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

[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.

[lookout123]

bruce, don't confuse this genius with facts.

[Hippikos]

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.

Well, nice to see you finally agree with me. Operation Barbarossa was a big mistake indeed, together with declaring war on the US, to the greate releave of FDR as the people of the US really didn't want to on war with Germany at all. Ask Joe Kennedy (father of JFK), US ambassador in the UK in the 1940’s.

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.

430 of the 7377 Lancasters were built in Canada, less than 10%. And because of only 156.000 sorties (of which 40.000 day missions), you conveniently forgot to mention them because they don't fit in your narrow patriotic world.
Re the P51; originally, the British ordered this design, whose fuselage was actually designed by one of the German designers responsible for the famous Me109 by the way, from the Americans. However, the American engines in the P51a series sold to the British greatly disappointed the Commonwealth Airforces. The P51 was relegated to ground attack roles where it continued to suffer. Despite protests by American Arms Contractors, the British experimented with placing the Rolls Royce engines in these bodies...the same family of engines already having proved themselves in the Spitfire series. The result was the salvation of the P51 series and literally of the Allied Daylight Strategic Bombing Offensive, without which the allies probably would not have won the war. BTW Chuck Yaeger preferred the Spitfire over the P51 saying that the more experienced and talented a pilot, the more he preferred the Spitfire over the Mustang.

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.

Yep land-lease, a typo. Pay back…on May 3rd, 2006, the British Treasury Minister, Ivan Lewis in a commons reply said "Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," The final payment will be £45 million (as reported by the BBC).

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

I do know my history, but do you know your history? Germany and Japan were never allies . Actually, there never was any "Axis Treaty/Pact". It never existed. It was simply a term coined supposedly by Mussolini referring to the unwritten bond of friendship between Berlin and Rome which happened to be on the same longitudinal axis geographically speaking.
In fact Hitler Hitler betrayed the Japanese with the ‘Nazi-Soviet Pact’, Japan offered to pull out of the Tripartite Pact if the Americans would stop interfering in asia. FDR, actually needing Japanese membership in such a pact, not only refused but actually stepped up provoking the Japanese instead. FDR knew that even the Tripartite Pact didn’t make Japan and Germany military allies, but he hoped that he could fool the American public with propaganda that it was. And he did. To this very day, most Americans accept the propagandic lie that Japan and Germany were military allies. But to the Japanese, who knew they weren’t allied to Germany, this was a surprise. They had hoped the pact would be a bargaining chip the Americans would accept.
Hitler declared war on the US (not the other way around) in the hope that Japan would declare war on Russia, which they didn’t because in fact they hated Hitler for what he did with Stalin.

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?

Yes, and China. Japan surrendered after Russia’s declaration of war, they couldn’t stand another front after being nuked.

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

My bad, of course it was Wilson.

PS: A lot of historians also agree that Hitler actually never intended to really invade England. If you have read "Mein Kampf" then you'll see that Russia always has been the ultimate goal. Hitler preferred peace with England, but Churchill never would have accepted that. He was obsessed with Hitler, which attitude has lead to the dominant position of Stalin in Europe.
Never the less the invasion of England might have lead to the invasion of Russia by Japan.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Well, nice to see you finally agree with me. Operation Barbarossa was a big mistake indeed,

No, I don't agree, neither do historians. The mistake was pushing the Eastern Front before defeating England.

430 of the 7377 Lancasters were built in Canada, less than 10%. And because of only 156.000 sorties (of which 40.000 day missions), you conveniently forgot to mention them because they don't fit in your narrow patriotic world.

40k day missions, of short runs or after the US made it safe to come out and play. 7377 lancasters and 156,000 sorties sounds pretty impressive? Try 1,893,565 sorties with 32,263 aircraft....now that's impressive......and effective. :p

Re the P51; originally, the British ordered this design, whose fuselage was actually designed by one of the German designers responsible for the famous Me109 by the way, from the Americans. However, the American engines in the P51a series sold to the British greatly disappointed the Commonwealth Airforces. The P51 was relegated to ground attack roles where it continued to suffer. Despite protests by American Arms Contractors, the British experimented with placing the Rolls Royce engines in these bodies...the same family of engines already having proved themselves in the Spitfire series. The result was the salvation of the P51 series and literally of the Allied Daylight Strategic Bombing Offensive, without which the allies probably would not have won the war. BTW Chuck Yaeger preferred the Spitfire over the P51 saying that the more experienced and talented a pilot, the more he preferred the Spitfire over the Mustang.

The Brits needed a fighter, why didn't they build one if they already had a fuselage design and an engine? Because they couldn't. They contracted to North American Aviation to build a long range fighter, which they did in 178 days. Not only quickly, but a superior fighter in every way, mostly because of it's wing design. The only shortcoming of the Mustang (that doesn't sound like a Brit name) was high altitude performance which was not specified in the contract and not anticipated by NA. Who was objecting to the engine swap? Why would we give a shit? Merlins were built by the Packard Motors Company of Detroit, Michigan.

Yep land-lease, a typo. Pay back…on May 3rd, 2006, the British Treasury Minister, Ivan Lewis in a commons reply said "Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," The final payment will be £45 million (as reported by the BBC).

60 years later.

I do know my history, but do you know your history? Germany and Japan were never allies . Actually, there never was any "Axis Treaty/Pact". It never existed. It was simply a term coined supposedly by Mussolini referring to the unwritten bond of friendship between Berlin and Rome which happened to be on the same longitudinal axis geographically speaking.

Yes, I know my history. Try reading up on the German-Japanese Agreement and the Anti-Comintern Pact, both of 1936.

In fact Hitler Hitler betrayed the Japanese with the ‘Nazi-Soviet Pact’, Japan offered to pull out of the Tripartite Pact if the Americans would stop interfering in asia.

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939. The Tripartite Pact, was an agreement signed in Berlin, Germany on September 27, 1940 by Saburo Kurusu of Imperial Japan, Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, and Galeazzo Ciano of Fascist Italy entering as an alliance. The Tripartite Pact was subsequently joined by Hungary on Nov 20, 1940, Romania on Nov 23, 1940, and Bulgaria Mar 1, 1941.

FDR, actually needing Japanese membership in such a pact, not only refused but actually stepped up provoking the Japanese instead. FDR knew that even the Tripartite Pact didn’t make Japan and Germany military allies, but he hoped that he could fool the American public with propaganda that it was. And he did. To this very day, most Americans accept the propagandic lie that Japan and Germany were military allies. But to the Japanese, who knew they weren’t allied to Germany, this was a surprise. They had hoped the pact would be a bargaining chip the Americans would accept.

I've already shown they were allies. As far as the American people being reluctant to go to war, absolutely. But once pissed off enough to do it, we did it like no one else could.

Hitler declared war on the US (not the other way around) in the hope that Japan would declare war on Russia, which they didn’t because in fact they hated Hitler for what he did with Stalin.

Hitler declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan & it's allies.

Yes, and China. Japan surrendered after Russia’s declaration of war, they couldn’t stand another front after being nuked.

Bwahahahahaha...The japs couldn't stand any front after they were nuked.

My bad, of course it was Wilson.

I'd love to know how Wilson, who stayed out of WW I as long as possible and suffered a debilitating stroke in 1919, brought down the British Empire?

[Hippikos]

No, I don't agree, neither do historians. The mistake was pushing the Eastern Front before defeating England.

Again, Hitler never intended to invade/defeat England. Russia has always been his main target.

40k day missions, of short runs or after the US made it safe to come out and play. 7377 lancasters and 156,000 sorties sounds pretty impressive? Try 1,893,565 sorties with 32,263 aircraft....now that's impressive......and effective.

Yanks always like to wave their willy, the correct number is 762,462 sorties over Europe combined by B17,24, 26, 25, A20, A26.

The Brits needed a fighter, why didn't they build one if they already had a fuselage design and an engine? Because they couldn't.

Ever heard of the Spitfire?

. Not only quickly, but a superior fighter in every way, mostly because of it's wing design.

Superior? Read Chuck Yeager comment in my message above…

The only shortcoming of the Mustang (that doesn't sound like a Brit name) was high altitude performance which was not specified in the contract and not anticipated by NA

Actually the high altitude was the P51 strong point. The British invented something called the “Universal Wing”. This permitted the same version of the Spitfire to change wings impressively quickly complete with differing armament to optimize performance at low, medium and high altitudes for operations against ground, naval, bomber or fighter opponents. The P51’s best performance was at high altitudes, at medium and especially low altitudes it was inferior to the Spitfires even without the “Universal Wings”.
The P51s were ideally suited to high level long range strategic bomber escorts. The Luftwaffe’s Fw190s had the firepower to deal with the heaviest Allied bombers, but their performance waned at higher altitudes. The Me109s excelled at high altitudes and could dogfight better with the P51s, but lacked the Fw190s firepower to bring down the heavy bombers. As long as the P51s were operating at high altitudes, they were at their best.

Who was objecting to the engine swap?

The American Arms Contractors who originally designed the flawed Allison engine.

Merlins were built by the Packard Motors Company of Detroit, Michigan.

In license of Rolls Royce Motors.

60 years later.

Better late then never and it produced UK’s poodle attitude with the US.

Yes, I know my history. Try reading up on the German-Japanese Agreement and the Anti-Comintern Pact, both of 1936.

It was NOT a military alliance in any sense of the word. All it did was promise member states to share information on Soviet-backed communist parties to try to contain the spread of communism. The only mention of military matters was that if one member state was attacked by the USSR, then the others promised to remain neutral. Which is like saying if someone hits you, I promise to watch and not help him.

The Tripartite Pact, was an agreement signed in Berlin, Germany on September 27, 1940 by Saburo Kurusu of Imperial Japan, Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, and Galeazzo Ciano of Fascist Italy entering as an alliance. The Tripartite Pact was subsequently joined by Hungary on Nov 20, 1940, Romania on Nov 23, 1940, and Bulgaria Mar 1, 1941.

Yeah Google can do a lot for you, Brucey, but understanding the real world behind all these pacts and treaties is an entirely different matter. Again, it is not a military alliance but a mutual defense pact instead. Germany hopes that this is the first step in finally getting Japan to sign a true military alliance with it, but Japan would never trust Hitler again after the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Japan did hope that this new pact would prevent Stalin from asian expansion. It also hoped that it would intimidate the Americans. The terms included promise of mutual aid if any one of the signatories were attacked by a power not already involved in the ‘European War’ or ‘China Incident’. This satisfied Japan’s desire not to risk war with Britain and was obviously directed at the USSR and the USA instead. Japan was permitted to occupy French Indo-china with a ‘policing force’ by the Vichy and thus cut some of the American aid to Chiang.

I've already shown they were allies. As far as the American people being reluctant to go to war, absolutely. But once pissed off enough to do it, we did it like no one else could.

No, you did not, you merely copied what Google found for you. Again, if you’ve actually would have read my message instead of only looking at it, you would have noticed that Japan offered to pull out of the Tripartite Act if the Americans stopped interfering with Asia and they never declared war on Russia. Nice ally…

Hitler declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan & it's allies

Contrary to you, FDR knew that Japan was not an official ally to Germany and therefore declared war to Germany/Italy seperately on Dec.11th, 1941, 3 days after declaring war on Japan. Know your history, Brucey.

Bwahahahahaha...The japs couldn't stand any front after they were nuked.

They could stand the fire bombings before Hiroshima got nuked and which infact killed much more people than these 2 nukes. For the Japanese life didn’t have any meaning, but the fact being invaded by the Russian (and eventually the Yanks) was enough to surrender, after the Emperor decided, because the Generals wanted to fight until the last man.

I'd love to know how Wilson, who stayed out of WW I as long as possible and suffered a debilitating stroke in 1919, brought down the British Empire?

The US stayed out of the war long enough to bring the UK on the brink of exhaustion therefore being totally dependent of the US. The Leage of the Nations was merely a police to limit the power of the British Empire. A stroke, yeah… that shows you that even a US President is a mortal, Brucey.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Again, Hitler never intended to invade/defeat England. Russia has always been his main target.

Then since he'd pushed them out of Europe, it wouldn't be a mistake to go against Russia.
But all the experts say it was a mistake to do that before defeating England.
So your information is bogus.

Yanks always like to wave their willy, the correct number is 762,462 sorties over Europe combined by B17,24, 26, 25, A20, A26.

Oh, I see, when you quote numbers for the Brits it's ok, but when I quote numbers it's willy waving.
Like I said, 23,363 aircraft flew 1,893,565 sorties against the Germans in Europe.

Ever heard of the Spitfire?

Superior? Read Chuck Yeager comment in my message above…
Actually the high altitude was the P51 strong point. The British invented something called the “Universal Wing”. This permitted the same version of the Spitfire to change wings impressively quickly complete with differing armament to optimize performance at low, medium and high altitudes for operations against ground, naval, bomber or fighter opponents. The P51’s best performance was at high altitudes, at medium and especially low altitudes it was inferior to the Spitfires even without the “Universal Wings”.
The P51s were ideally suited to high level long range strategic bomber escorts. The Luftwaffe’s Fw190s had the firepower to deal with the heaviest Allied bombers, but their performance waned at higher altitudes. The Me109s excelled at high altitudes and could dogfight better with the P51s, but lacked the Fw190s firepower to bring down the heavy bombers. As long as the P51s were operating at high altitudes, they were at their best.

If the Spitfire was so great, why didn't they just build more? Oh, that's right, they couldn't.
Hmmm, so why didn't they hire North American to build Spitfires? Because they needed something better.
If their wings were so good, why didn't they specify them for the Mustang? Because North American had a better design.
If they wanted the Mustang for high altitude, why didn't they specify that in the contract? Because it was an afterthought when their bombers got creamed.

The American Arms Contractors who originally designed the flawed Allison engine.

You keep saying "American Arms Contractors" when it was Allison Engines Company that built those engines. They really ought to sue your lying ass for slander because there was nothing flawed about those engines.
I can see it now....Rolls Royce vs Fred...in slander lawsuit.You do know Rolls owns Allison, right?
They did what they were supposed to do given the parameters of the contract. They weren't supposed to be high altitude escort fighters, it was only when the Brits realized they needed one, they stuck in the Merlin that had been designed to do high altitudes. Notice the Spitfire with their fancy wings wouldn't cut it.
Every fighter pilot has his/her favorite plane according to his/her style of flying. Yeager is no exception.[quote]
In license of Rolls Royce Motors.[/QUOTEYes under licence to Rolls, because they couldn't do it over there. They needed us.

Better late then never and it produced UK’s poodle attitude with the US.

My,my, you are confused...poodles are french, silly.

It was NOT a military alliance in any sense of the word. All it did was promise member states to share information on Soviet-backed communist parties to try to contain the spread of communism. The only mention of military matters was that if one member state was attacked by the USSR, then the others promised to remain neutral. Which is like saying if someone hits you, I promise to watch and not help him.
Yeah Google can do a lot for you, Brucey, but understanding the real world behind all these pacts and treaties is an entirely different matter. Again, it is not a military alliance but a mutual defense pact instead. Germany hopes that this is the first step in finally getting Japan to sign a true military alliance with it, but Japan would never trust Hitler again after the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Japan did hope that this new pact would prevent Stalin from asian expansion. It also hoped that it would intimidate the Americans. The terms included promise of mutual aid if any one of the signatories were attacked by a power not already involved in the ‘European War’ or ‘China Incident’. This satisfied Japan’s desire not to risk war with Britain and was obviously directed at the USSR and the USA instead. Japan was permitted to occupy French Indo-china with a ‘policing force’ by the Vichy and thus cut some of the American aid to Chiang.
No, you did not, you merely copied what Google found for you. Again, if you’ve actually would have read my message instead of only looking at it, you would have noticed that Japan offered to pull out of the Tripartite Act if the Americans stopped interfering with Asia and they never declared war on Russia. Nice ally…

I'm so impressed you know more than Hitler, Saburo Kurusu or the historians about the real intent of the "Axis" alliences.

Contrary to you, FDR knew that Japan was not an official ally to Germany and therefore declared war to Germany/Italy seperately on Dec.11th, 1941, 3 days after declaring war on Japan. Know your history, Brucey.

I know my history, Fredick, and unlike you I don't have to make it up as I go along.

They could stand the fire bombings before Hiroshima got nuked and which infact killed much more people than these 2 nukes. For the Japanese life didn’t have any meaning, but the fact being invaded by the Russian (and eventually the Yanks) was enough to surrender, after the Emperor decided, because the Generals wanted to fight until the last man.

No shit, Dick Tracy. That's what I said, they had no fronts except home. The Russians were the least of their worries....it didn't matter to them who invaded. Truman didn't want the Russians to invade japan, that's one reason he nuked 'em.

The US stayed out of the war long enough to bring the UK on the brink of exhaustion therefore being totally dependent of the US. The Leage of the Nations was merely a police to limit the power of the British Empire. A stroke, yeah… that shows you that even a US President is a mortal, Brucey.

Oh I see, England lost their Empire because we didn't bail their ass out soon enough, but we weren't important in WW I. Glad you 'splained that Lucy.
Oh, and the US did not belong to the League of Nations, Congress refused to ratify it.

Yes, US Presidents are mortal...your point is? You know, Fredick, you're a perfect example of why drugs shouldn't be legalized over here.

The bottom line is, the Russians were brave and clever fighters. The British were also brave and extremely innovative. But in the end they needed the United States because they didn't have the ways and means. No amount of condescending posturing by you or anyone else is going to rewrite that part of history.
I've proved it, the numbers prove it, history proves it. I'm done.

[capnhowdy]

Damn. Now that was a helluva discussion.

[JayMcGee]

The US shortened the war in Europe; of that there is no doubt.

However, oxocubes, your stance implies that the UK would have eventually succumbed to Nazi Germany without US intervention. My view is that the UK might well not have launched a credible invasion force, but would still have been able to defend the islands agaisnt a German invsasion.

Who knows, on the 'what if' scale, we'd probally still be fighting a geurilla war against Nazi Europe.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Jay, you may have been able to defend the Islands if the Russians kept the pressure on. But don't forget the Nazis were working on jets, guided missiles and nukes. It would have been messy, in any case the coulda, woulda, shoulda, game can be debated forever.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Lookout has rebutted one point, so I'll take the other:

The German Army was only inches away from capturing Antwerp during the Ardennes battle, which could have resulted in another Dunquerque.

This overstates the Wehrmacht's case: over eighty kilometers' distance and a major river is hardly "inches away from capturing." The Ardennes wasn't Anzio, after all. To get at Antwerp, they first would have to have forced the Meuse river -- and I don't recall mention in Bulge histories of German bridging equipment or tank fording gear. Then, they have to deal with the problem they never really did solve: that of having fuel enough to get that far, let alone enough to operate in Antwerp should they have gotten there. There's a large difference between reaching an objective and managing to hold it. Also, the bad weather of mid December '44 only held out so long, and by late '44, flyable weather meant the Germans had the choice of immobility or destruction.

No, what the Ardennes push actually did for the Germans was to help exhaust their sinews of war just that much more quickly that they ducked having Berlin blasted into trinitite by a paltry three months. Antwerp was never realistically in danger, and I don't think any but the most alarmist of the Allied military thought it was -- and I'm none too sure of them.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I think the P-51 actually had a better turning circle and roll rate than the Bf-109, which was famous for flying along "like it was on rails." The 109 somehow had a very considerable capacity to take on more and more powerful engines -- not bad for a basically 1930s design, and it really needed the extra power if loaded up with the heavy, draggy cannon packages they started using to attack bombers with. Every single-engined German fighter design struggled when loaded with extra cannons; they took quite a performance penalty, and cannon-laden fighters consequently avoided mixing it up with US escorts as much as possible. Cannon squadrons went after the bombers, while regularly-armed squadrons fought with the escort fighters.

[Hippikos]

Inches was meant metaphorically of course and hindsight is always 20/20. The situation was not easy rosy as you suggest. Standing the Meuse the German armor losses was little. Yes, it was fuel shortage that killed the offensive. On most of the narrow roads low gears had to be used resulting in high fuel usage. It also caused enormous road blockades. And if the Jagdtigers with 128 mm guns were deployed instead of being set idle near Aachen than the situation would be quite different.

Stimson called Marshall on Dec.27, 1944 fearing that the German Ardennes offensive could lead to more deployment of US divisions which decision may have been stopped by the US Congress if the German would have been victorious.

One of the alarmists perhaps was Churchill who called Stalin on Jan.6 to start the eastern frontoffensive earlier in order to keep the entire Sixth SS Panzer Army which Guderian wanted to deploy on the Western Front? Again proof that without Russia war would have been completely different.

Anwyays, no doubt Hitlers Ardennes offensive was highly risky depending on bad weather, fuel from the opponents and underestimating by the Allies. Fortunately Eisenhower dismissed the advise of his staff and immediately sent reinforces.

The Me109 would’ve been replaced by the more modern Heinkel high altitude fighters and Fock Wulf fighters by 1941 and although I doubt their similar short range would’ve won them the Battle of Britain(at least with the incompetent Goering and entourage in charge, it probably would’ve delayed Allied control over the skies of Europe and would’ve made a difference in Africa and definately the Russian front where liquid-cooled engines suffered more than air-cooled.

[Hippikos]

Oh, I see, when you quote numbers for the Brits it's ok, but when I quote numbers it's willy waving.
Like I said, 23,363 aircraft flew 1,893,565 sorties against the Germans in Europe.

Wrong again, confirmed by this website

Hmmm, so why didn't they hire North American to build Spitfires? Because they needed something better.

It's not the question of better, just different. But than again, that's the kind of discussion you like to have, based on silly willy waving emotion instead of facts. Not my kind of discussion, so I won't waste my time with you anymore, Brucey...

[Hippikos]

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

It's a common known fact that Stimson wanted war with Japan since the mid 30's and since 1940, FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”

Pearl Harbor was a surprise to many, not to FDR and Stimson.

f 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.

Knowing 80-90% of the American public being against participation of US soldiers Europe, I very much doubt that the US Congress would allow hundreds of thousands more casualties.

[Sundae]

I don't intend to re-open the argument, but I feel I need to redress the complete untruth I posted.

I admit I talked more to my Grandmother (now deceased) than my Grandfather, but I didn't realise how far their opinions differed As I'm at my parents' house I've had the opportunity to speak to him directly about the war.

According to Grandad (who couldn't fight due to kidney failure – even tried to sign up using his brother's papers) the war turned on the intervention of the US. According to him, they (the US) had more men, more money, more equipment and more food. He believes they are the only reason we managed to break the stalemate of trench warfare, and saved thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. He also believes the US lost more men on D Day than the British. Coming from a man who lived in East London – the part of London hardest hit by the Blitz because of the Docks – and who wanted to fight himself, it turns everything I thought of my Grandparents' generation on its head.

I stand by my assertion that it isn't a widespread belief in the UK that only the US saved us from speaking German, but I was wrong to suggest this was an inherited view.

Grandad salutes you.