Yes
No
Maybe, Not sure.
I might add they also kinda wasted their subs too - a protracted anti-tonnage attempt in the Indian ocean in conjunction with the Germans might have had some serious negative impact on allied shipping and plans.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
I don't know if you could call the Japanese subs wasted, at least early in the war. Their subs finished off one US carrier, sank another, and damaged other carriers and battleships. Of course, that wasn't nearly enough but it made the situation precarious for the US until the Essex class carriers began to roll off the production line.
You're very welcome. I'm glad I could present such facts to you. We are all here to teach, and to learn, after all.
Well, Britain, and to a lesser extent the US, had learned through hard experience. Remember the British had no convoy system until the Germans started sinking their merchant ships with U-boats in WWI. It took many painful lessons and huge losses to figure out how to effectively combat underseas commerce raiding. Japan had been completely spared that experience.
Last edited by Lord Claremorris; December 14, 2009 at 07:50 AM.
"Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."
According to churchill 52.53% of the yes voters are wrong.The US kept the allies afloat before entering. Australia was almost cut off from the world by japan. now then pacific secured, what's to say japan looks back west again towards russia and india? what's canada going to do with out the US merchant marines? britain would be stuck on their island shouting at canada and india for more soldiers, who was britain going to ask for equipment? USSR ?!Q?!?"To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."
- Prime Minister Winston Churchill (after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor)
well the yes answer was to be expected right everyone here is from england or any other euro-country. get your heads out of the mud.
I think a lot of Brits and Euro's did vote no. We are not all as blindly nationalistic as you are. By the way, your quote doesn't really back up your argument. It just says that after the US joined victory was guaranteed, it doesn't say that before the US joined there was no chance. Before you say anything, I voted no. US supplies kept us in the war and thats that. Whether or not we could have done it without US man power, I don't know.well the yes answer was to be expected right everyone here is from england or any other euro-country. get your heads out of the mud.
Last edited by Azog 150; January 10, 2010 at 05:15 PM.
Under the Patronage of Jom!
you merely voted the right way, also calling me nationalistic when you're the one constantly arguing for the british side and have 'british etc.' on your sig and avatar is pretty weird and ironic
furthermore, to your outrageous claim (by twisting the semantics of the sentence around) that the allies had a chance. well I'll look to Churchill again on his opinion on the matter. He made a speech about defending Britain to the death, right? who makes this speech if one is supposedly on a winning streak? the speech was about the possible invasion of your island, what 'chance' of victory is that haha. take a damn look to the past, Germany was kicking the crap out of anything in it's path, so was japan, I don't think Churchill would've seen any victory out of that, just peace on terms favorable to Germany.
American support in the war was vital in defeating the Japanese, but their support in the fight against Germany was for most of the war nothing special. Only after the attack on Sicily did the Americans contribute actively to the European theatre, but even here they were not very good fighters and part of a large group of (soon to be) nations joining Britain. American industry powered the assault on Germany from 1944-1945 but that did not make them 100% certain vital to German defeat.
Basically of all Allied nations, the US was the least direct enemy of any of the Axis nations. Even the Japanese primary objectives of conquest did not involve the US, they just happened to be a very annoying presence in East Asia via the Philippines and their navy in Hawaii.
Originally Posted by Seneca
Exactly. On being congratulated on making it to Berlin Stalin just snorted out "Alexander made it to Paris." The Russians wanted more, as their support for the Communists in France and Italy showed.
Also, how many of these blooming threads do we need? It seems like I argue the same old points over and over.....
"Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."
by late ww2 there was almost as many German divisions in the west as there were in the east, American bombers (along with britain's) pounded German cities and factories to dust, we opened several fronts against the germans in Europe who were wholly on the defensive throughout the campaign, we contributed much manpower for the allies in many areas (remember the quote of a German tank commander? our panzers destroyed Shermans 9/10 times, but there was always a tenth). the US contribution cannot be downplayed in anyway unless that person just graduated from kindergarden lol amirite?.. aaaannndd
your last sentence:
FFFFFFFF-Even the Japanese primary objectives of conquest did not involve the US, they just happened to be a very annoying presence in East Asia via the Philippines and their navy in Hawaii.
Last edited by Boyar Son; January 11, 2010 at 11:54 AM.
Japan only was really interested in China at first. Once the US cut off their oil they became interested in Southeast Asia. They viewed the US as a powerful enemy who should be mauled early in hopes that they would realize that intervention wasn't worth the cost. Of course, it turned out that they were horribly wrong and the US didn't sign for peace after Pearl Harbor. It's similar to the situation of Britain with Germany-Hitler didn't want a war with Britain, and when he got one he wanted to end it early, but Britain refused to give up, causing him all sorts of problems.
What was wrong with what he said. The whole point of Japan hitting USA and UK in 1941 was to get us out of the way for the war with China. America being in control of the Philippines and British Empire controlling what is now Malaysia and Singapore was a hinderence to the oil rich areas of Indonesia.
Japan's plan was a quick hit at the two nations and get a favourable peace deal (a year at war at most) which they could get all the oil they needed from the Dutch East Indies and continue their war with China unopposed by the allies.
The interesting assumption is that Germany could absolutly defeat the USSR and Great Britain.
Before the US joined Germany had achieved Blitz Kreig victories over France and the Belilux countries and in the East as well. However despite the difficulties neither side was imploding and the Germans were begining to see difficulties of their own. Whether there would have been an ultimate absolute defeat of Nazi Germany or a similar situation as to what had happened with Napoleon of a series of peaces and wars is another guess.
If the British did not have the US as a direct Ally it does not mean that it would fall directly as the most important thing is that Britain was probably in the best possition to change and negociate a peace which could have been accepted by the Germans without loosing its nation and later outbrakes of war could still have occured. The entry of the US to the European theater brought potentially decisive resources but did not bring the war to an end in Europe until 1945 or in the Pacific until 1946. The Soviets despite difficulties could still have held their own on a front against the Germans any way, even with peace to the West the Germans would still have chosen to garrison France and North Africa.
I believe that even if the UK had not managed to gain more than North Africa back which Montgomery had nearly done when operation tourch had begun and the War in Burma going well despite issolation. The USSR would have been able to get the Germans pinned back to their eastern borders.
Financially the UK would probably have not been any less well off then when the US joined as it was already being aided financially before the US joined, however the Normandy Landings would have only happened once the USSR had managed to get the Germans on the run and would have not been so large.
The final result of the Second World War was the colapse of British Finance and Imperial capabilities which were still marshaled and voluntarily given up in many instances. The Creation of USA and USSR as the greatest super powers of their day. The refocusing of Japan as a technological leader as this is where they were allowed to focus.
An interesting question would have been if the US had not joined would they be the dominant super power they are now? Another would Britain through staying power and attrician have still been a Super power today and would Communism have gone to the Borders of France?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Yea except we stopped being this nuisance right around coral sea and midway when the japs realized they have an even stronger enemy to face (remember that quote 'sleeping giant'?). your sentence refers to what the japs were thinking right around pearl harbor, right after the pearl harbor attack and US retaliation the japs put in much effort to stop the US. example being guadalcanal. simply put there were many soldiers in china because, crassly, china is big country with a big population.
His highness, þeþurn I, Keng of Savomyr!
^^Nope. Lend lease was where the US supplies actual finished products, along with a smaller amount of monetary loans. Russia had plenty of raw materials along with factories with which to use these raw materials. The USA's lend lease mainly supplies transports, trains (Again, for transporting goods and supplies), Spam and other such things. It was certainly a very big help to the USSR, but not absolutely crucial
By the way,I have noticed people linking the US lend lease with the Battle of Britain. Lend lease didn't start until March 1941- 6 months after the Battle of Britain ended. Canadian and Newfoundland Lend Lease was actually much more vital during the battle.
Last edited by Azog 150; January 26, 2010 at 02:46 PM.
Under the Patronage of Jom!
Very difficult question to answer without someone taking offense.
I don't know. Let's imagine there is no D-Day and North Africa stays in the hands of the Axis. Can Russia face the full blunt force of the Entire Axis Warmachine almost alone???
I don't know. I don't think they could, but who knows really.
Owned by LORD RAHL Centurion of the Legion of Rahl
Corporal's Corps bdh, Ironbrig4, The Thracian, Mudd, Maron, Happyho
RIP Corporal Gogian and Officer Atherly, your brothers will remember
Why would North Africa remain in Axis hands? By the time the Anglo-American force had arrived in North Africa, the war there was practically won. It was just a mopping up operation from El Alamein onwards. Chances are North Africa would still have been liberated, and Britain and Commonwealth may have been able to launch a Sicilian and Italian campaign. I agree that D-Day would not have been possible though.
As I said earlier, I believe that without US boots on the ground that North Africa, Italy and then possibly Greece and Norway would be saved from a Soviet 'liberation' by British and Commonwealth forces, and that the war would have gone on longer and been even more bloody. Western Germany, France and probably Spain would have fallen to the USSR as well.
Anyway, like you said, who knows? Lets just be thankful the US did get involved.
Under the Patronage of Jom!
I always thought America's involvement was to stop soviet expansion into western Europe.
'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '
-Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)
Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.