View Poll Results: No polls allowed in the VV I'm afraid -Soren

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    52 52.53%
  • No

    38 38.38%
  • Maybe, Not sure.

    9 9.09%
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 172

Thread: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

  1. #81

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    After Midway? We won Midway. Cousins stick together like white on rice. Stalingrad wasn't real fighting in American standard, prob Russian standards. I'm talking like Battle of Bulge, Taking St. Loi *However you spell that.* Haven't seen Enemy of the Gates. Not 1 million deaths. Too much for one lousy city. All its importance was, was the fact it was STALINgrad.
    Got nothing...

  2. #82

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    [QUOTE=hellheaven1987;6424590]
    1. Nonsense; no one says Japan had to inform Germany every bit of their plan, but Japanese did not even provide the information to German that they were thinking attacking Allies.
    I would agree witht hat but they would had to say they were attacking USA. In this time USA was not even part of Allies.

    2. The non-aggressive pact was concluded after Hitler made a pact with Stalin. The pact was actually a shock reaction after Japanese learned Hitler made a pact with Stalin, and Japanese government felt "abandoned" by their German ally, hence Japanese hastly prepared a cease fire for fearing Soviet might attack them.
    I wouldnt say that was hardly a sock the Japanese wanted a pact with Soviet Union a long time before the Pact on Europe also the pact with Soviet Union was only sigined in 1941 not in 1939.
    They didnt "hastly prepared for a cease-fire".
    The pact was more consequence of Soviet-Japenese Border War not of German-Soviet non aggresion pact Japan was preparing to attack USA and expand South to British and other european colonies they wanted neutralaty towards Soviet Union but later when Germany invaded Soviet Union they denouce the pact and soviets aswell but it pretty much remain "alive" until the Invasion of Manchuko.


    [QUOTE=scheuch13;6426575]
    where are you getting your numbers from? The russians and british did not lose millions of men to the japanese. I will give it to the chinese they did their part and the brits to a smaller degree.
    Wikipedia. The Chinese did a BIG part they were figthing the Japanese since 37 they suffer the biggest wave of Japanese Attack not USA. Also they had milions of men and a country hard to conquer that kepp the Japanese pretty busy Tojo always saw the Chinese Theater as first second the Expansion to South and only in Third the Pacific War with USA is said that when he heard of Japanese Defeats and Disasters in Pacific he laugth. True story.
    The British or better the Commonwealth did big part on War in East. As I said they had 3 to 4 Milion men on duty during the war. India alone was one of country that contribute the most with 2,500,000 milion men! Australia and New Zeland did their part aswell fighing in same way like Americans.
    On South-East Asian Theatre the British Empire fougth singlehandly with Japanese in Singapore they had 85,000 men.And was in this battle were they had the worst military defeat in histroy of UK!
    So ya the East Theater was also crucial for British.



    we are talking about the war in the pacific not the war in europe. And America did most of the leg work in defeating Japan. I certainly hope your not going to suggest that the american part in the pacific campaign was little.
    Is same war World War Two.





    And lets not kid ourselves here, Banzai charges are all well and good... but unless you have as many men as the Russians then... it didnt really work out unless you had as many men as the Russains did... which the Japnaneese didn't, for example, on Iwo Jima some captain, led a banzai charge of over 1000 men, and let me assure you, those guys would have been more of a problem in bunkers rather than charging into your guns.
    In Pacific War they only used Banzai Charges in end of battle you mention Iwo Jima and is fine example Kuribayashi oposed during the whole battle to use anny Banzai Charge prefer the "Guerrilha Warfare" and is comptly wrigth regarless in end when supplies run low and bulets he himself lead the Banzai Charge.
    The Charge was pretty much out of desesperation comparble to the hara kiris. Only the fact that they try to take some of enemey with them out of honor. Sincerelly is probaly better dieng in Banzai Charge than in Starvation in Dark Cave.Staing in caves doesnt mean that you would make a lot of casualtities to the enemy in Iwo Jima Japanese were still in caves after 3 months! Withoud anny food or clean water and most of them died out of starvation ,disase etc. And not of Gun Figthing because americans simply "let them rout" and didnt attack them so in sense the banzai charge makes sense in weird way.
    Just note the Banzai Charge had some sucess mainly in Chinese Theater.

    And you mentioned the Japanese generals committing suicide because of honor a thing proving America's 'greatness'? I mean, I'm not sure which generals your talking about here, but if they were any good, they could have planned better defending strategies and such later in the war. I mean, don;t get me wrong the Japanese were fearsome opponents, but some of there tactics and traditions were... damaging to there war effort.
    This comptly untrue the fact that they lack "defending stategies" just see Okinawa or Iwo Jima was pretty good defensing strategies for me. As for offensive just see Battle of Singapore where 36,000 Japanese Defeated 85,000 Briiths marking the worst military defeat in history of Britain.
    As for sucides they quite comom in Japan sadly after Japan surrender is said that thousands killed themselfs then saing their country occupied and defeated mainly hard line military and politicians.
    Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the ignominious fall of Singapore to the Japanese the "worst disaster" and "largest capitulation" in British history.
    And you mentioned the nuke, I think the president/generals only authorized the nuke because he thought millions of Americans would die (Might be an exaggeration, don't have the exact quote at this time).
    And to prove that nuke actualy worked and to prove to the Soviets to stay way from Japan and that America isnt afraid of using such destrutive weapon.

    In my opinion the only main reason the Americans won (There were others as well but this is the main one in my opinion) was that they were a economic powerhouse.... while the Japanese... were not.
    In generaly yes but you forget the fact that Japan fougth various opponets aswell not only USA so they had a almost impossible mission to achivie victory. Previous to the invasion of Soviet Union Japan still had milions of men to figth and hard country with milions and milions of volunters from kids to women to men young and old. But when moderated politicians mainly the Emepror saw that Soviet Union migth invaded them and actualy won even with great casualaties(not a probelm for Uncle Stalin) and Japan would suffer greatly with such occupation and together with nukes bombings convince them to surrender but hard lines still try a coupt to stop it.


    [QUOTE=pericles_plato;6428543]
    After Midway? We won Midway. Cousins stick together like white on rice. Stalingrad wasn't real fighting in American standard, prob Russian standards. I'm talking like Battle of Bulge, Taking St. Loi *However you spell that.* Haven't seen Enemy of the Gates. Not 1 million deaths. Too much for one lousy city. All its importance was, was the fact it was STALINgrad.
    Stalingrad was one bloody battles in history you should give the men that fougth there credit was house to house battle with milions of men on both sides. Marked the beggining of German Defeats on Europe tougth generaly I think Kurks was a lot more important. Soviet Union realy did the greatest suport to the Allied War Effort withoud it I doubt that Germany would lost or Japan for that matter Soviets contribute to the east aswell mainly in Sino-Japanese War and with Invasion of Mancuko were in days they crushed the one of best armies of Japan! Japan had 22,780 in Iwo Jima correct?
    They had
    1,217,000 men, in Manchuko together with more thousands troops of Vassal States.
    Wich is more larger? I guess American Standards dont rise as up as "prob Russian standards"
    Last edited by RomanSoldier9001; December 10, 2009 at 08:28 PM.

  3. #83

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by pericles_plato View Post
    After Midway? We won Midway. Cousins stick together like white on rice. Stalingrad wasn't real fighting in American standard, prob Russian standards. I'm talking like Battle of Bulge, Taking St. Loi *However you spell that.* Haven't seen Enemy of the Gates. Not 1 million deaths. Too much for one lousy city. All its importance was, was the fact it was STALINgrad.
    One of the most ignorant things I've ever read in my life.....Can you tell me in any way how the Battle of the Bulge was more significant and deadly than Stalingrad?

  4. #84
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by scheuch13 View Post
    gee lets see, put 100,000+ men on a tiny island usually only a few miles wide/long where one side is entrenched so deeply that they have tunnels throughout the whole island which means that soldiers need to dig the enemy out of every single hole one at a time.

    Right, sounds like a pushover.
    America conducted D-Day style landings dozens of times over in the pacific, and the fighting was much much worse.

    Just on okinawa alone the japanese suffered 110,000 killed and the americans suffered 90,000 casualties.
    Ya right, and one Okinawa make you guys proud?? We fought 300,000 Japanese on one city...

    Quote Originally Posted by pericles_plato View Post
    Believe me the Americans against 2 mil Japs, the American would win. Americans had more anger and more spirit to fight the Japanese. "Unleashed a sleeping giant" A Japanese Admiral or General said this. If he said this it ment that the Americans would come after the Japanese with everything they got. We did and we killed them. Americans were just better than the Japanese. No doubt in anyone's mind that the Japs would have lost. We did't have to do a land invasion or nuke them to beat them. That is how bad we had the Japanese. Stuck on Japan and China with no navy and no whre to go. If we had no nuke we would've just done regular bombing 24/7. A few years or months later Japanese would surrender. The loss of their navy shows that the Japanese were going to in fact loose. BTW Hellheaven it was something awesome because the Japanese fought to the death. Two generals did suicide because of honor. We basically had the Japanes pinned down like a wrestling match.
    Now, you just point out how China was important on land.
    Last edited by hellheaven1987; December 10, 2009 at 08:37 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  5. #85

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by RomanSoldier9001 View Post

    The Chinese did a BIG part they were figthing the Japanese since 37 they suffer the biggest wave of Japanese Attack not USA. Also they had milions of men and a country hard to conquer that kepp the Japanese pretty busy Tojo always saw the Chinese Theater as first second the Expansion to South and only in Third the Pacific War with USA is said that when he heard of Japanese Defeats and Disasters in Pacific he laugth. True story.
    Yes i know about the chinese campaign. I draw the line at getting massively annihilated by an enemy and simply being a drain on their resources using guerilla tactics and actively defeating them. Thats like saying that the polish and french contributed greatly to hitlers demise by throwing themselves in front of german bullets depriving them of that ammunition to use later against the brits/americans. While some of the other allies might have defended their territory against japanese expansion and were sometimes successful, the Americans did the majority of actually pushing japan back to its home islands. Were the brits/aussies/chinese helpful in blunting some of japans expansion...yes. But thats about as far as you can go on the subject of defeating japan.



    Is same war World War Two.
    we were talking about the contributions to defeating japan. And you started talking about the russians and how americans were not needed to defeat hitler. The russian dead at stalingrad had no impact on the pacific theater.

  6. #86

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    Ya right, and one Okinawa make you guys proud?? We fought 300,000 Japanese on one city...
    who is we? Please do not compare the invasion of china to the viciousness of the fighting during the island hoping campaigns. Fighting against well prepared defenses on tiny islands where there is no room to maneuver and you have to go into straight frontal attacks is a big difference then fighting on continents where you can retreat. The japs had 200,000 soldiers defending just the Philippines themselves, let alone the rest of the pacific.

    If you do not understand that Okinawa was some of the worst fighting in the entire war ( both pacific and european ) then you do not understand the conflict.

    America defeated japans ability to project power, then we dug them out of their territory they had conquered, then we bombed them to submission. You do not win wars by fighting a purely defensive campaign. If that were the case then china would get my props.
    Last edited by Gelgoog; December 10, 2009 at 08:55 PM.

  7. #87

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by scheuch13 View Post
    Yes i know about the chinese campaign. I draw the line at getting massively annihilated by an enemy and simply being a drain on their resources using guerilla tactics and actively defeating them. Thats like saying that the polish and french contributed greatly to hitlers demise by throwing themselves in front of german bullets depriving them of that ammunition to use later against the brits/americans. While some of the other allies might have defended their territory against japanese expansion and were sometimes successful, the Americans did the majority of actually pushing japan back to its home islands. Were the brits/aussies/chinese helpful in blunting some of japans expansion...yes. But thats about as far as you can go on the subject of defeating japan.
    Except that statistically, the Chinese were actually not just throwing themselves at bullets but inflicting some serious casualties on the Japanese forces:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ese_casualties

    The Japanese recorded around 1.1 to 1.9 million military casualties (which include killed, wounded and missing).
    They likely saved hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheuch13 View Post
    who is we? Please do not compare the invasion of china to the viciousness of the fighting during the island hoping campaigns. Fighting against well prepared defenses on tiny islands where there is no room to maneuver and you have to go into straight frontal attacks is a big difference then fighting on continents where you can retreat.
    You forget that the US Navy was always around to shell the hell out of the Japanese on said island...For the US, although quite frustrating to take island after island, the stubborn Japanese resistance was always simply a delay of the inevitable.
    Last edited by Applesmack; December 10, 2009 at 08:51 PM.

  8. #88
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by RomanSoldier9001 View Post
    I wouldnt say that was hardly a sock the Japanese wanted a pact with Soviet Union a long time before the Pact on Europe also the pact with Soviet Union was only sigined in 1941 not in 1939.
    1. It was a shock, and I actually have source for that.

    2. The pact was starting negotiating around 1939, and signed in 1941.

    Quote Originally Posted by RomanSoldier9001 View Post
    The British or better the Commonwealth did big part on War in East. As I said they had 3 to 4 Milion men on duty during the war. India alone was one of country that contribute the most with 2,500,000 milion men! Australia and New Zeland did their part aswell fighing in same way like Americans.
    On South-East Asian Theatre the British Empire fougth singlehandly with Japanese in Singapore they had 85,000 men.And was in this battle were they had the worst military defeat in histroy of UK!
    Well, British... Allies in Burma had even more strange relation than Allies in France...

    1941

    British: (robbing American aid to Chinese)

    Chinese: What the heck?? That is my supply!!

    American: Ya, that is the supply I give to Chinese!!! Damned you British!! Return that supply to Chinese!!

    British: Hell, it is a waste to give those supply to Chinese; I can use them in better way!!!

    Chinese: off, I would quit Allies if you don't return those supplies!!! You guys play around with two millions angry Japanese alone!!

    American: Ya, you barbarious British, return those supply to Chinese now!!

    British: Fine!! (only return half of original supplies)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1944

    American: Hey China, why don't you attack Burma with X force that I equip??

    Chinese: Well, X force is not even in full strength yet.

    American: I don't care, I don't want to see my effort lose in vain.

    Chinese: No way, you are bleeding my men's blood, not yours.

    (General Stilwell attacked Burma without noticing Chiang Kai-Shei)

    American: Ha, so my expecting campaign finally begins!!!

    Chinese: , is Stilwell a barbarian?? Start a campaign using my men without even tell us?? Such a barbarian general would be fired!!

    American: No no, I would make him the head of Chinese army instead fire him.

    Chinese: Are you ing serious?? You ask a foreign general who lack any basic manner and discipline to lead my armed force?? I demand immediately replacement.

    (British suddenly jump in)

    British: Ya, I side with Chinese this time; Stilwell is a ing who lacks any proper manner and discipline, I request he been replaced immediately (in the back of note, British wrote "Godsh, only American, who does not know the way of gentlemen, that has such a undiscipline general").

    American: Fine, I would fire him then...

    Quote Originally Posted by RomanSoldier9001 View Post
    In Pacific War they only used Banzai Charges in end of battle you mention Iwo Jima and is fine example Kuribayashi oposed during the whole battle to use anny Banzai Charge prefer the "Guerrilha Warfare" and is comptly wrigth regarless in end when supplies run low and bulets he himself lead the Banzai Charge.
    The Charge was pretty much out of desesperation comparble to the hara kiris. Only the fact that they try to take some of enemey with them out of honor. Sincerelly is probaly better dieng in Banzai Charge than in Starvation in Dark Cave.Staing in caves doesnt mean that you would make a lot of casualtities to the enemy in Iwo Jima Japanese were still in caves after 3 months! Withoud anny food or clean water and most of them died out of starvation ,disase etc. And not of Gun Figthing because americans simply "let them rout" and didnt attack them so in sense the banzai charge makes sense in weird way.
    Just note the Banzai Charge had some sucess mainly in Chinese Theater.
    I highly believe Banzai Charge was something Chinese forced Japanese to adopt. A detailed study of Second Sino-Japanese War suggests that most battles were fought in bayonet charge, mostly Chinese charged first (due to lack of ammo; in 1941 the average rifle ammo for each soldier was six rounds, including parctice). It seems that due to this constant close-quarter combat Japanese also adopted a more aggressive bayonet assault, which appeared in Malaya campaign and later on, Burma.
    Last edited by hellheaven1987; December 10, 2009 at 09:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  9. #89

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Total Fanatic :) View Post

    They likely saved hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
    Actual that would be disputable. One thing the japanese never hurt for was a lack of soldiers. Even if said troops did not die in china, its doubtful they japanese logistics could have supported my troop on the island campaigns. They could barely feed and supply the ones they had already thanks to the strangle hold the American submarine force put on japanese supply lanes. Having 10 billion troops does not mean you can put 10 billion troops anywhere you want them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Total Fanatic :) View Post
    You forget that the US Navy was always around to shell the hell out of the Japanese on said island...For the US, although quite frustrating to take island after island, the stubborn Japanese resistance was always simply a delay of the inevitable.
    as was proved in many of the island campaigns, the japanese were dug in so deeply that even fire for 16 inch naval guns could not hurt them. One would think that 3-10 days worth of shelling would kill everything on the island but not so much. The problem with the island hoping campaigns is you rarely saw the japanese. If you don't know where they are, you can't coordinate fire. You could litereally blow up on bunker, and the japs would just move to the next one. You would think your taking ground only to find that your getting shot from the rear because of tunnels you did not see.

    It wasn't until after the battle of the Marinas that Japans defeat was clear. Even then invading Japan itself was risky. The japanese were stalling for a good reason. They hoped that with enough dead Americans they could sue for favorable peace terms. Their defense of Japan was to ensure this. Had it not been for the atomic bomb, it would have probably taken another year to defeat japan.

    Operation downfall was about 10x the scale that normandy was, just to put things into perspective. Even with a combine American, Russian, British invasion of Japan, it would have still likely cost 3-5 million more lives.

  10. #90

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by scheuch13 View Post
    Actual that would be disputable. One thing the japanese never hurt for was a lack of soldiers. Even if said troops did not die in china, its doubtful they japanese logistics could have supported my troop on the island campaigns. They could barely feed and supply the ones they had already thanks to the strangle hold the American submarine force put on japanese supply lanes. Having 10 billion troops does not mean you can put 10 billion troops anywhere you want them.
    The Japanese were certainly able to supply them in China so I don't see a reason why they can't be placed on islands (BTW, there were much more than troops in China than those killed). Supplying is not possible after the US navy surrounds an island anyway but the resistance can be severe as shown in many battles like Okinawa. More Japanese troops would make landings very difficult and far more bloody.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheuch13 View Post
    as was proved in many of the island campaigns, the japanese were dug in so deeply that even fire for 16 inch naval guns could not hurt them. One would think that 3-10 days worth of shelling would kill everything on the island but not so much. The problem with the island hoping campaigns is you rarely saw the japanese. If you don't know where they are, you can't coordinate fire. You could litereally blow up on bunker, and the japs would just move to the next one. You would think your taking ground only to find that your getting shot from the rear because of tunnels you did not see.

    It wasn't until after the battle of the Marinas that Japans defeat was clear. Even then invading Japan itself was risky. The japanese were stalling for a good reason. They hoped that with enough dead Americans they could sue for favorable peace terms. Their defense of Japan was to ensure this. Had it not been for the atomic bomb, it would have probably taken another year to defeat japan.
    I see. Well anyway, it's simply a delay of the inevitable. I wonder why the US didn't just starve Japanese troops to death on some islands by blockading them. Probably cause it would take too long. I definitely need to get myself a good book on the Pacific war.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheuch13 View Post
    Operation downfall was about 10x the scale that normandy was, just to put things into perspective. Even with a combine American, Russian, British invasion of Japan, it would have still likely cost 3-5 million more lives.
    Can you provide a source for that....?

  11. #91

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Total Fanatic :) View Post
    The Japanese were certainly able to supply them in China so I don't see a reason why they can't be placed on islands (BTW, there were much more than troops in China than those killed). Supplying is not possible after the US navy surrounds an island anyway but the resistance can be severe as shown in many battles like Okinawa. More Japanese troops would make landings very difficult and far more bloody.
    A) because you can only stuff so many men onto an island
    B) We had destroyed their shipping lanes almost completely
    C) The japanese were reaching starvation levels on alot of the islands were invaded before we even got there in some cases.
    D) again supplies, the japanese almost already ran out of munitions before being defeated during the island campaigns. Japanese troops were extremely undersupplied in comparison to american troops. I heard somewhere that for each japanese soldier they have 100lbs of supplies where as for every american soldier they have 2 tons. Japanese troops were giving just a pitiful amount of supplies. This can even be seen in some of their campaigns like in burma and singapore, where their commanders based their strategy of capturing supplies, often resulting in starvation. In burma it got so bad that the japanese even cannibalized some of their POWs and eachother.




    I see. Well anyway, it's simply a delay of the inevitable. I wonder why the US didn't just starve Japanese troops to death on some islands by blockading them. Probably cause it would take too long. I definitely need to get myself a good book on the Pacific war.
    we did. In fact we ended up by passing a huge chunk of the islands because they were cut off and we did not need them. The islands we took was so we could establish operating bases to strike at japan itself. Alot of the islands the japanese simply starved to death waiting for the americans to attack.


    Quote Originally Posted by Total Fanatic :) View Post
    Can you provide a source for that....?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

    The japanese had 900,000 men defending just Kyushu in well defended positions, it would have been a bloodbath of epic proportions. Just the kamikaze threat alone would have made the landings a nightmare.
    Last edited by Gelgoog; December 10, 2009 at 09:43 PM.

  12. #92

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    I have to generally agree with Scheuch on this one. The US was primarily responsible for destroying the Japanese navy and naval supply routes. The US was also responsible for destruction of Japanese production ability on their Home Islands. Although Japan's primary focus might not have been the war with America, it is still where their defeat was sealed. The brunt of the Japanese army might have been fighting China and Britain/India, but that didn't mean anything when their navy was gone, they were out of supplies, and their cities were burning. The other Allies had significant contributions, but the US was the decisive factor-without the US (and assuming the USSR doesn't get involved) it probably would've taken years longer for Japan to be defeated. After Hitler's defeat the British (esp navy and air force) combined with Indian and Chinese armies could've driven the Japanese back, destroyed their navy, and bombed their islands. But it would've taken years-like it did for America. And I see that I've got onto the inverse of the original question...

  13. #93

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stark of Winterfell View Post
    I have to generally agree with Scheuch on this one. The US was primarily responsible for destroying the Japanese navy and naval supply routes. The US was also responsible for destruction of Japanese production ability on their Home Islands. Although Japan's primary focus might not have been the war with America, it is still where their defeat was sealed. The brunt of the Japanese army might have been fighting China and Britain/India, but that didn't mean anything when their navy was gone, they were out of supplies, and their cities were burning. The other Allies had significant contributions, but the US was the decisive factor-without the US (and assuming the USSR doesn't get involved) it probably would've taken years longer for Japan to be defeated. After Hitler's defeat the British (esp navy and air force) combined with Indian and Chinese armies could've driven the Japanese back, destroyed their navy, and bombed their islands. But it would've taken years-like it did for America. And I see that I've got onto the inverse of the original question...
    see thats an interesting thought. I am not even sure if Japan could have been defeated without the US. At least not in the sense that they could be forced to surrender. The british did not have the logistics or fleet to fight japans navy. The russians had no fleet practically and could not invade the home islands. China was very weak, and fighting a civil war with itself, so even if they pushed japan out of manchuria, they would not have done much else. There is really no way for the allies to knock japan out of the fight without the US.

  14. #94
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by scheuch13 View Post
    see thats an interesting thought. I am not even sure if Japan could have been defeated without the US. At least not in the sense that they could be forced to surrender. The british did not have the logistics or fleet to fight japans navy. The russians had no fleet practically and could not invade the home islands. China was very weak, and fighting a civil war with itself, so even if they pushed japan out of manchuria, they would not have done much else. There is really no way for the allies to knock japan out of the fight without the US.
    And there is no way Allies can knock out Japan without Chinese; British is optional.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  15. #95

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    And there is no way Allies can knock out Japan without Chinese; British is optional.
    Again I do not see where China is the linchpin of the pacific war. Yes it soaked up alot of japanese resources, but as I have already explained, freeing up those resources does not mean they would have exponentially increased the difficulty of the american island hopping campaign. One thing japan had plenty of was manpower. Logistics win wars, and you can not simply say that 300,000 dead japs in china would mean 300,000 more japs defending okinawa for instance. The japanese had plenty of time to shore up the islands before the americans arrived, and they put as many troops there as they could hold. It gets to the point that pushing more soldiers simply becomes a drain on effectiveness.

    The destruction of the japanese supply fleet was so total, that the american submarine force had difficulty finding targets, they eventually had to start sinking coastal shipping and even then they did too good of a job. The japanese might have had a good navy, but they did not protect their shipping lanes like the US did in the atlantic. Ships operating without convoys or protection meant the doom for japan.

  16. #96

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Total Fanatic :) View Post
    One of the most ignorant things I've ever read in my life.....Can you tell me in any way how the Battle of the Bulge was more significant and deadly than Stalingrad?
    I meant like how it was fought. Shoot Stalingrad was crazy. When i said real fighting i was more talking more on the lines of open war fighting not house by house. Street fighting bad. Stalingrad was an important battle. But not what i ment for "real fighting" more on the line of "crazy fighting" was Stalingrad. Over 1 million Russians died. Way too much for real fighting. "Real Fighting" i also meant not over 1 mill people die in the shootout or takeover of a city.
    Got nothing...

  17. #97

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by scheuch13 View Post
    see thats an interesting thought. I am not even sure if Japan could have been defeated without the US. At least not in the sense that they could be forced to surrender. The british did not have the logistics or fleet to fight japans navy. The russians had no fleet practically and could not invade the home islands. China was very weak, and fighting a civil war with itself, so even if they pushed japan out of manchuria, they would not have done much else. There is really no way for the allies to knock japan out of the fight without the US.
    Heavy air bombings by USSR and Britain might do the trick. Destroying Japanese infrustructure and pushing IJA out of areas with oil might make their fleet useless.

  18. #98
    No, that isn't a banana
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,216

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Volh Vseslavich View Post
    Heavy air bombings by USSR and Britain might do the trick. Destroying Japanese infrustructure and pushing IJA out of areas with oil might make their fleet useless.
    Leveling Germany didn't work, and leveling Japan until August 1945 didn't help either...1940-era strategic bombing campaigns do not win wars.

  19. #99

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    But in Japan's case, destroying supply convoys and bombing their cities had thoroughly reduced their ability to make armaments such as new aircraft. You couldn't bomb them into surrender but you could cripple their war effort.

  20. #100
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: If the Americans never joined the fight against Hitler, would the Alliess still beat the Nazis?

    Quote Originally Posted by pericles_plato View Post
    Believe me the Americans against 2 mil Japs, the American would win. Americans had more anger and more spirit to fight the Japanese. "Unleashed a sleeping giant" A Japanese Admiral or General said this. If he said this it ment that the Americans would come after the Japanese with everything they got. We did and we killed them. Americans were just better than the Japanese. No doubt in anyone's mind that the Japs would have lost. We did't have to do a land invasion or nuke them to beat them. That is how bad we had the Japanese. Stuck on Japan and China with no navy and no whre to go. If we had no nuke we would've just done regular bombing 24/7. A few years or months later Japanese would surrender. The loss of their navy shows that the Japanese were going to in fact loose. BTW Hellheaven it was something awesome because the Japanese fought to the death. Two generals did suicide because of honor. We basically had the Japanes pinned down like a wrestling match.
    *sigh* Wrong, as usual. At least you're consistently wrong though. The Japanese Admiral who said that, Yamamoto was the same who conducted Pearl Harbour and he warned that Japan could not defeat the US and UK. As for the Americans being "just better" than the Japanese, are you trying to say they're inherently superior just because their American? And please, spare us the fighting spirit rubbish, the Japanese had plenty of élan, perhaps more so than the Americans because they never showed an unwillingness to die. The US beat Japan because US production outstripped Japan on every level, not to mention Japan had to fight several enemies on widely seperated fronts and that the US was more than twice as populous as Japan. Oh, and Japan was a resource scarce chain of islands crammed with humans, the US is a continent wide nation comprising nearly 10 million Kilometers and possessing an abundant amount of resources. I'd say Japan's record is much more impressive given the disparity in strength between the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by pericles_plato View Post
    Don't forget Australian and Brits as well. Without them we would have lost bud. God Bless the Brits i always say. Quote is something like this, "I can not look a parent in the face knowing i sent them to their children into Japan". Good quote, as of you don't have exact one but it's on the same lines.
    We didn't need USSR. USSR could have sipped the vodka eating popcorn watching us cousins do some real fighting. One thing i have pride beside American, is British. You our are cousins.
    That quote you provided is utterly incomprehensible. And your callous insult to the Russians, watching us do some "real fighting." They certainly did their fair share of fighting. Much more desperate and bloody than anywhere else in the World. The Russians lost 25 million plus of their citizens fighting in WWII, the US and UK combined got barely 1 million, and you say the Allies did all the "real fighting?" What a joke. Sorry everyone is not as fortunate as the United States, and can bravely and heroically hide behind two oceans and build up strength undisturbed and then "whip everybody." I thought you said you were reading books now and not watching Hollywood? It doesn't seem that way to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by pericles_plato View Post
    After Midway? We won Midway. Cousins stick together like white on rice. Stalingrad wasn't real fighting in American standard, prob Russian standards. I'm talking like Battle of Bulge, Taking St. Loi *However you spell that.* Haven't seen Enemy of the Gates. Not 1 million deaths. Too much for one lousy city. All its importance was, was the fact it was STALINgrad.
    Why do you insist on referring to the British and Americans as cousins? Yes, they were rather close, but they also had several differences, in the Middle-East especially, and in dealing with Russia. And the importance of Stalingrad was not simply the name Stalin, though that was certainly important. It was the gateway to the Caucasus, if the Germans held it, they could sweep south and take the Russian Oilfields and therefore badly damage them. The Germans indeed did penetrate quite far to the South, seizing the oilfields at Maikop and almost made it to Grozny. See this map. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...to_1942-11.png
    Last edited by Lord Claremorris; December 11, 2009 at 08:32 AM.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •