Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Hum Showtunes

[Hippikos]

It's pretty hard to deny the US was the big dog, the decisive factor, in determining the outcome of WW II. But, that said, if Britain owes us for our WW II efforts, we owe them for holding the line while we were ramping up, because the Nazis were after World domination, not just Europe.

In WW2 the US was an important factor, not a decisive. Without Russia, Germany would not have been defeated.

In 1917 it was pretty sure France wouldn't be defeated by the Germans and the Brits were doing better than expeced against the Turks. The US troops were more a moral boost than a strategic factor. Besides US never declared itself "allied" to Brittain and France, instead it called itself "associated". Canada, with less than 10% America’s population, lost more men and materials than the USA did. While US President Wilson did question the Treaty of Versailles, he never even tried to halt America from carpet-bagging Europe.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

In WW2 the US was an important factor, not a decisive.

Get the fuck out of here...you're dreaming. Russia was barely holding out, with supplies from the US, and a brutal winter. Had Normandy not been invaded, and the shit bombed out of Germany, Russia would have had to withdraw to Asia.

You can't be so naive as to think GB/Canada/Australia could have mounted D-Day or flattened the German industrial machine without the US.
Russia like the Brits, did a remarkable job of holding out until the calvary arrived, but defeat Germany without the US.....not a chance.

Canada, with less than 10% America’s population, lost more men and materials than the USA did.

Of course, because it had been dragging on for years, but when the US got there they wrapped up the war in what, 6 months?
We lost more to the Spanish Flu than we did to the Huns.
There's no bragging rights in losing men and materials, that's the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do.
You're not supposed to die for your country, you're supposed to kill for your country.

[lookout123]

bruce you're interfering with their right to view America as a lazy,arrogant, power grabbing nation that hasn't contributed much of anything important to the world.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by lookout123

bruce you're interfering with their right to view America as a lazy,arrogant, power grabbing nation that hasn't contributed much of anything important to the world.

If we only understood our role in the world! We're supposed to sit quietly in the corner and not come out until they need us (for disaster clean-up or if they need help with a bully) and THEN we can come out-with our guns, wallets and our hearts-open.

[Ibby]

I recently started getting AFN (Armed Forces Network), and the commercials are... awful, to say the least. To sum up some of them in one sentance...

"Drugs are bad."
"Fire can burn you."
"Cripples are people too."
"Don't be gay."

No kidding, I seriously have seen commercials telling you how bad it is to be gay.

[Hippikos]

Get the fuck out of here...you're dreaming. Russia was barely holding out, with supplies from the US, and a brutal winter. Had Normandy not been invaded, and the shit bombed out of Germany, Russia would have had to withdraw to Asia.

but when the US got there they wrapped up the war in what, 6 months?

Brucey and Brianna, instead of reading Superman comics, you really need to read more history books. Your patriotic ignorance is blatently obvious.

Now go back to the library, read some good WW1 and WW2 books and come back again. The war in Europe had already reached turning points before the American armies got involved. The Russians at Stalingrad and British at El Alamein for instance. Again the US was a major factor, but not a decisive one.

(for disaster clean-up or if they need help with a bully)

Like Iraq? Vietnam?

[Griff]

The Russians took the bulk of the casualties. Americans notoriously underestimate what the Soviets accomplished. That said a lot of Russia's losses were due to their own government wrecking their officer corp.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

The war in Europe had already reached turning points before the American armies got involved. The Russians at Stalingrad and British at El Alamein for instance. Again the US was a major factor, but not a decisive one.

Maybe your library, but in the real world, with real history, that's bullshit.

El Alamein was pivotal in opening the Suez supply route, right? What supplies? From Whom. Rubber? Oil? TEA? I suppose the Aussies would have stopped the Japs from putting a stop to that, huh? And those U-boats wouldn't have dared interrupt the tea supply?

Stalingrad stopped the Nazi march to the east, what, a thousand miles from Germany? With a little help from some minor player sending materials, by the way. I suppose you think the Russians could have pushed the Nazis all the way back to Berlin, had not the German High Command decided they better push the western front, because some minor player had entered the war, following Pearl Harbor? Yeah, right after England bombed the German industrial machine to ashes, without those B-17s, B-25s and B-29s.

The Russians and British Commonwealth, along with some smaller countries and even a handful of french, put up tremendous resistance. Often winning battles while at a great disadvantage. But even with our supplies, it would have dragged on like WW I, without either side capable of landing the knockout blow. At some time there might of even been a peace established by treaty, but the Nazis would not have been defeated...only stalemated.

That's discounting the Japs getting involved with Russia, India and the middle east, after swallowing Asia and Australia.

Here's a gift for you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

The war in Europe had already reached turning points before the American armies got involved.

That's what I said...

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Of course, because it had been dragging on for years, but when the US got there they wrapped up the war in what, 6 months?

We got into it late, so certainly not decisive. That's why we had no say in the horrendous Treaty of Versailles.

[capnhowdy]

You're not supposed to die for your country, you're supposed to kill for your country.

Very well put, Bruce. IMO that's a Hall of Famer!

[Trilby]

Hippikos---go fuck yourself. And don't call him Brucey.

My post doesn't have any claim to history--it's simply the way you wanking bed-wetting boys and girls see the USA.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Hippikos---go fuck yourself. And don't call him Brucey.

Well then Brianna, guess you've completely outargumented me here...

Stalingrad is usually hailed as the turningpoint of the Eastern theatre, but if the US hadnt stepped in.. best case, all of continental Europe, all of north africa, and part of west asia/east europe would be speaking German and have Hitler portraits on the wall.

War historian agreed on several turning points, such as Stalingrad and Midway in the battle in the Pacific. If Hitler could have concentrated on the Western Front only, most likely resulting in long lasting war and/or even peace talks resulting status quo. The German Army was only inches away from capturing Antwerp during the Ardennes battle, which could have resulted in another Dunquerque.

Yeah, right after England bombed the German industrial machine to ashes, without those B-17s, B-25s and B-29s.

As usual you, conveniently, forget the Lancasters. And the P51 would be a complete failure without the British Merlin motor.

Yes, without Land Lease, the US supplies, their troops, WW2 could not have been successful for the Allies in Europe and I have much respect for Generals like Eisenhower, Patton. But, without Russia, WW2 could also never have been successful for the Allies either. I believe that it was possible that with or without America, the wars still could’ve gone either way. I also believe that by bringing Japan into war against the Allies in WW2, that the US indeed just possibly might have done more harm than good to the British and their Allies.

That's discounting the Japs getting involved with Russia,

To my recollection Russia declared war on Japan only on Aug.8th, 1945? After Hiroshima?

We got into it late, so certainly not decisive. That's why we had no say in the horrendous Treaty of Versailles.

That didn't stop Teddy Roosevelt from carpet bagging Europe and finishing off Great Brittain as World Power.

[Elspode]

Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for conquered nations rebelling and seeking independence from the British?

[lookout123]

I also believe that by bringing Japan into war against the Allies in WW2, that the US indeed just possibly might have done more harm than good to the British and their Allies.

ok, now i have to ask. what history books do you garner your knowledge from? i want titles. my guess is that one of them starts with "What if"

Please explain precisely how the US brought Japan into WWII. That is like blaming the murder victim for making the murderer a criminal.

i don't know if you are genuinely ignorant or a troll, but let's get this straight - no one said that the US won either of the wars single handedly. BUT the US had more to do with the victories than you were apparently taught.

WWI - yep, we were late comers. Of course it ended shortly after we got there. I'm not sure if it would have ended so quickly if the US commanders had done as the Brits and French desired, though. They wanted US troops to climb into the trenches with them and serve as replacements in the war of attrition. US commanders correctly decided, that different tactics were more appropriate. stalemate broken.

WWII - The allies were holding the lines in most places. Well, at least after they decided that appeasement wasn't really that effective and maybe they should actually fight. US equipment did play a major part in holding those lines though. Japan attacks, US finally says isolationism hasn't really worked. We pull most of our young men out of the factories and farms, train them, and send them over. A big difference is that this was the birth of an american military that was trained with the mindset that their job was to kill people, blow shit up, and go home.

The brits and french were concerned with fighting without damaging buildings and disrupting cities. the americans figured that if blowing up one old building killed a bunch of guys named jerry and saved a bunch of guys named joe, then it was ok. and more importantly if blowing something up brought them one step closer to going home - it was a no brainer. they did it.

the americans believed overwhelming force and lots and lots and lots of metal would win the war. and they were right.

if the russians had made peace on the eastern front the war would have gone on much longer, but it still would have ended the same way. The german war machine was running at maximum capacity already. and their capacity diminished daily while their cities were pounded into rubble from air raids. The US still had plenty of room to grow.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

War historian agreed on several turning points, such as Stalingrad and Midway in the battle in the Pacific. If Hitler could have concentrated on the Western Front only, most likely resulting in long lasting war and/or even peace talks resulting status quo. The German Army was only inches away from capturing Antwerp during the Ardennes battle, which could have resulted in another Dunquerque.

If you consult historians, then you would know they agree, one of Hitlers biggest mistakes was pushing the Eastern Front before finishing off England. That would have forced us to stage, much further from france, and made the defense of Europe much easier for the Nazis.

As usual you, conveniently, forget the Lancasters. And the P51 would be a complete failure without the British Merlin motor.

No, you conveniently forget the Lancasters couldn't be built fast enough, even with Canadian help, and couldn't be defended on long sorties. That's why they flew at night. The Merlin was a wonderful engine but only one of the great engines we used in that war. There were a bunch of crucial projects the Brits had started, and in some cases got pretty far along, before handing them off to the US, because they didn't have the resources....or the time....to develop them.

Yes, without Land Lease, the US supplies, their troops, WW2 could not have been successful for the Allies in Europe and I have much respect for Generals like Eisenhower, Patton. But, without Russia, WW2 could also never have been successful for the Allies either. I believe that it was possible that with or without America, the wars still could’ve gone either way. I also believe that by bringing Japan into war against the Allies in WW2, that the US indeed just possibly might have done more harm than good to the British and their Allies.

That's lend-lease, not land-lease...probably a typo, but changes the meaning, considerably. We'll loan or rent it to you....pay us back....I'm waiting.

If you knew your history, you'd know that Germany, Italy, and Japan, were allies, even though we call them the axis, before Pearl Harbor dragged the US into the war. That is why the US declared war on the Nazis...because they were already allied with the Japs. Duh

To my recollection Russia declared war on Japan only on Aug.8th, 1945? After Hiroshima?

You're recollection is correct. But why didn't the Japs fuck with Russia that was beating up their allies, Germany and Italy? Do you think the US might have something to do with that?

That didn't stop Teddy Roosevelt from carpet bagging Europe and finishing off Great Brittain as World Power.

Since the Armistice was signed in November of 1918, and Teddy died in January of 1919, he must have been really, really fast.