Atlantic as possible after the collapse of Nazi Germany (in other words, it was a race to Berlin). The US played a crucial part in this race. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #70 January 8, 2006 QuoteTrue that the Soviet Union greatly benefited from the US help. But it is highly unlikely Hitler would ever have been able to defeat the USSR. Aside from terrible military leadership (Hitler in Germany, Stalin in the USSR, neither of them true military men), the Soviet Union had not only the weather, but also size of territory on its side. At the height of the battle of Stalingrad (which German General had recommended against engaging, as bypassing it and securing the oil fields would have caused the city to fall sooner or later without a major battle), the Germans were facing a 120+ Km front. Part of it was manned by foreign Divisions (Romanians, Italians), which did not have the drive and savvyness of the German armed forces. Stalin mismanaged the war, but when he finaly turned the decision making process to real military men, they immediatly punched through this front and encircled the German troops. The fact that the Americans and allied forces had landed in North Africa, and that England had not been defeated, forced Hitler to keep some of its experienced divisions in Western Europe. In that regards, it was crucial. But because of the vastness of the Societ Union, and the fact that Stalin was throwing as many bodies as possible at the Germans, Hitler, much like Napoleon, was doomed the day he attacked the USSR. However, as Churchill inderstood early on, the war was not as much about defeating Germany, which was only a matter of time, as it was about keeping the USSR as far away from the Atlantic as possible after the collapse of Nazi Germany (in other words, it was a race to Berlin). The US played a crucial part in this race. If Barbarossa had been lauched on time, I think the Nazis would have taken Moscow and the outcome would have been very different. However, Barbarossa was delayed 3 weeks (which turned out to be critical) because Hitler diverted forces into the Balkans to assist Mussolini deal with the Greek and Yugoslav patriots. It is therefore a reasonable conclusion that without Greece, WWII would have ended quite differently. So let's hear it for GREECE!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #71 January 9, 2006 Strange for a professor to omit other countries: Australia China Italy Poland Czechoslovakia New Zealand Finland Denmark Norway Holland Netherlands Belgium Lithuania Latvia Estonia Romania Greece Egypt Somaliland Hungary Philipines Syria Lebanon Lybia Yugoslavia Luxembourg Albania India Austria It is sad to see that someone will grossly omit facts relevant to this war, particularly the one for China, who was the second highest toll (for any other country) of about 10Mil. Why did you not include this number in your post? Why would you care about who and where was the bomb invented, isn;t it sufficient to know that the US was the first one to have it at its disposition?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #72 January 9, 2006 Quote However, as Churchill inderstood early on, the war was not as much about defeating Germany, which was only a matter of time, as it was about keeping the USSR as far away from the Atlantic as possible after the collapse of Nazi Germany (in other words, it was a race to Berlin). The US played a crucial part in this race. that is precisely the question (see post just before yours). It was perhaps a race to prevent the USSR from invading France and perhaps also a race to get at least some piece of Germany. But US leadership consciously decided against the final race for Berlin to avoid about 100K more US/allied military casualties. All US advances stopped at the Elbe in early 45 and Berlin was left to the Soviets. Having East Germany gave the USSR, of course, a much stronger position in the subsequent decades of the cold war. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #73 January 9, 2006 What side was Argentina on?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #74 January 9, 2006 http://www.ceana.org.ar/statem.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #75 January 9, 2006 Same as Switzerland...with favoritism towards Nazis. Or the west side of the Atlantic, whichever you prefer."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
