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

[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.

[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.

[Ibby]

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. Worst case, most of if not all of the WORLD (maybe not Russia or the US (since we just said they stayed out)) would be under German or Japanese control.

F'serious.

[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.

[Undertoad]

SG, thank you for remembering the thread and talking to him. I salute him, and you, right back.

It's more important than ever, because although Iraq has been a mess and there is such anti-US sentiment, there may come a time when we need to work together again to do the heavy lifting.

Because you know France won't do it...!