Conquer Club

The discussion started by GallantPellham.

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=173836

GallantPellham: "please have some sense of reality. and incidentally my English friend, if it wasn't for the dear ol' USA, you'd be goose steeping around Buckingham Palace.
Pay your 25 dollars US, and your damned opinion might have more validity.
God Bless John Wayne."

Japan dragged USA into WWII. If it wasn for. If it wasn't for. First of all what if no country did resist? What would the US economy been without Europe? GallantPellham uses a boomarang rhetoric that hits him right back. "Please have some sense of reality." The fact is that an allianse mainly consisting of England, France, Russia and USA defeated the nazi and facsist regime. Show me any other facts. It's no fact or sense of reality that USA defeated them alone. How lucky, GallantPellham, that the US could join Europe and Russia as you're not goose stepping around The White House.

in before the move...-el Jesus negro

[quote="lt. Futt"]The discussion started by GallantPellham.

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=173836


The fact is that an allianse mainly consisting of England, France, Russia and USA defeated the nazi and facsist regime. Show me any other facts. quote]

Don't forget Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Poland, The Netherlands, China and I am sure I am leaving out a few other nations that were part of the alliance. In the early stages of the war the most of the burden was carried by the British but later on the contribution of the USA overtook the British. But even before the USA entered the war, Roosevelt was very keen on supporting the British. It was just that the majority of the voters was opposing active involvement.

*****

Moved to OT.

I motion to create a Subforum called Dog Doo Doo. This thread should immediately be exported there.

aad0906 wrote:

lt. Futt wrote:The discussion started by GallantPellham.

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=173836


The fact is that an allianse mainly consisting of England, France, Russia and USA defeated the nazi and facsist regime. Show me any other facts. quote]

Don't forget Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Poland, The Netherlands, China and I am sure I am leaving out a few other nations that were part of the alliance. In the early stages of the war the most of the burden was carried by the British but later on the contribution of the USA overtook the British. But even before the USA entered the war, Roosevelt was very keen on supporting the British. It was just that the majority of the voters was opposing active involvement.

It ought to be known that Greece, another nation that was part of the alliance, achieved the Allies' first victory against the Axis, Italy. The Germans proved too strong for Greeks but this is what Hitler had to say about them :
"For reasons of historical necessity I have to admit that out of all the adversaries who have confronted us the Greeks fought with bold courage and highest disregard of death"-

Some historians maintain that if Hitler had not been forced to come to his ally's aid, Operation Barbarossa would have started earlier and the Whermacht would have reached Moscow before winter. Also, due to the heavy casualties they suffered at the battle of Crete, the Germans did not attempt another airbourne invasion.

History is written by the victor and is thus one-sided. Some may react to my theory, but I believe the US entered the war only when they realized that Germany was going to [i]lose[i], not win, on the eastern front.
After all, the last thing Roosevelt and Churchill wanted was a communist Europe...

Really? FDR was being quite the antagonist against Germany from the outbreak of the war in 1939/early 1940, by using Great Britain as a proxy, or directly aiding them with aerial reconnaissance for hunting German submarines. FDR wanted a war as soon as possible. It would guarantee him future elections, empower him greatly (since a war-time economy is conveniently required), "boost" the economy (by killing off about 500,000 previously unemployed), etc.

And that last embargo on Japan really gave the Japanese few options. IIRC, the US wasn't really open to negotiation either. So if diplomacy is closed, what do you expect will follow?

I fully agree with your assessment on Greece. They fought heroically, embarrassed Mussolini and they did cause a delay in Barbarossa and I believe that this was ultimately one of the main reasons why it failed (other reasons the Russian campaign failed was Hitlers obsession with Stalingrad, the overstretched (and vulnerable to partisan attacks) supply lines and the need to divert Luftwaffe resources to Northern Africa).

On the US entering the war, the US entered the war because they were attacked. If Japan hadn't attacked the US, US would not have entered the war when it did and maybe not at all. It was mainly Churchill who was worried about a communist Easter Europe.

I should have mentioned Yugoslavia as well...

aad0906 wrote:On the US entering the war, the US entered the war because they were attacked. If Japan hadn't attacked the US, US would not have entered the war when it did and maybe not at all.

Roosevelt was desperate for the US to enter the war. As BBS noted above, Roosevelt had been desperately trying to get Germany to declare war on the U.S. for years. When that didn't work, Roosevelt turned toward provoking the shorter-tempered Japanese. At the same time, Roosevelt refused to allow Jewish immigration to the U.S. from Europe, even though U.S. resident alien quotas were going unfilled at the time. Even some Jews who were already in the U.S. were shipped back to Europe once their visas expired.

“The question the President posed to me today was how we should maneuver them (Japan) into the position of firing the first shot.” - Secretary of War Stimson, June 1941

"All the President's efforts to cause the Germans to declare war on us failed; but the conditions we imposed upon Japan—to get out of China, for example—were so severe that we knew that nation could not accept them and would initiate hostilities against us." - Vice-Admiral Beatty, May 1958

FDR stole American citizen's gold too.

This is FDR's legacy, all 4 of his "president for life" terms

lt. Futt wrote:The discussion started by GallantPellham.

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=173836

GallantPellham: "please have some sense of reality. and incidentally my English friend, if it wasn't for the dear ol' USA, you'd be goose steeping around Buckingham Palace.
Pay your 25 dollars US, and your damned opinion might have more validity.
God Bless John Wayne."

Japan dragged USA into WWII. If it wasn for. If it wasn't for. First of all what if no country did resist? What would the US economy been without Europe? GallantPellham uses a boomarang rhetoric that hits him right back. "Please have some sense of reality." The fact is that an allianse mainly consisting of England, France, Russia and USA defeated the nazi and facsist regime. Show me any other facts. It's no fact or sense of reality that USA defeated them alone. How lucky, GallantPellham, that the US could join Europe and Russia as you're not goose stepping around The White House.

If we are talking about the war in Europe there is little doubt that the Red Army was chiefly responsible for defeating the Wermarcht,look up Stalingrad,and Kursk if you are sceptical.The US was principally responsible for the defeat of the IJA in the Pacific arena,not the Wermarcht in Europe.

The US opened new fronts in western North Africa in 42', Italy in 43' and Normandy in 44'.

I'm of the opinion that the Allies would have failed to overcome the Axis without US involvement.

Dorieus wrote:The US opened new fronts in western North Africa in 42', Italy in 43' and Normandy in 44'.

I'm of the opinion that the Allies would have failed to overcome the Axis without US involvement.

The US played a role in Europe but the war was won and lost in the East,I do not believe Germany would have defeated the USSR,with or without second third or fourth fronts..Just as Japan would not have defeated the US,with or without her Allies in that theatre.Obviously everything would have taken longer.
Also the new fronts you talk of were not opened by the US alone as you suggest,indeed nor were they even mostly US,eg 2 of 5 beaches at Normandy,equal to the British,who also carried the brunt of the North African campaigns.

chang50 wrote:

Dorieus wrote:The US opened new fronts in western North Africa in 42', Italy in 43' and Normandy in 44'.

I'm of the opinion that the Allies would have failed to overcome the Axis without US involvement.

The US played a role in Europe but the war was won and lost in the East,I do not believe Germany would have defeated the USSR,with or without second third or fourth fronts..Just as Japan would not have defeated the US,with or without her Allies in that theatre.Obviously everything would have taken longer.
Also the new fronts you talk of were not opened by the US alone as you suggest,indeed nor were they even mostly US,eg 2 of 5 beaches at Normandy,equal to the British,who also carried the brunt of the North African campaigns.

Then compare the sheer numbers involved in the eastern front with the entire western front and it's apparent the Nazi's had sent the lion's share of their army after the Soviet Union.

and were losing before d-day.

chang50 wrote:

lt. Futt wrote:The discussion started by GallantPellham.

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=173836

GallantPellham: "please have some sense of reality. and incidentally my English friend, if it wasn't for the dear ol' USA, you'd be goose steeping around Buckingham Palace.
Pay your 25 dollars US, and your damned opinion might have more validity.
God Bless John Wayne."

Japan dragged USA into WWII. If it wasn for. If it wasn't for. First of all what if no country did resist? What would the US economy been without Europe? GallantPellham uses a boomarang rhetoric that hits him right back. "Please have some sense of reality." The fact is that an allianse mainly consisting of England, France, Russia and USA defeated the nazi and facsist regime. Show me any other facts. It's no fact or sense of reality that USA defeated them alone. How lucky, GallantPellham, that the US could join Europe and Russia as you're not goose stepping around The White House.

If we are talking about the war in Europe there is little doubt that the Red Army was chiefly responsible for defeating the Wermarcht,look up Stalingrad,and Kursk if you are sceptical.The US was principally responsible for the defeat of the IJA in the Pacific arena,not the Wermarcht in Europe.

In my opinion the Soviet Union could never of achieved victory over Germany without the aid sent by the USA
Below is the list of "goodies" supplied to soviet Russia by USA - excluding personal presents from Winston on behalf of UK.

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

List from Wikipedia is somewhat skewed. I think that instead of "guns" it should be "artillery pieces". Also "machine guns" looks suspicious an probably includes machine guns of all types + submachine guns.

The list doesn't include "a little bit" sent by Great Britain. I don't have right now the full list of presents from Winston; (it is somwhere on a hard disc, but I cannot find it - I'll keep looking as time permit.), below is very incomplete summary of major supplies. You can du some mathematic.

"To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."

http://www.oilru.com/or/23/390/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

chang50 wrote:
If we are talking about the war in Europe there is little doubt that the Red Army was chiefly responsible for defeating the Wermarcht,look up Stalingrad,and Kursk if you are sceptical.The US was principally responsible for the defeat of the IJA in the Pacific arena,not the Wermarcht in Europe.

Strategic mistakes by the German high command were responsible for their defeat.
1. They attacked Russia too late, they couldn't have made it to Moscow before the harsh winter set in. Mainly because the Russian roads were terrible and turned into a quagmire in the October rains.
2. Once the front passed, brutal occupation forces including Einsatzgruppen arrived and started a reign of terror. This fueled resistance and partisanship.
3. The offensive could have continued once the frost set in and the roads were passable again. But in its overconfidence the German high command failed to provide it's troops with winter gear.
4. Turning the attention away from Moscow to Stalingrad for no rational reason. Stalingrad was not suitable for the German Blitzkrieg tactices. Instead they got bogged down in house-to-house combat against tenacious defenders. German panzers were useless in the rubble (the Luftwaffe pretty much bombed the city to rubble).
5. Leaving the flanks occupied by weak forces, transferring much of the Luftwaffe around Stalingrad to Northern Africa, failing to withdraw from Stalingrad in time
6. Horrible treatment of POW's caused some Russian troops to fight to the death rather than to surrender.
7. Hitlers obsession with mammoth tanks like the Maus & Elephant rather than faster and versatile medium weight tanks.

Of course Germany would have difficulty competing with the Russian industrial might but lets not forget that Russia received substantial American aid (design for the superior T-34 tank, supply of 1,000's of Studebaker trucks etc.)

GeneralRisk wrote:

chang50 wrote:

lt. Futt wrote:The discussion started by GallantPellham.

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=173836

GallantPellham: "please have some sense of reality. and incidentally my English friend, if it wasn't for the dear ol' USA, you'd be goose steeping around Buckingham Palace.
Pay your 25 dollars US, and your damned opinion might have more validity.
God Bless John Wayne."

Japan dragged USA into WWII. If it wasn for. If it wasn't for. First of all what if no country did resist? What would the US economy been without Europe? GallantPellham uses a boomarang rhetoric that hits him right back. "Please have some sense of reality." The fact is that an allianse mainly consisting of England, France, Russia and USA defeated the nazi and facsist regime. Show me any other facts. It's no fact or sense of reality that USA defeated them alone. How lucky, GallantPellham, that the US could join Europe and Russia as you're not goose stepping around The White House.

If we are talking about the war in Europe there is little doubt that the Red Army was chiefly responsible for defeating the Wermarcht,look up Stalingrad,and Kursk if you are sceptical.The US was principally responsible for the defeat of the IJA in the Pacific arena,not the Wermarcht in Europe.

In my opinion the Soviet Union could never of achieved victory over Germany without the aid sent by the USA
Below is the list of "goodies" supplied to soviet Russia by USA - excluding personal presents from Winston on behalf of UK.

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

List from Wikipedia is somewhat skewed. I think that instead of "guns" it should be "artillery pieces". Also "machine guns" looks suspicious an probably includes machine guns of all types + submachine guns.

The list doesn't include "a little bit" sent by Great Britain. I don't have right now the full list of presents from Winston; (it is somwhere on a hard disc, but I cannot find it - I'll keep looking as time permit.), below is very incomplete summary of major supplies. You can du some mathematic.

"To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."

http://www.oilru.com/or/23/390/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Good list. Most telling though is that two thirds of the soviets trucks were American made.

However it should be noted lend lease started only a few months before the Soviets first significant victories (and those deliveries were paid for in gold). So how much impact 3 months of supplies would have is unclear or even how many supplies were delivered in that time. If most of the deliveries started showing up after Soviet victories in Stalingrad and elsewhere, then lend lease just sped up Soviet victories.

Either way they were important but I'm not sure if they were win or lose important. To my thinking if the soviets were able to achieve victories before lend lease had much impact then they were able to accomplish victory on their own.

It would also be interesting to see how much production of each category the soviets put out each year. For instance the Soviets made something like 20,000 tanks a year. Maybe without lend lease they would only make 15000 a year and build more trucks. who knows?

aad0906 wrote:
Of course Germany would have difficulty competing with the Russian industrial might but lets not forget that Russia received substantial American aid (design for the superior T-34 tank, supply of 1,000's of Studebaker trucks etc.)

T-34 was not American designed. The suspension was of American design(originally used for a light tank, but copied for the t-34) but everything else was Soviet.

GeneralRisk wrote:

chang50 wrote:

lt. Futt wrote:The discussion started by GallantPellham.

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=173836

GallantPellham: "please have some sense of reality. and incidentally my English friend, if it wasn't for the dear ol' USA, you'd be goose steeping around Buckingham Palace.
Pay your 25 dollars US, and your damned opinion might have more validity.
God Bless John Wayne."

Japan dragged USA into WWII. If it wasn for. If it wasn't for. First of all what if no country did resist? What would the US economy been without Europe? GallantPellham uses a boomarang rhetoric that hits him right back. "Please have some sense of reality." The fact is that an allianse mainly consisting of England, France, Russia and USA defeated the nazi and facsist regime. Show me any other facts. It's no fact or sense of reality that USA defeated them alone. How lucky, GallantPellham, that the US could join Europe and Russia as you're not goose stepping around The White House.

If we are talking about the war in Europe there is little doubt that the Red Army was chiefly responsible for defeating the Wermarcht,look up Stalingrad,and Kursk if you are sceptical.The US was principally responsible for the defeat of the IJA in the Pacific arena,not the Wermarcht in Europe.

In my opinion the Soviet Union could never of achieved victory over Germany without the aid sent by the USA
Below is the list of "goodies" supplied to soviet Russia by USA - excluding personal presents from Winston on behalf of UK.

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

List from Wikipedia is somewhat skewed. I think that instead of "guns" it should be "artillery pieces". Also "machine guns" looks suspicious an probably includes machine guns of all types + submachine guns.

The list doesn't include "a little bit" sent by Great Britain. I don't have right now the full list of presents from Winston; (it is somwhere on a hard disc, but I cannot find it - I'll keep looking as time permit.), below is very incomplete summary of major supplies. You can du some mathematic.

"To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."

http://www.oilru.com/or/23/390/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

That's interesting. How much did the Soviet Union produce during the lend-lease deliveries? We need something to compare the above figures in order for them to be useful.

EDIT: BVP beat me to it.

There seems to be a strange reluctance by a couple of posters to give the USSR the lion's share of the credit for the defeat of Germany in WW2.Got me wondering if this might be a hangover from cold war times when the USSR was demonised in the west and in the US in particular.

chang50 wrote:There seems to be a strange reluctance by a couple of posters to give the USSR the lion's share of the credit for the defeat of Germany in WW2.Got me wondering if this might be a hangover from cold war times when the USSR was demonised in the west and in the US in particular.

The USSR does deserve a LOT of credit. They suffered and contributed a lot. But just like Germany, Russia was its own worst enemy. Capable officers were eliminated and initially the Russians deployed poor tactics (even the Fins kicked their ass in the winter war). I think the 3 largest powers needed each other.

chang50 wrote:There seems to be a strange reluctance by a couple of posters to give the USSR the lion's share of the credit for the defeat of Germany in WW2.Got me wondering if this might be a hangover from cold war times when the USSR was demonised in the west and in the US in particular.

True one way to look at it is the sheer quantity of troops involved in the eastern front. for instance in the battle of kursk, the soviets had nearly two million men, a little over 5 thousnad tanks, 25 thousand artilery peices and ~2700 aircraft. They were facing some 800 thousand Germans.

In comparison for the entire Normandy campaign there were 1.3 million western troops(from all western powers) facing some 300 thousand Germans.

The soviets sent more troops to Kursk than the Germans sent against the western allies at any point in time.

Throughout the war the Germans consistently sent the majority of their army against the Soviets, (in 1942 80% of their army was facing the Soviets). Meanwhile the Soviets matched the western allies troop contributions in terms of men, and by the end of the war had over 6 million men under arms (western forces had a little over 5 million, and were facing about 40% of the German army).

chang50 wrote:There seems to be a strange reluctance by a couple of posters to give the USSR the lion's share of the credit for the defeat of Germany in WW2.Got me wondering if this might be a hangover from cold war times when the USSR was demonised in the west and in the US in particular.

Aye, it's certainly a hangover. But mostly it's the idea that a certain country should be credited with the "win". In the UK, there's a fair amount of resentment about how long the USSR took to get involved too. And there's plenty of internal bitterness about appeasement.

The US and USSR never saw the horrors that the UK faced during the Blitz. The UK and the US never experienced the horrors the USSR felt on the Eastern front.

Wounds run deep, but there's little reason not to accept that the US did their part, and that it was a major part.

Symmetry wrote:

chang50 wrote:There seems to be a strange reluctance by a couple of posters to give the USSR the lion's share of the credit for the defeat of Germany in WW2.Got me wondering if this might be a hangover from cold war times when the USSR was demonised in the west and in the US in particular.

Aye, it's certainly a hangover. But mostly it's the idea that a certain country should be credited with the "win". In the UK, there's a fair amount of resentment about how long the USSR took to get involved too. And there's plenty of internal bitterness about appeasement.

The US and USSR never saw the horrors that the UK faced during the Blitz. The UK and the US never experienced the horrors the USSR felt on the Eastern front.

Wounds run deep, but there's little reason not to accept that the US did their part, and that it was a major part.

Plus,those of us who grew up watching Audie Murphy beating the Germans singlehanded,and films like 'The Longest Day',amongst others,never really got to know about the Eastern front until we were high school age and able to read about it ourselves if we wished.There was also a cultural shift towards making less sanitised,more realistic movies after the Cold War inspired crap of the 1950s and 60s.Enemy at the Gates is a good example.
Btw the USSR's involvement begins when it was attacked,are you suggesting there is resentment in the UK due to a feeling they should have attacked Germany first?I've never come across that argument before.