Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:52 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 95):
Even when all of the early results had been called in they refused to believe it was their torpedo.

Epsecially in the light of what should have been considered as well documented experiences. Just one captain reporting the oddities, well who knows what you might think in a sub, but after they got report after report and all saying the same range of things. A hanging offense if ever there was one.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 95):
And the Japanese had no cargo ship construction at all and once the Americans got there act together it was all over.

That was why the US sub campaign was totally different from any that Germany could wage. Unlike Harris and his area bombing, submarine interdiction in the Pacific really could and did cripple Japan. And when you look at the torp problem, did it in very short order indeed.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 95):
I am not up to speed on the UK's help with the Sub war in the Pacific. Did they deploy many subs to that region? I will have to surf and look that one up when I get the chance. I know of the Surface forces that they contributed to the Pacific war but have never read anything on the sub war for them.



Quoting GDB (Reply 96):
The RN submarines of WW2 have been largely over-looked it seems, the most famous being the midget vessels of the X-Craft and similar, due to the sorts of unconventional operations they carried out.

As Jan writes, they were kept out of the Pac by the extraordinarily territorial commands - more obvious for the US but no doubt the British were at the same game. The aim seemed to be first outmaneuver the Brits and then attack the Japanese. Which was a pity because the UK subs were probably better suited to the shallow waters around Indonesia and less suited to the Indian Ocean where they mainly operated. The Fremantle basing of the UK subs was critical because of range limitations and occurred later than was desirable although this could have been in part because of the confusion that followed the loss of Singapore.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 98):
American troops as "Dugout Dough"

I think that should be Doug - I would not point it out except that Dough is a word for the material from which you make bread.

To follow the effects of Dugout Doug, reference should perhaps be made to the Koitaki speech of Gen Blamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_Campaign

After a campaign notable mainly for the lack of an appearance by either MacArthur or Blamey anywhere near the front, Blamey addressed a force that had fought what is now recognised as a major fighting retreat from Kokoda to Imita Ridge, near the start of the Kokoda Track outside Port Moresby, where they were supported by an artillery battery of 25 pounders and the Japanese advance was halted. What then followed could have seen Australia lose a general:
On 22 October, after the relief of the 21st Brigade by the 25th Infantry Brigade, Blamey visited the remnants of Maroubra Force at Koitaki camp, near Port Moresby. While Rowell had allowed Potts to return to his brigade, Herring, who was unfamiliar with Potts, preferred to have Brigadier Ivan Dougherty, an officer Herring was familiar with from his time in command of Northern Territory Force.

Blamey relieved Potts of his command, citing Potts' failure to hold back the Japanese, despite commanding "superior forces" and, despite explicit orders to the contrary, Potts' failure to launch an offensive to re-take Kokoda. Blamey explained that Prime Minister John Curtin had told him to say that failures like Kokoda would not be tolerated. Blamey replaced Potts with Brigadier Ivan Dougherty, who was to command the 21st Infantry Brigade until the end of the war, while Potts went to the 23rd Infantry Brigade.

Later, Blamey addressed the men of the 21st Infantry Brigade on a parade ground. Maroubra Force expected congratulations for their efforts in holding back the Japanese. However, instead of praising them, Blamey told the brigade that they had been "beaten" by inferior forces, and that "no soldier should be afraid to die". "Remember," Blamey was reported as saying, "it's the rabbit who runs who gets shot, not the man holding the gun."

There was a wave of murmurs and restlessness among the soldiers. Officers and senior NCOs managed to quiet the soldiers and many later said that Blamey was lucky to escape with his life. Later that day, during a march-past parade, many disobeyed the "eyes right" order.

In a later letter to his wife, an enraged Brigadier Potts swore to "fry his [Blamey's] soul in the afterlife" over this incident. According to witnesses, when Blamey subsequently visited Australian wounded in the camp hospital, inmates nibbled lettuce, while wrinkling their noses and whispering "run, rabbit, run" (the chorus of a popular song during the war).[25]


One of the more spectacularly dumb episodes of WWII. For a brief account of some of Blamey's other peccadilloes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Blamey

Surprising the number 80 is not more famous!
 
GDB
Posts: 13936
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have W

Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:36 pm

Dear oh dear CALTECH, yes, in 1982 we had just had a serious defeat in Europe, were still in a shooting war with a enemy superpower, was alone after the only allied nation we had on our side was out of the war, a major threat to our sea communications existed, we were about to engage in a major military campaign, with all three services, in the Mid East and Mediterranean, including against another enemy power now joining an alliance with the main one, of course we could defend the Falklands. I remember it well.

Oh wait, 42 years and rather different circumstances-like being at peace in 1982, separate the two events you are trying to link, to prove some irrelevant point of pedantry.
Presumably some Roy Rodgers/John Wayne worldview you may have, is rather ruined by the UK not being directly saved by the USA in 1940.
Dear oh dear, very odd.

(I wait also to see official use of the odd term, from Germans in war films it seems, anywhere.
A map, that seemingly mysterious object for you, is a good place to start).
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:48 pm

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but a few things.

-Even had Pearl Harbor not happened, I still believe the U.S. would have eventually been drawn into the European war, and Hitler still would have been defeated. It's possible the Cold War would have had an entirely different look to it, but to say what that would have been is simply unknowable.

-Eventually, Japan and the U.S, being the two biggest kids on the block in the Pacific, would have had to fight to determine who was King of The Hill, so to speak. It may have not happened for several years, but it would have happened. Japan's thirst for conquest in that days, in my mind, guaranteed an inevitable clash.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:17 am



Quoting CALTECH (Reply 99):
Sort of like the statement made by a australian that Americans did not liberate Belgium, which was where the Battle of the Bulge did take place.

It sometimes feels as if you are basing your view of history on what the movies show, CALTECH. In fact, the task of liberating Belgium and Holland (and capturing the vital port of Antwerp so that supplies could be built up for the Rhine Crossing) was almost entirely carried out by the British 21st. Army Group. In addition, the turning-point of the Battle of the Bulge was the counter-attack at Dinant by the British 30 Corps, who attacked the point of the Bulge, stopped the German advance, broke their line, and forced them to retreat. During the subsequent task of finally pushing the Germans back again, US forces on the north side of the Bulge were placed under the command of the British General Montgomery; while those on the south side remained under General Bradley's command.

The invasion of Europe was very much a 'joint venture' between US and British/Commonwealth forces. Both sides put in roughly equal numbers of men, both had an awful lot of fighting to do, and both eventually succeeded.


Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 102):
Even had Pearl Harbor not happened, I still believe the U.S. would have eventually been drawn into the European war, and Hitler still would have been defeated.

That's what a lot of people feel, Falcon84 - but it's difficult to see how, in the absence of an all-out attack like Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt could have persuaded Congress to enter another world war? I think it's more likley that he would have continued LendLease to both Britain and Russia.

Even then, though, The Commonwealth would still have won at Alamein in late 1942, and the Russians would still have won at Stalingrad in early 1943. And the RAF bombing offensive would still have flattened the German cities.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:03 am



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 103):
That's what a lot of people feel, Falcon84 - but it's difficult to see how, in the absence of an all-out attack like Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt could have persuaded Congress to enter another world war?

He wouldn't have had to, NAV. The Japanese would have eventually attacked the U.S. in some fashion. It was inevitable.

As for your assertion that The Bulge was won almost exclusively by the British, the Bulge was the bloodiest battle in the war for U.S. forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge

It's a bit of a disservice to the many Americans who died in that last push by the Nazi's to say they didn't have a large part in it.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:24 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 104):
As for your assertion that The Bulge was won almost exclusively by the British,

Not what I said, Falcon?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 103):
The invasion of Europe was very much a 'joint venture' between US and British/Commonwealth forces.

I was reacting to CALTECH's apparent assumption that US forces were the only ones around - and 'liberated' Belgium. From the earliest days in Normandy, it made sense for the British to look after the left of the line and the Americans to concentrate on the right, linking up with Patton advancing from the south.

For that matter, with hindsight, the 'Bulge' should possibly have been rather more foreseeable, since the German strategy of attacking the junction of two opposing Allied armies had been used many times in the past. They'd tried to do the same thing to the British and French at Ypres in 1914 and on the Somme in 1918, and they actually succeeded in doing it in 1940; it was history repeating itself.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have W

Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:14 am



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 103):
In fact, the task of liberating Belgium and Holland (and capturing the vital port of Antwerp so that supplies could be built up for the Rhine Crossing) was almost entirely carried out by the British 21st. Army Group.

Forgive my sensitivities here Nav, but there was a hell of a big Canadian contingent in that group, and there's lots of folks in Belgium and Holland who think that Canada liberated them -- well before the Battle of the Bulge.

And CALTECH -- no one wants to minimize the critical US contribution to the European Theatre, but we really are tired of hearing how you guys did it all. I know a lot of that BS comes from Hollywood, but it stings. Coincidentally, I just watched (for the umpteenth time) The Longest Day -- and it still burns that Canada, with its very own beach to conquer (successfully I might add) gets no mention whatsoever in that epic.

So when the fur starts flying over who - in WW2 terms - had the bigger dick -- the Brits or the Yanks -- we get really PO'd.

Great thread, though -- I always learn a lot from you guys.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:26 am



Quoting Arrow (Reply 106):
Forgive my sensitivities here Nav, but there was a hell of a big Canadian contingent in that group, and there's lots of folks in Belgium and Holland who think that Canada liberated them -- well before the Battle of the Bulge.

Pleased to say that that point was covered early on, Arrow.  Smile

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 14):
In point of fact, as to the D-Day landings, two out of every six soldiers who landed on 6th. June 1944 were American; three were British; and one was Canadian. It was August 1944 before more US forces than British/Commonwealth ones were 'in contact with the enemy' in France and Italy.

"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:10 am



Quoting Arrow (Reply 106):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 103):
In fact, the task of liberating Belgium and Holland (and capturing the vital port of Antwerp so that supplies could be built up for the Rhine Crossing) was almost entirely carried out by the British 21st. Army Group.

Forgive my sensitivities here Nav, but there was a hell of a big Canadian contingent in that group, and there's lots of folks in Belgium and Holland who think that Canada liberated them -- well before the Battle of the Bulge.

Not only all that including "losing your beach" but the Canadians also got the short straw of being the main units involved in clearing up the Channel ports and then got an even worse task to try to cut off the escape of retreating forces to Walcheren and points N. Worse yet, that should have been an action that was largely not needed had the British pushed on just a few miles beyond Antwerp to cut off the base of Beveland - it probably boils down to not all the costs of the unsuccessful grab for Arnhem were at Arnhem. Some were in (not) taking the land to the NW of Antwerp.

Still and all Arrow, you can read Chester Wilmot (now where did he come from?) in his Struggle for Europe as he does remember the Canadians. Mind you, even in that book, the clearance of the Channel ports does not get the coverage that the ferocity of the fighting deserved. But Walcheren gets a solid coverage.

On a personal when I was on field trip to Walcheren in 2003, it was difficult to find traces of the 1944 battles even though the RAF used some very large bombs on the dykes, but one of the breaches caused by the 1953 floods has been left pretty much as the sea wanted. In contests with nature .....!

On the matter of the liberation of Belgium, this started when someone roasted (unreasonably as well as partly incorrectly) a Belgian a.net member for not grovelling at a sufficient level in gratitude at liberation from the Nazi yoke by the US. I remarked that this suggestion might cause Joe Vandaleur (and all of XXX Corps) a certain amount of angst. Note that the Meuse-Escaut bridge was called Joe's bridge. The American thrust was level with XXX corp but to the S. The Ardennes battles have little to do with the liberation of Belgium, but a bit to do with the re-liberation of parts of it after they had been lost during the early stages of the Ardennes battles.

Footnote since this is a.net. Chester Wilmot died very sadly before he could write all that he would have written about WWII in one of the Comet crashes.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:10 pm



Quoting Arrow (Reply 106):
And CALTECH -- no one wants to minimize the critical US contribution to the European Theatre, but we really are tired of hearing how you guys did it all.

There are still certain factions in the U.S. who pretend the war didn't exist before December 7, 1941. Unfortunately, they're dead wrong. While there is no doubt that the war turned on that day, and when Hitler declared war on the U.S., too many Americans still don't give enough credit to the British, the French Resistance, the Soviet Union, and the peoples of Europe who fought the Nazi's even while they were occupied by them.

I've maintained for a long time that, IMHO, the key to the war being won in Europe was the USSR surviving the onslaught of Germany in 1941 and 1942. In less than a month, Germany had over-run territory twice the size of their homeland; in one engagement, the USSR lost 750,000 men captured, and the Germans got to within sight of Moscow. Yet the Soviets never gave up, and, thanks to them, the Western Allies were able to eventually invade France in 1944. Had the Soviet Union collapses, the Cold war may not have taken place, but Europe may have been dominated by the Nazi's for quite a while.

The U.S. had a large, large part in winning the war. But we didn't do it by ourselves, nor should anyone in this nation push such an absurd idea.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:29 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 109):
The U.S. had a large, large part in winning the war. But we didn't do it by ourselves, nor should anyone in this nation push such an absurd idea.

Excellent post Falcon84. In spite of plenty of disagreements, Germany was defeated by the allies. Probably in the long run, the US could have defeated Germany by itself but luckily for everyone, it did not come to that, because it would have been a long run without the "unsinkable aircraft carrier". In % terms, the award has to go to the Russians. But then again, would they have survived the 1941 assault if it had been delivered when Hitler wanted and not a critical 2 months late due to Churchill's "folly" in Greece?

So let us stick to what happened as does Falcon as opposed to the mightabeens.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:53 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 110):
Excellent post Falcon84.

Yes indeed!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 110):
In % terms, the award has to go to the Russians. But then again, would they have survived the 1941 assault if it had been delivered when Hitler wanted and not a critical 2 months late due to Churchill's "folly" in Greece?

My own feeling is that Hitler would eventually have lost, or been assassinated. From the outset, he based his strategy (as did the Japanese) on the belief that the 'soft' democracies would make peace rather than face the colossal human (and financial) costs of fighting to a finish. So he continually over-reached himself, while also neglecting to equip his forces with modern weapons (especially heavy bombers).

Agree with you about Greece - except that the 'schwerpunkt' was arguably Crete. One thing the Germans were among the first to develop was an airborne division - the 'Fallschirmjaegers.' Typically, Hitler committed the whole of it (8,000 men) to the invasion of Crete, with the specific task of capturing Maleme airfield and its vicinity so that further waves of reinforcements could be flown in, rather than landed from the sea in the teeth of the Royal Navy.

In terms of the Commonwealth, at this point New Zealand must 'take a bow.' Two Kiwi brigades were the largest single force occupying Crete, and they were defending the airfield in question. The German paratroopers, arriving in 'penny packets' because the aeroplanes used could only carry about 8 men at a time, had almost 4,000 killed.

The result of that was, typically, that Hitler abandoned the idea of airborne forces for good:-

"The Fuhrer congratulated the Airborne warriors on accomplishing a vital task by the only method possible in the circumstances. This was encouraging talk for Student. Already his Airborne Corps was nearly back up to strength The many casualties had been replaced, equipment losses made good. He had ambitious plans for further operations In the Mediterranean against Cyprus, Egypt, and Malta. But after lunch, over coffee, Hitler shattered his hopes.

"Turning to Student, the Fuhrer said quietly: "Of course, General you know that after Crete we shall never do another Airborne operation. The parachute arm is one that relies entirely on surprise. That surprise factor has now exhausted itself...the day of the Paratroops is over".


That, plus the heavy losses of transport aircraft, must have severely hampered the attack on Russia. As the same article says:-

"Although the assault on Crete had finally proved to be a success the losses were high, not only to the Fallschirmtruppe (3764 German soldiers killed) but to transport aircraft, which would be desperately missed in future operations in Russia, so they were never again used in an airborne operation of this size."

http://www.explorecrete.com/preveli/battle-of-crete.html
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
windy95
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:43 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 110):
In % terms, the award has to go to the Russians. But then again, would they have survived the 1941 assault if it had been delivered when Hitler wanted and not a critical 2 months late due to Churchill's "folly" in Greece?

I still believe that the Germans lost because of the Germans. The biggest % has to be the continued blunder and errors by Hitler and Goering. There inability to concentrate on one campaign at a time and opeing many fronts just makes no sense at all. To leave open ended conflicts in England and the Med and that to go after the Giant of Mother Russia was just insane. The german military and much of their equiptment was excellent. But the inability of the General staff to reign in these two insane military pretenders was even more mind-boggling. The Germans started this conflict and it was a large part there mistakes that then led to their defeat. Also picking the Italians as their Ally did not help them much. The inability of the Italians to get out of their own way was just another drag on the manpower of the Wehrmacht.

The Alllies did a great job in working together and used every advantage that the Axis gave them to there advantage. And then manpower and Manufacturing did the rest. Like everyone has said it was a combined effort.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 106):
And CALTECH -- no one wants to minimize the critical US contribution to the European Theatre

I do not see him as saying that. I have read in his posts some seem to counter Nav20's point that everything seemed to be Rosy for the Brits and that the Americans had not been needed. And also it would be a very boring thread if everyone toook the same side and we all just nodded in a agreement. I think he has done a pretty good job but do not think he has said America can do it alone (P.S. He is from Poland). The battle of Britain was a close affair and had not Germany let up and pointed itself to the East they may of had a chance of Knocking the English about and signing a Peace deal.

I think that the original question in the thread had been flawed to start with. Nav ask's for the American manufacturing (lend-lease) but not the manpower. The question should off been how would Russia and the Commonwealth fared without any US help. How much of the lend0lease to Russia helped them? to the British?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 110):
So let us stick to what happened as does Falcon as opposed to the mightabeens.

Was that not the idea of the whole thread. What mightabeens? We know waht happened. But if the Brits and Russian had to go it alone without any US aid at all how would it have gone? That should be the question.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:57 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 112):
The battle of Britain was a close affair and had not Germany let up and pointed itself to the East they may of had a chance of Knocking the English about and signing a Peace deal.

Nice concept but it ignores the timing. Germany had lost control of the air over the Channel at least by early 1941, long before Hitler turned E. Even the introduction of the FW190 did not restore control and they never did have it over the UK. By mid 1941, night attacks were becoming expensive due to better flack but more importantly dedicated night fighters crewed entirely by pilots who ate a lot of carrots.

Lend lease had little part in the production of the T34 tank which was what flummoxed the German army first. The boots would have helped at Stalingrad but not critical. The trucks were great for the advances in 1943 and 44 but probably not necessary, it would just have taken a lot longer to follow up on the breakthroughs that came thick and fast after Citadel. Lend lease was essential for the UK, but probably not for Russia.

For each Hitlerian blunder you mend, you would have to allow a chance for a similar magnitude blunder by the Allies to be mended, otherwise it is not a "fair" contest!!!!
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:00 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 112):
Was that not the idea of the whole thread. What mightabeens? We know waht happened. But if the Brits and Russian had to go it alone without any US aid at all how would it have gone? That should be the question.

Quite so, Windy95.  Smile But, as you also imply, there's no harm in the discussion 'roaming' a bit!

I think there is no reasonable doubt that Roosevelt - who knew only too well what a menace Hitler presented - would have persisted with LendLease, to Russia as well as Britain, even if the USA was unable to enter the War.

If that is assumed, the supply of weapons would have been no problem As I see it, the essential question is, could Britain and the Commonwealth have assembled the manpower required to defeat the Germans in Western Europe on their own.

In this connection I have to raise the issue of the 'British' Fourteenth Army. Its commander, Lt.-General William Slim, sadly said to his men late in the War, "When you go home don't worry about what to tell your loved ones and friends about service in Asia. No one will know where you were, or where it is if you do. You are, and will remain "The Forgotten Army."

It was probably the largest and most 'multi-racial' army the world has ever seen. At its peak it numbered almost a million men. A high proportion of them were from India (which, of course, included Pakistan at that time) but a little-known regulation, in force ever since the Indian Mutiny in 1857, required that one-third of the infantry in every Indian Army brigade, and all the artillery, should be British. There were also Nepalese (the matchless Gurkha Riflemen) and West and East Africans. The British were mainly conscripts, but all the rest were volunteers.

The 'Forgotten Army' successfully took on the huge task of stopping the Japanese advance into India, and driving them out of Burma and Malaya over a couple of years of hideously-difficult jungle warfare. But, unfortunately, General Slim was quite right - its activities haven't featured in many movies ('Bridge On The River Kwai' is the only one I can recall offhand), and its role is usually dismissed in only a short chapter in any history of WW2....

Had Japan not got involved in WW2, all one million of them would have been available to take on the Germans (and my guess is that they'd vastly have preferred that job!). So, if the Japanese had stayed out, and the USA had not got directly involved, my guess is that the Commonwealth probably would, in fact, have been able to assemble sufficient forces to carry out the liberation of Western Europe on its own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Fourteenth_Army
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
GDB
Posts: 13936
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:49 pm

When my father worked at the Hoover plant in West London, one of his workmates-and a union official, was absolutely intolerant of any racism, aside from Poles, there were more recently arrived Indians too, mostly Sikhs.
This is because he was a 14th Army veteran.
 
Ant72LBA
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:42 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:17 pm

Niall Ferguson in "War of the World" suggests that Germany simply did not have the economic capacity to defeat both the Soviet Union and the British Empire. It wasn't just a question of building more planes, better tanks etc but making the tyres to keep trucks on the road, producing fuel to keep them moving, clothing to put on soldiers backs, food to feed both the field armies and the domestic population, etc, etc, etc. All of this put together was simply too much for Germany to achieve. The war may have been longer and the resultant boundaries different but Germany would have still lost.

With regard to the original question - conflict over resources between Japan and the US was inevitable; Japan saw conquest (rather than economic treaty) as the only way of securing the raw materials its economy needed. Again the result was inevitable.
 
windy95
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:32 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 113):
Lend lease had little part in the production of the T34 tank which was what flummoxed the German army first.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 113):
Lend lease was essential for the UK, but probably not for Russia.

Which is why early on I said that you would of probably ended up with Uncle Joe waving at you across the canal. A nice even trade of Hitler for Stalin.

Quoting Ant72LBA (Reply 116):
All of this put together was simply too much for Germany to achieve. The war may have been longer and the resultant boundaries different but Germany would have still lost.

Agree with you on this. Germany just could not sustain it's far flung ambitions. Not enough manpower and with the Oceans around them being controlled by the UK there was no way to ship in what else it needed. They needed conquest to gain more raw materials but then they did not have the manpower to hold all of these far flung acquisitions.

[Edited 2009-03-10 16:33:26]
 
Ant72LBA
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:42 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:41 am



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 117):
Which is why early on I said that you would of probably ended up with Uncle Joe waving at you across the canal. A nice even trade of Hitler for Stalin.

Would be interesting to speculate where the Russians would have ended up. If the war in the East had been going so badly would the Germans have been forced to contemplate a pull out from the occupied West - Norway, Denmark, maybe France? Or would their forces in the West become so weak as to allow a Commonwealth army the opportunity to invade? Maybe the Rhine would have been the new iron curtain? Guess the equation is what impact on the Russian offensives would the additional forces Germany could have spared from France and Italy have had?

If the British weren't fighting in the Far East they would have had significant manpower, not just of their own, but Australian, New Zealand, South African, Indian etc to deploy against France.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:45 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 115):
one of his workmates-and a union official, was absolutely intolerant of any racism, aside from Poles,

Fair point, GDB - except that I had a Polish friend in primary school - won't say his name, though I remember it, the Russians have few principles and long memories - whose father was a battalion commander in the Free Polish Brigade airborne 'reinforcement' on Day Four at Arnhem in 1944. In which they largely got wiped out.

Honestly don't understand how anyone on the Allied side could have had a grudge against the Poles? As far as I know, they got it 'first and worst,' in 1939?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
windy95
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:50 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 113):
Nice concept but it ignores the timing. Germany had lost control of the air over the Channel at least by early 1941,

Sorry I missed this earlier. My point is that Hitler had his hands full with the UK and should off worked on finding an end with them before he turned east. To leave an unsinkable carrier and also to dip his toes in the Med and Africa was enough for them to chew on at the time. All efforts should have been made to A) neutralize Britain B) total victory over them or C) a peace treaty of some kind before he turned to the east(if at all). To just ignore Britain like it was not a threat and to move on like a stubborn child who did not get his way was my point. Why he chose to poke the Eagle and the Bear in the eyes before he tamed the Lion is any ones guess. But luckily for Europe it did hasten his end.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:11 pm

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 120):
My point is that Hitler had his hands full with the UK and should off worked on finding an end with them before he turned east.

Good point, Windy95 - but Adolf Hitler and I have one thing in common - we were both mere Army corporals, ignorant 'footsloggers,' in our time ........

Hitler was a 'foot-soldier' at heart, all through. He simply didn't understand tactics, leave alone strategy. On land, never mind at sea or in the air........

So it all cost Germany dear. Still depresses me - I love the place..........

[Edited 2009-03-11 06:13:11]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
windy95
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:04 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 121):
Good point, Windy95 - but Adolf Hitler and I have one thing in common - we were both mere Army corporals, ignorant 'footsloggers,' in our time ........

Hitler was a 'foot-soldier' at heart, all through. He simply didn't understand tactics, leave alone strategy. On land, never mind at sea or in the air........

So it all cost Germany dear. Still depresses me - I love the place..........

I guess a bettter question would be... Where would Europe be today without those two terrible wars?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:03 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 120):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 113):
Nice concept but it ignores the timing. Germany had lost control of the air over the Channel at least by early 1941,

Sorry I missed this earlier. My point is that Hitler had his hands full with the UK and should off worked on finding an end with them before he turned east. To leave an unsinkable carrier and also to dip his toes in the Med and Africa was enough for them to chew on at the time. All efforts should have been made to A) neutralize Britain B) total victory over them or C) a peace treaty of some kind before he turned to the east(if at all).

But that is one of the (many) points. While Britain more survived than won the BoB, Goering definitely lost. By a couple of months later the situation had changed considerably and the survival had turned into victory. The number of Spits was now greater than the number of Bf109s (FW190 still to come) and the Spit V with those nasty cannons was replacing the BoB Spits and any attempt to bomb in daylight was going to be very expensive against cannon armed Spits. Nights were soon to become much more tricky with the Beaufighter and the Mossie getting radar as well as a bunch of cannon. August 1940 was the latest time that an invasion would have had a chance and GDB will tell you why it would have failed - I was too busy helping folk remove the road signs and pulling up foxgloves* at the time and admiring the asparagus sprouting up in the fields.

The blockade on shipping to Germany was tightening, with very few ships getting to the Biscay ports and none getting out again. The U-boats were causing Britain considerable pain, but growing anti sub measures and stockpiles allowed Britain to survive 1940 and 1941.

The attack on Russia was a double problem, it took attention from Britain - but that was probably a war already lost - and it meant he had to fight for the imports from Russia that had previously been relied upon to get around the blockade.

*There was a major drive in 1939 to collect the foxglove (Digitalis) as it was assumed that huge amounts would be needed for the treatment of casualties. I think most of the Digitalis was wasted, as were most of the Al pans also collected soon after.
 
windy95
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:15 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 123):
I was too busy helping folk remove the road signs and pulling up foxgloves* at the time and admiring the asparagus sprouting up in the fields.

My father was busy dodging Russian shells in 44 and 45 in Eastern Germany. He still had a shrapnel scar in his leg when he died a few years ago. I had an Uncle who flew P-38's and one who was a gunner on B-17's in the UK. Had another who flew Focke-Wulfs but did not survive the war. My fathers parents had 11 brothers and sisters apiece and at the time of the war quite a few had already immigrated to the states and went on to fight against there former family and country. Crazy.....
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:29 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 124):
Crazy.....

Certainly was crazy, and crazier than we knew at the time. I should have explained asparagus, the poles (wooden ones not Poles!!) barbed wire and concrete shapes distributed about the fields at a time when we were confident there would be showers of parachutists and gliders any tick of the clock. The asparagus did make farming a bit more difficult! I was lucky in that the beach near us was not militarised - mined, barbed wired and whatever. The only mine we got was a german sea mine (about a tonne of it IIRC) that broke its mooring and caused great consternation until it was deloused.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:04 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 125):
and concrete shapes distributed about the fields at a time when we were confident there would be showers of parachutists and gliders any tick of the clock.

Takes me back, Baroque!  Smile

A piercing memory for me (apart from the concrete pillboxes that littered the fields) was having to spend a summer in care of the 'housekeeper from Hell.' We complained after a bit, and Dad took us to the (on loan to the US Army) hospital he was working at, most days.

Crystal-clear memories of his CO, a marvellous lady called 'Major Niven,' taking us to the Officers Mess for tea - doughnuts and Coca-Cola! - and also meeting some very old (and clearly, frighteningly, mad) guys on the hospital paths (who turned out to be WW1 British shell-shock cases who had never got well enough to go home).

And also finding out, years later, that the 'housekeeper' was made necessary by the fact that my unassuming little 'Mum' was an Admiral's secretary, travelling into Central London right through the Blitz - and had been sent down to the South Coast for three months while the D-Day invasion was on........

Difficult to imagine the heartbreak that our respective parents went through in those days............
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:19 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 126):
Difficult to imagine the heartbreak that our respective parents went through in those days............

It also reminds me of the things I never thought to ask them. Too busy and too young at the time, and after VJ day, too busy getting over the war and all too soon, too late. At least he might have talked about WWII whereas there was Buckley's chance of information about WWI other than when they were behind the lines. The nearest I got to knowing about that was when my school did the play Journey's End and father refused to attend. The reason was all too apparent when I thought about it.
 
windy95
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:33 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 114):
Had Japan not got involved in WW2, all one million of them would have been available to take on the Germans (and my guess is that they'd vastly have preferred that job!). So, if the Japanese had stayed out, and the USA had not got directly involved, my guess is that the Commonwealth probably would, in fact, have been able to assemble sufficient forces to carry out the liberation of Western Europe on its own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British..._Army

So you advocate these Indian and African troops dying on the Fields of Europe to save England from a mess that it helped create. This is manpower that you should not even consider in your grand plan of the "commonwealth" going it alone. The idea of using these troops as "manpower" in the European conflict to me is appaling. That is the fatal flaw with your plan in that you look to the people of the Colonies to save the skin of England. Could the United Kingdom defeat Germany without lend lease from the US and without using colonial troops from around the world who had nothing to do with the conflicts of Europe? No
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:57 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 128):
This is manpower that you should not even consider in your grand plan of the "commonwealth" going it alone. T

By and large Nav is just suggesting or perhaps reporting what happened anyway. For example if you check the country of origin of the crews in Bomber command you might be surprised.

Here is a hint from Wiki

Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war.[18] A Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I.[18] By comparison, the US Eighth Air Force, which flew daylight raids over Europe, had 350,000 aircrew during the war, and suffered 26,000 killed and 23,000 POWs.[18] Of the

Australia Goes to War, Australia: Doubleday, 1984, p. 216, ISBN 0-86824-155-5 The fatalities included over 38,000 RAF aircrew (of all nationalities), 9,900 Royal Canadian Air Force personnel, and over 1,500 aircrew from countries in occupied Europe.[citation needed] It is illustrative that members of the Australian squadrons of Bomber Command equalled only two percent of Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel, but the 4,050 killed represented 23% of the total number of RAAF personnel killed in action during World War II. No. 460 Squadron RAAF, which had an aircrew establishment of about 200, experienced 1,018 combat deaths during 1942-45 and was therefore effectively wiped out five times over.


Not sure why those two source differ in total casualties and too lazy to go and look at Hastings. Whatever, Bomber command was stacked with commonwealth crew and there were a few Americans too. Additionally, the Poles Czechs and Free French had not all managed to get themselves killed in the BoB although in many cases not for want of trying. And that made the inability to assist the Warsaw uprising so frustrating for all of Bomber Command.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:54 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 128):
So you advocate these Indian and African troops dying on the Fields of Europe to save England from a mess that it helped create.

I think you may have missed me saying that all the Indian, African, and Nepalese troops were volunteers, professional soldiers, Windy95? In any case, units from those regions did serve with great distinction in the North African and Italian campaigns; and the British Army still maintains a brigade of Gurkhas.

I think you may also misunderstand the nature of the Empire and Commonwealth. There was, and remains, a great deal of interdependence and mutual respect. You shouldn't assume that the people concerned would have been happy to to 'sit the war out' and then find themselves 'governed' from Berlin or Rome or Madrid instead of London.......

As to 'England' (presumably you mean the United Kingdom?) helping 'create' the mess, how do you work that out? Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco created it; and there is absolutely no doubt that their objective was nothing short of world domination.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Ant72LBA
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:42 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:26 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 128):
So you advocate these Indian and African troops dying on the Fields of Europe to save England from a mess that it helped create. This is manpower that you should not even consider in your grand plan of the "commonwealth" going it alone. The idea of using these troops as "manpower" in the European conflict to me is appaling. That is the fatal flaw with your plan in that you look to the people of the Colonies to save the skin of England. Could the United Kingdom defeat Germany without lend lease from the US and without using colonial troops from around the world who had nothing to do with the conflicts of Europe? No

I'm not quite sure how many levels this little outburst is wrong on but I started counting about four hours ago and I still haven't reached a conclusion:

1. The Soviet Union was effectively a commonwealth so presumably the efforts of the Kazakhs, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Belorussians etc should be discounted?
2. Does the Commonwealth go it alone or does the United Kingdom? The Commonwealth by definition includes all its members so yes Indians, Australians etc would fight alongside UK troops - why not?
3. Many wars through history have been fought by troops who had no "interest" in them; look at the forces fighting in Afghanistan at the moment. The attack that precipitated this war was was on the USA and, if you believe the rhetoric of Al-Qaida, was due to the policies of the US in the Middle East. What relevance does this have to the Estonians, Slovaks, Poles etc etc?
4. You appear to be suggesting that the African and Indian troops were incapable of having an opinion and making a choice - I don't know to what extent they did have a choice but to simply suggest they were cannon fodder for the UK isn't a true reflection of the situation.
5. I know this is a "what if" thread but the fact remains, whatever your personal likes or dislikes, that these forces were available to the UK/Commonwealth.
6. Economic conditions were very different then to now - these countries formed a trading bloc so to their governments what happened in Europe was directly relevant to them.
7. I don't think that the original poster had a "grand plan", they were just continuing the discussions of the thread.
8. The USA could not have fought Germany when it did and the manner in which it did without the UK so lend-lease wasn't a mere act of charity. Roosevelt knew that Hitler was a threat and acted accordingly - basically in the best interests of the USA. Without the UK as a base the USA would not have been able to invade continental Europe.

I could go on but I'm tired and off to bed, good night.

(I'm sure some of my points need clarification/correction/discussion so feel free to rip them apart, it is only an internet discussion board after all!)
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:46 am



Quoting Ant72LBA (Reply 131):
6. Economic conditions were very different then to now - these countries formed a trading bloc so to their governments what happened in Europe was directly relevant to them.

A trading block that it should be noted the US directed a fair bit of its effort during the war towards disrupting.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3442
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:24 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 101):
Dear oh dear CALTECH, yes, in 1982 we had just had a serious defeat in Europe

Shazam shazam shazam. What a tangent you have found. Talk about not being based in reality.

Quoting GDB (Reply 101):
(I wait also to see official use of the odd term, from Germans in war films it seems, anywhere.
A map, that seemingly mysterious object for you, is a good place to start).

The vacuity shown by some is quite astounding. Here is some of the mystery that is eluding you.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...007/10/middle-england-class-social
"Accidental Middle Englanders"

http://www.fumeintheforum.org/
"We welcome comments from all Middle Englanders "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/sundaybest/pip/sz1ii/
"defines Middle Englanders and the world they inhabit."

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 103):
It sometimes feels as if you are basing your view of history on what the movies show,

Are you sure some of your views are not based on movies ? Have you watched them all ? Are they any good ? Which ones show history ? Books are much better. Really, don't know what you are talking about here. Unless it is that you have watched every movie there is. After all, they are just movies.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 105):
I was reacting to CALTECH's apparent assumption that US forces were the only ones around - and 'liberated' Belgium

Tsk tsk dear oh me, oh my. I made no such assumption, please read the post thoroughly. Another one of the ex-fallen British empires' subjects had dismissed American troops in Belgium in another thread, was just referring to that. Know quite well the contributions of the British army in Belgium, but also know that of the Americans too.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 121):
So it all cost Germany dear. Still depresses me - I love the place..........

Europe is beautiful. What a waste World War 2 was.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 130):
Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco created it; and there is absolutely no doubt that their objective was nothing short of world domination.

And exactly what was the point of the British Empire ? World Domination ? Same thing, semantics.

With two thirds of the German Army engaged in the Eastern Front, without the supplies of the USA keeping the British and the Soviets in the fight, the British would not have survived. The British had a substantial role in WW2, but was not in the top three. And you are all wrong, the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying, not the Americans or the British. The British would not have survived without US help, and Britain definitely owes the Soviets thanks for keeping so many German troops and aircraft occupied in the Eastern Front.

At El Alamein which was the only great land battle won by the British and Commonwealth forces without direct American participation, (that's quite telling) the Brits and CW Forces were lucky that the North African campaign was a minor sideshow for the Germans, the reinforcements the Germans received in 1942 when it was much too late, might have changed the outcome for the 8th Army had they arrived earlier, or if N.Africa had a higher priority. World War 2 was lost by the Germans on the Eastern front. The Soviets defeated the German Army, broke them, but with British and American aid.
You are here.
 
GDB
Posts: 13936
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:26 pm

CALTECH, apart from anything else, 'Englander' leaves out the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, who were involved in WW2.
It's, intentional or not, a slang phrase, or more to the point, when someone is about to slag off the United Kingdom, they usually use 'England' not the proper name.
So in my mind at least, the incorrect use is a symbol of someone who is about to have a go, but does not even know the name of the country he's on about!
Of course, that is not always the case at all, but it does not give confidence in the veracity of what is about to be said. Unfair perhaps?

Conversely, most British I know, are not bothered by the American use of 'Limey', though that is often too slung as part of an insult, on the other hand, try using, not even while being negative, 'Yank' on here. The post concerned is on borrowed time, I should know.
Maybe there is in that, a dislike stemming no only from Civil War history, but an association with terms like 'Yankee Aggression/Imperilism' and similar, from many in the US when they see and hear this term.

By the same token, US supporters of the IRA had the slogan England Out Of Ireland' , I thought of that, 'so we can keep the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish troops there then? Throw in some Gurkha's for good measure?'
And it came from the lips of those I despised as much as the actual terrorists, again I know deep down this is an unfair way to react to a usually innocuous term.

Back to topic, this whole idea of 'Empire Cannon Fodder' needs to seen in context.
There was a reason why, in 1946, an act of Parliament allowed-and would do so for over 15 years to come, the right of full residency/citizenship of the whole of the Commonwealth/Empire, which back then was 25% of the human race.
Though it was thought few would actually come, it's main motivation was as a 'thankyou' to all those across this vast sphere of influence, who had volunteered to serve in WW2.
NAV20, Baroque and others, will know a lot more than me on this, but in at least major parts of the Commonwealth, particularly in Africa and the Caribbean, those who served were volunteers.

Whilst in the 'Mother Country' conscription reached into the civil population, the factory workers and 'Land Girls' called up, the teenage boys sent into coalmines to replace conscripted manpower (even though many miners were in 'reserved occupations' and exempted from military service).
Then the Home Guard, the Axillary Policeman, volunteer firefighters, Fire Wardens, additional medical staff.

This is perhaps why WW2 still looms so large in the national consciousness, just about everybody was directly involved in some way, many before reaching full adulthood-the elderly, generally not so directly involved, aside from the Home Guard, made up a rather smaller part of the population back then as well..
The population of the British Isles was some 45 million in 1940, somewhat less than Germany, even leaving out Italy (Japan we will as they entered the war and brought the USA of course).

I just don't think you can seriously argue, certainly not on a strategic scale, that Commonwealth manpower was used in place of British where it could have been avoided.
It's not as if there was a potential vast pool of human resources going spare in the British Isles.

Nazi Germany, at least not until late in the war, went as far as the British in conscription.
Then again, they increasingly had slave labour to use.

As for N.Africa being a 'sideshow', in raw numbers engaged yes I'd agree.
But, the Germans had some of their best units out there, not in Russia.
The final pool of German dead, POW's, lost/destroyed equipment was significant by any measure.
The later numbers from the Russian Front would drawf this as the war progressed, but at a crucial time in the Russian campaign, some of the Wermacts's best were elsewhere, then defeated. The psychological effect on both sides was major.

It was also a more 'pure' conflict, with few civilians around, also too, unlike Russia, a chunk of the Afrika Korps were not there to exterminate those who they thought 'inferior'.

El Alemein differed in a crucial respect too, the 8th Army had won victories against the Afrika Korps prior to that battle, what they had not done is exploit or sustain any gains.
In no small part due to interference from above, often to divert resources elsewhere.
This time there was none of this, the 8th Army were given the time and resources to properly prepare, then to exploit and consolidate.
The sort of thing that would be more familiar to those conducting later campaigns after D-Day, both British/Commonwealth and American.
It was a look to the future as much as a significant military victory.

This is the main reason while there were differences between the British/Commonwealth and US, sometimes in doctrine, sometimes personal between commanders.
The US had resources that were almost unlimited, financial, manpower, industrial, while their allies, constrained in all three, tailored their attitudes and doctrines accordingly.
Then there was also the national scarring from the long slaughter of WW1, it may have helped appeasement but even after the declaration of war, it's effects must have still been there.
Even the increasing US aid, then entry into the war, ever completely changed this.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3442
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:22 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 134):
But, the Germans had some of their best units out there, not in Russia.

Wow, the SS Panzer Divisions were in North Africa ? Grossdeutschland Division fought in North Africa ? What history books do they have in jolly old England ? This goes along with your claim that 'englander' is only used in movies.


Quoting CALTECH (Reply 133):
At El Alamein which was the only great land battle won by the British and Commonwealth forces without direct American participation



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 128):
grand plan of the "commonwealth" going it alone

Windy95, the Empire couldn't even win El Alamein without American equipment. Almost 300 tanks were the American Sherman with its' 75mm main gun. So the British Empire really didn't win any 'great land battle' on its' own. Probably couldn't, too small a army.

Quoting GDB (Reply 52):
Who are the 'Englanders' CALTECH?

The British Broadcasting Corporation even uses the term, along with your newspapers, unless of course these are not British sources.So sorry to prove that.

Quoting GDB (Reply 52):
Never heard of them, outside some bad acting in war films.



Quoting GDB (Reply 134):
It's, intentional or not, a slang phrase, or more to the point, when someone is about to slag off the United Kingdom, they usually use 'England' not the proper name.
So in my mind at least, the incorrect use is a symbol of someone who is about to have a go, but does not even know the name of the country he's on about!

So the BBC, and british newspapers must just want a go but do not even know the name of the country they're on about. That's a hoot.
You are here.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:49 pm

I wonder what Winnie thought. He might have known!

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=1188
Five months have passed since I spoke to the British nation and the Empire on the broadcast. In wartime there is

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=971

Canada occupies a unique position in the British Empire because of its unbreakable ties with Britain and its ever-growing friendship and intimate association with the United States.
Later refers to Canadian units being stationed in England, geographically correct.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=423

Very different is the mood today. Britain, other nations thought, had drawn a sponge across her slate. But instead our country stood in the gap. There was no flinching and no thought of giving in; and by what seemed almost a miracle to those outside these Islands,

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=424
At the present time we have in continual vigorous action the British and United States Combined Chiefs of Staff Committee, which works immediately under the President and myself as representative of the British War Cabinet. This committee, with its elaborate organisation of Staff officers of every grade, disposes of all our resources and, in practice, uses British and American troops, ships, aircraft, and munitions just as if they were the resources of a single State or nation.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=393
From the moment that the French defenses at Sedan and on the Meuse were broken at the end of the second week of May, only a rapid retreat to Amiens and the south could have saved the British and French Armies who had entered Belgium at the appeal of the Belgian King; but this strategic fact was not immediately realized

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=418

This delay entailed the loss of fifteen or sixteen French divisions and threw out of action for the critical period the whole of the British Expeditionary Force. Our Army and 120,000 French troops were indeed rescued by the British Navy from Dunkirk but only with the loss of their cannon, vehicles and modern equipment.

...

and I made it perfectly clear then that whatever happened in France would make no difference to the resolve of Britain and the British Empire to fight on, 'if necessary for years, if necessary alone."

...
Thus, the invasion of Great Britain would at this time require the transportation across the sea of hostile armies on a very large scale, and after they had been so transported they would have to be continually maintained with all the masses of munitions and supplies which are required for continuous battle-as continuous battle it will surely be.


It seems clear that Winston Churchill was under the impression that the war was being fought by Britain and the British Commonwealth. The only occurrence of England in the speeches is when he refers to a location that was in England. English appears relating to language and I did not find it relating to nationality.
 
windy95
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:43 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 130):
ndian, African, and Nepalese troops were volunteers, professional soldiers, Windy95?

Just like the troops being used in Iraq. So you are okay with Indain volunteers Fighting on the fields of Europe to destroy a bad dictator but you and Baroque have been against American volunteers destroying another bad dictator and freeing 25+ million people from his reign of terror  Yeah sure I do not see much of a difference.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 130):
In any case, units from those regions did serve with great distinction in the North African and Italian campaigns; and the British Army still maintains a brigade of Gurkhas.

But why without Japan in the war should the Indians and Aficans have been shipped off to die on the fields of Europe to save the UK. If I remember right you had said earlier that Hitler did not have enough troops to cover the Territory he had so why worry about world domination by him? Hitler had no surface fleet or long range bombers to worry about. How could he dominate the world? He was a threat to the UK but not to the US or India.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 130):
I think you may also misunderstand the nature of the Empire and Commonwealth. There was, and remains, a great deal of interdependence and mutual respect. You shouldn't assume that the people concerned would have been happy to to 'sit the war out' and then find themselves 'governed' from Berlin or Rome or Madrid instead of London.......

So you admit that London controlled the Colonials in their attempt for world domination (excuse me in the name off trade). What would be the differenece if they had been controlled by Germany or London? None. Why does it seem okay to you guys to have control and troops in India but for us to be in Iraq it is the end of the world?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 130):
As to 'England' (presumably you mean the United Kingdom?) helping 'create' the mess, how do you work that out?

You seem to forget the Treaty of Versailles and the 500 years of Royal family feuding and meddling that culminated to WWII. Yes you are right, the UK had never stuck it's nose in anyone elses business and the where just an innocent victim in this war.  Yeah sure

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 130):
Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco created it; and there is absolutely no doubt that their objective was nothing short of world domination.

You mean destroying England and Frances world domination. Is that not what most of the European wars had been about.

Quoting Ant72LBA (Reply 131):
4. You appear to be suggesting that the African and Indian troops were incapable of having an opinion and making a choice - I don't know to what extent they did have a choice but to simply suggest they were cannon fodder for the UK isn't a true reflection of the situation

If they had been used bye the Governemnt in London on the fields of Europe to save the UK's hide then in my opinion they would have been "used" as cannon fodder.

Quoting Ant72LBA (Reply 131):
6. Economic conditions were very different then to now - these countries formed a trading bloc so to their governments what happened in Europe was directly relevant to them.

You mean the Government in London "made" them trade. That was the difference with the UK is that they used the word "economics" in the world domination attempt.

Quoting Ant72LBA (Reply 131):
The USA could not have fought Germany when it did and the manner in which it did without the UK so lend-lease wasn't a mere act of charity. Roosevelt knew that Hitler was a threat and acted accordingly

Hitler was not a threat to the US. He did not have the surface ships or long range aircraft to attack the US. He could not even invade the UK let alone be a threat to the US. As for his subs he would not of been attacking our shipping if we did not have lend lease.

It goes back to the deal in Iraq. Saddam was not a "threat to us" is what we have heard so many times. Same can be said about Roosevelt and WWII. Japan attacked us and we made Germany first the priority. Hypocrisy at it's highest.

Quoting Ant72LBA (Reply 131):
basically in the best interests of the USA.

 Yeah sure The best interest of the US would have been to keep us out of Europe in WWI, in WWII and just like in Iraq. But as far as some of our friends here WWI andWWII is good for US troops to get involved but the other (Iraq) is not.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3442
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 10:40 pm



Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137):
He was a threat to the UK but not to the US or India.

And a threat it was, these subjects of that fallen British empire seem to look over the fact that German troops were transported over the sea to invade Norway, North Africa and the Kerch Peninsula. Even with the losses they sustained, they did occupy Norway and kicked the British around North Africa for quite some time, and were successful on the Kerch Peninsula. So the argument that Sea Lion wouldn't have worked, fails the smell test. Would have been interesting to see how the war would have gone, and to see how Sea Lion would have turned out.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137):
You mean destroying England and Frances world domination. Is that not what most of the European wars had been about.

It was a attempt to trade one set of rulers for another. But of course England and France were the righteous 'world domination'. Yeah sure

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137):
You seem to forget the Treaty of Versailles

The treaty that continued WW1 to WW2. French and British written treaty.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137):
the UK had never stuck it's nose in anyone elses business

Never, not in 1812, The Crimea, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan ..etc....etc.....
 Yeah sure
Hey, some of those areas above are the trouble or hot spots of the world, and the UK stuck its' nose in their business.  Wow!
You are here.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:08 am



Quoting CALTECH (Reply 135):
Wow, the SS Panzer Divisions were in North Africa ? Grossdeutschland Division fought in North Africa ? What history books do they have in jolly old England ?

Have you never even heard of General Erwin Rommel and the Afrika Korps (with its two armoured divisions), Caltech? By common consent, the best general and the best fighting force that Germany produced in WW2? It continually astonishes me that, even in the internet age, people go on guessing at facts instead of checking them:-

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen1.htm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 138):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137):
You mean destroying England and Frances world domination. Is that not what most of the European wars had been about.

It was a attempt to trade one set of rulers for another. But of course England and France were the righteous 'world domination'.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137):
You seem to forget the Treaty of Versailles

The treaty that continued WW1 to WW2. French and British written treaty.

I wonder if that is what is really getting to both of you, and causing all this increasingly-strident anti-British stuff? The fact that, if it hadn't been for Britain, Hitler would have won? And that you both still rather wish that he had?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:30 am

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 112):
I still believe that the Germans lost because of the Germans.

That's partially correct, and it is partially because of what the German state stood for-it was monstrous and it deserved to fail. They also lost the battle of manpower and production. And, they lost the battle of bread and oil. And, they never really were in the battle for the hearts and minds of occupied Europe-I mean, when you overrun people who've done you no harm and make them paupers and cart them off to work as peons, who's gonna get behind that? And, they never were really in the battle for control of the seas.

I suggest you get out a copy and read "The Wages of Death" by Adam Tooze-it would be well worth your time.

Qualitatively some of their weapons were rather advanced and their metalworking was the best, but they never did and never could win a war of logistics, production and boots against the rest of the world. Simply stated, the rest of us could build it faster than they could sink it, or shoot it full of holes, or find more boots.

When they finally wised up, they were compelled to keep building weapons systems that had been state of the art in 1940 but were painfully obsolete by 1943, and they never were able to make the transition to new systems that were ready for battle in numbers enough to make a difference. The Panther tank is a fine example of this last point.

And there's the matter of fuel enough to run everything. They didn't have it.

So, to speculate about whether the Germans could have won the war without Hitler, Goering and co. is idle, because without those fellows there wouldn't have been a war. I mean, everyone says "Yeah, Weimar Republic, Stresemann, Versailles Diktat, stab in the back, blah blah blah." By comparison, the National Socialist state was a complete cockup on every level.

My old man worked in a copper mine in Chile back in 1941 and he decided to come back to the states when the war got going. He told me that there were a number of German engineers there, and they all said "Hey. You've got a good German name-come back to the fatherland." (the name ends in nn). He said to them "No thanks. You're going to get your asses handed to you in a sack because you don't know the first thing about us and what we're capable of."

[Edited 2009-03-14 21:36:36]
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3442
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:44 am



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 139):
Have you never even heard of General Erwin Rommel and the Afrika Korps (with its two armoured divisions), Caltech? By common consent, the best general and the best fighting force that Germany produced in WW2? It continually astonishes me that, even in the internet age, people go on guessing at facts instead of checking them:-

Sorry, whose common consent ? There were many more divisions that were considered better than the units in the Afrika Korps, and Generals such as Manstein and Guderian, to name a few, were considered better generals. What facts are you reading ? The propaganda of the British Empire? It astonishes me that some of you think that the British Empire was the main reason the war was won.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 139):
I wonder if that is what is really getting to both of you, and causing all this increasingly-strident anti-British stuff? The fact that, if it hadn't been for Britain, Hitler would have won? And that you both still rather wish that he had?

You were the original poster, and it was your "If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won? " that started this discussion. If you don't like the answer some give, don't ask the question. This is really quite puzzling that you would now make this statement.

It is not anti-British stuff, nor do I or we wish Hitler had won, though it is puzzling that the British Empire was against Stalin and the Soviets until Hitler invaded them, and it does seem the world traded one tyrant for a bigger and more murderous tyrant when Stalin ended up on the winnning side. The British Empire decided who was the bigger threat to its' own existence, and convinced America of the same. Germany had not attacked America.

Don't know if that was a better outcome. Don't know why you bring that up. My significant other is English. We do recreate the hypothetical 'Sea Lion' a lot.
You are here.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:47 am



Quoting CALTECH (Reply 138):
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137):
You seem to forget the Treaty of Versailles

The treaty that continued WW1 to WW2. French and British written treaty.

Kerrrrlang. The main revisionist party in relation to the terms that Germany agreed to prior to 11 Nov 1918 and those in the Versailles treaty appears to have been the US, see:

"A World Undone" G J Meyer (yes he is an American). "Postwar" the chapter following 36!! Esp p613 in relation to Wilson and his abandonment of his own Fourteen Points.

"Wilson abandoned even the pretense of championing the Fourteen Points. He became as vengeful toward Germany as Clemeneau".

You can argue that Wilson was pushed by Clemenceau and Lloyd George, but it appears he ended up being a major force in the Versaillles terms. He even opposed Hoover who wished to send food to starving Germany. Ironic Hoover coming out of it well?

Hint: encouraged by experience, many in the UK figured out post WWII that occupation of another country was not a smart idea. That is why it was perfectly consistent to argue against trying to occupy Iraq - or Afghanistan come to that. It is called learning from experience.

Odd that even Vietnam seems not to have taught this lesson to a proportion of the inhabitants of the US. Happily some in the US, however, are fully seized that China shop rules indicate occupations are not going to be a good idea.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3442
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:45 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 142):
Kerrrrlang. The main revisionist party in relation to the terms that Germany agreed to prior to 11 Nov 1918 and those in the Versailles treaty appears to have been the US, see:
You can argue that Wilson was pushed by Clemenceau and Lloyd George, but it appears he ended up being a major force in the Versaillles terms. He even opposed Hoover who wished to send food to starving Germany. Ironic Hoover coming out of it well?

What a distorted view, yes it was the US, which received all those economy killing reparations from Germany, not France or Britain. Which gave rise to Hitler, and Hitler hated the US so much, that he made France sign its' surrender in the same railcar at Versailles just to thumb his nose at the US. That's so reaching, I'll have to remember this point for a good laugh.
 Yeah sure
You are here.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:35 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 141):
Sorry, whose common consent ? There were many more divisions that were considered better than the units in the Afrika Korps

Ask anyone who fought Rommel in North Africa - and later in Europe. Like some of my uncles and cousins. Rommel was a near-genius who could 'conjure' victories from impossible situations - 'make bricks without straw.' And he was also an honourable man - certainly no Nazi........

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 141):
though it is puzzling that the British Empire was against Stalin and the Soviets until Hitler invaded them, and it does seem the world traded one tyrant for a bigger and more murderous tyrant when Stalin ended up on the winnning side.

Perfectly explained by Churchill at the time; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Just 'Politics 101'.....


Quoting CALTECH (Reply 141):
My significant other is English. We do recreate the hypothetical 'Sea Lion' a lot.

You really don't seem to know the half of it. The preparations for the 1944 D-Day landings started way back in 1940 - when Churchill ordered the design and construction of landing ships and landing craft. After the disastrous 'dress rehearsal' - the Dieppe Raid, which caused dreadful casualties, especially among Canadians - the British realised that they could not be certain of capturing a port. And therefore embarked on what was probably the fundamental war-winning strategy of WW2, the design and production of the 'Mulberry Harbours'; how to successfully invade a continent without capturing a port.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour

In 1940, attacking without air or naval superiority, and with only river barges which needed ports, jetties, and piers to unload, Germany wouldn't have had one chance in a million. Even if some of them had got ashore, there'd have been no way of reinforcing them or supplying them. Especially in October, with winter approaching and gales in the Channel. They'd have run out of ammunition and been forced to surrender.

Thankfully, I was only ever a part-time soldier. But, even at that level, I learned that most of soldiering depends on logic. Basically, "If it doesn't even work on paper, it has NO bloody chance of working in real life. Even though it stiil MAY not work.........."

Whatever Hitler dreamt of - the Germans had zero chance of successfully invading Britain. They'd have needed to have started planning for it about 1935 to have had any chance at all......

[Edited 2009-03-15 05:41:26]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:16 pm



Quoting CALTECH (Reply 143):
What a distorted view, yes it was the US, which received all those economy killing reparations from Germany, not France or Britain.

Duck shovelling again as it happens:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/World_War_I_reparations

The worsening economic distress within Germany resulted in the Lausanne Conference, which voted to cancel reparations. By this time Germany had paid one eighth of the sum required under the Treaty of Versailles. However, the Lausanne agreement was contingent upon the United States agreeing to also defer payment of the war debt owed them by the Western European governments. The plan ultimately failed not because of the U.S. Congress refusal to go along but because it became irrelevant upon Hitler's rise to power.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 144):
Whatever Hitler dreamt of - the Germans had zero chance of successfully invading Britain. They'd have needed to have started planning for it about 1935 to have had any chance at all......

And about the nearest they got with 1935 planning was for the Bismarck and Tirpitz which turned out to be splendidly irrelevant to what turned out to be the critical task asked of the German military in 1940.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:36 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 144):
Whatever Hitler dreamt of - the Germans had zero chance of successfully invading Britain. They'd have needed to have started planning for it about 1935 to have had any chance at all......

The only thing I will add to this interesting thread, is that we will never know. Unfortunately, either they do not exist or choose not to participate, but we have a lot of folks on the allied side giving opinions in this what if scenario, would be good to get more input from the German side. What is not in dispute is that the Germans did some remarkable things during the war, in good times and bad, their technology, tactics and willingness to innovate was in most cases ahead of the west, in our plans for Sea Lion are we looking at Allied Plans, German Plans, or Allied doctored German Plans?

One thing we also know for fact is that history is written by the winners, major plans by any combatant when captured are never released into the domain public until they are vetted, there are probably still a few things from WWII that have not been fully released, most politicians do not think it is in the best interest of their constituents if they acknowledge that plain dumb luck was a greater influence that some carefully crafted and executed plan.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 142):
Odd that even Vietnam seems not to have taught this lesson to a proportion of the inhabitants of the US. Happily some in the US, however, are fully seized that China shop rules indicate occupations are not going to be a good idea.

The only comment I will make on this is that the US never seemed to want to create colonies like the British, French and Spanish. Even today, if one looks at Puerto Rico can its governance be compared to existing British, French and Spanish Colonies - not sure if Spain still has any -, even in Iraq, the US want them to have free elections, they appear to want bases and or options, they have this in Europe and the Britain now, but I don't think anyone in Europe onr Britain regards themselves and US colonies, even the Marshall plan, was not designed to keep the US in total control of the affected economies.

The more I watch and read historical events of WWII I am always taken by the size of the US Pacific campaign and its less relevance in history on the European side, there were a couple invasions in the Pacific which dwarfed the Europe D-Day landings, but one gets the impression that the D-Day landings were the end all.
A bit off topic but I apologize, not intended to hijack.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3442
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:17 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 144):
Ask anyone who fought Rommel in North Africa - and later in Europe. Like some of my uncles and cousins. Rommel was a near-genius who could 'conjure' victories from impossible situations - 'make bricks without straw.' And he was also an honourable man - certainly no Nazi........

Have asked those in my family that fought on both sides on the Eastern Front, they have a much different perspective than subjects of the old British Empire have. Of course, just reading what the two of you write, the only Allied combatant were the British. Guess that is what happens when others surpass your abilities, the British Empire has to be made into the hero. Once again you are assuming that that it has been said Rommel wasn't good, but to make him out to be the best is pushing it, along with claiming the Afrika Korps had the best units. Many units on the Eastern Front have a stake in that claim also. Just because that is the only General the British fought and had really bad trouble with, doesn't make him the best. One of them, sure.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 144):
Perfectly explained by Churchill at the time; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Just 'Politics 101'.....

They were both your British enemies, since Britain could not defeat either one, the British had to pick one to be the bogeyman.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 144):
You really don't seem to know the half of it. The preparations for the 1944 D-Day landings started way back in 1940 - when Churchill ordered the design and construction of landing ships and landing craft. After the disastrous 'dress rehearsal' - the Dieppe Raid, which caused dreadful casualties, especially among Canadians - the British realised that they could not be certain of capturing a port. And therefore embarked on what was probably the fundamental war-winning strategy of WW2, the design and production of the 'Mulberry Harbours'; how to successfully invade a continent without capturing a port.

Sorry yet again, the Mulberries and the invasions were worthless without another American invention, the 'Higgins" boat. Yet again you slight American involvement and pump up British participation. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O129-Higginsboats.html

And the 'Mulberries' were towed by 'American' tugboats. So sorry to pop the bubble yet again.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 144):
In 1940, attacking without air or naval superiority, and with only river barges which needed ports, jetties, and piers to unload, Germany wouldn't have had one chance in a million. Even if some of them had got ashore, there'd have been no way of reinforcing them or supplying them. Especially in October, with winter approaching and gales in the Channel. They'd have run out of ammunition and been forced to surrender

What a perfect plan and outcome, just like the British 'Market Garden', so neat and so precise on what would happen. Maybe you should see how the Germans did it at Norway and Kerch. How ever did they manage. And with the difficulties in N.Africa, they managed to do some things too.l

Quote:
Duck shovelling again as it happens:

Oh my, oh dear, oh me. Piling it on thick, oh yes, the minor participant wrote and was responsible for the 'Versailles' treaty. Really, we all are laughing at your posts, quite amusing.
You are here.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have W

Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:43 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 146):
The only comment I will make on this is that the US never seemed to want to create colonies like the British, French and Spanish. Even today, if one looks at Puerto Rico can its governance be compared to existing British, French and Spanish Colonies - not sure if Spain still has any -, even in Iraq, the US want them to have free elections, they appear to want bases and or options, they have this in Europe and the Britain now, but I don't think anyone in Europe onr Britain regards themselves and US colonies, even the Marshall plan, was not designed to keep the US in total control of the affected economies.

Actually the US had the Philippines as official colony after the Spanish-American war. You could add Puerto Rico, which later changed political status, as well as Hawaii, which was taken over after a coup d'etat staged by American plantation owners against the Hawaiian Queen.

Spain today has still two towns in Northern Africa, Ceuta and Melilla, to which Morrocco makes claims. But the situation is quite similar to the British possessions Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands: The local population feels that they are better off ruled by far away UK or Spain than to be incorporated into either Spain, Morrocco or Argentina.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: If Pearl Harbor Hadn’t Happened – Who'd Have Won?

Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:56 pm



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 148):
The local population feels that they are better off ruled by far away UK or Spain than to be incorporated into either Spain, Morrocco or Argentina.

Unfortunately for the US colonies - if we want to call them that - the options the US gives them is total independence from the US, not return to some other claimant, but as I mentioned, the US system of colonial governance is no where the same as the British, French or others, Puerto Rico as mentioned, whose governance is different than say the Virgin Islands or even Guam.
This may be due to their constitution and not the desires of individual politicians, whether good or bad, the US "colonial system" may never lay claim to the sun not setting on their empire, their ships maybe, but thats a whole different story.

Cheers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, seb146, speedygonzales, tommy1808 and 55 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos