|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Aug 29, 2016 12:00:57 GMT
Soviets yes America no. All America did in Europe was speed the allied victory up by a number of years. It was Te British who held on practically alone for most of the war and Britain who all but destroyed the Lufftwafe, it was Te Soviets who lost millions of men and defeated Germany. America just came in at the end. I will admit the pacific was a different story. The Americans (with massive help from the Chinese) won that. Europe: Militarily, we were strong forces in Operation Torch and the invasion of Italy which heavily weakened Germany. We also participated in D-Day, which, without it, much of Europe could've been swept over by the Soviets and become communist dictatorships. Aid-wise, however, we were VERY important. We were the arsenal of Democracy, supplying thousands of weapons such as tanks to the USSR, China and Britain, helping them enormously. Pacific: We didn't do much on mainland Asia apart from in New Guinea and Burma, but in the Pacific we were basically the main force over there. We destroyed four Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway, we died on Okinawa taking the island, and we would have died in Operation Downfall if not for the A-Bombs. I forgot about Operation Torch and the Invasion of Sicily. What I mean was without D-Day the Soviets could have won the war still eventually. I know Europe is far better off with D-Day and not a Soviet-ruled continent I'm just stating that America didn't save Europe from the Germans. The Soviets maybe but it'll get political if we go to far here. I did state that America did a lot in the Pacific, I will admit that. New Guniea isn't mainland Asia though, and I didn't think the US did much in Burma I thought that was mainly the Chinese, British and Australians but I would be interested if you could explain what the US did in Burma (I know far less about the Pacific half of WW2 than the Europe half), |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 29, 2016 12:10:27 GMT
Europe: Militarily, we were strong forces in Operation Torch and the invasion of Italy which heavily weakened Germany. We also participated in D-Day, which, without it, much of Europe could've been swept over by the Soviets and become communist dictatorships. Aid-wise, however, we were VERY important. We were the arsenal of Democracy, supplying thousands of weapons such as tanks to the USSR, China and Britain, helping them enormously. Pacific: We didn't do much on mainland Asia apart from in New Guinea and Burma, but in the Pacific we were basically the main force over there. We destroyed four Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway, we died on Okinawa taking the island, and we would have died in Operation Downfall if not for the A-Bombs. I forgot about Operation Torch and the Invasion of Sicily. What I mean was without D-Day the Soviets could have won the war still eventually. I know Europe is far better off with D-Day and not a Soviet-ruled continent I'm just stating that America didn't save Europe from the Germans. The Soviets maybe but it'll get political if we go to far here. I did state that America did a lot in the Pacific, I will admit that. New Guniea isn't mainland Asia though, and I didn't think the US did much in Burma I thought that was mainly the Chinese, British and Australians but I would be interested if you could explain what the US did in Burma (I know far less about the Pacific half of WW2 than the Europe half), Well, in Burma kinda near the end of the war, there was an American unit who helped heavily in rooting the Japanese out of the Burmese jungles, by using Japanese tactics to their own advantage. They were also heavily important in defending the Burma Road and then later airlifting supplies to the Chinese from India (Even though that isn't Burma). |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Aug 29, 2016 12:19:32 GMT
I forgot about Operation Torch and the Invasion of Sicily. What I mean was without D-Day the Soviets could have won the war still eventually. I know Europe is far better off with D-Day and not a Soviet-ruled continent I'm just stating that America didn't save Europe from the Germans. The Soviets maybe but it'll get political if we go to far here. I did state that America did a lot in the Pacific, I will admit that. New Guniea isn't mainland Asia though, and I didn't think the US did much in Burma I thought that was mainly the Chinese, British and Australians but I would be interested if you could explain what the US did in Burma (I know far less about the Pacific half of WW2 than the Europe half), Well, in Burma kinda near the end of the war, there was an American unit who helped heavily in rooting the Japanese out of the Burmese jungles, by using Japanese tactics to their own advantage. They were also heavily important in defending the Burma Road and then later airlifting supplies to the Chinese from India (Even though that isn't Burma). also when the British were losing in Burma the Americans had sent reinforcements to defend the capital New Dehli from falling into axis hands. (Read this in a book somewhere). |
|
|
|
Post by Franz von Hipper on Aug 29, 2016 12:39:20 GMT
Soviets yes America no. All America did in Europe was speed the allied victory up by a number of years. It was Te British who held on practically alone for most of the war and Britain who all but destroyed the Lufftwafe, it was Te Soviets who lost millions of men and defeated Germany. America just came in at the end. I will admit the pacific was a different story. The Americans (with massive help from the Chinese) won that. Europe: Militarily, we were strong forces in Operation Torch and the invasion of Italy which heavily weakened Germany. We also participated in D-Day, which, without it, much of Europe could've been swept over by the Soviets and become communist dictatorships. Aid-wise, however, we were VERY important. We were the arsenal of Democracy, supplying thousands of weapons such as tanks to the USSR, China and Britain, helping them enormously. Pacific: We didn't do much on mainland Asia apart from in New Guinea and Burma, but in the Pacific we were basically the main force over there. We destroyed four Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway, we died on Okinawa taking the island, and we would have died in Operation Downfall if not for the A-Bombs. Couldn't have said it better. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Aug 29, 2016 15:29:36 GMT
Could the allies beat back the nazis? Yes Could the allies fully beat the nazis for once and for all? No Yes, the american rol is being overvalued by hollywood. But without them i think the war wouldve end with a white peace. Heres why I think so: "The soviets could only beat back the germans due american aid" The Russian military was ill and had very, very bad and very, very little weapons. The 46 billion worth of investment came in handy. But were they all american? No, only 9.1 billion (still a lot btw) came from the US. The rest all came from Brittain and the comonwealth (mainly canada). orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-helpful-enough-i/However, 32% of the "russian" weapons came from american factories. Could they have dealed back the Germans that much in so little time without american weapons? I dont think so... (Couldnt find source) As you can see the americans didnt supplied everythig. But without those 32%, i dont think the russians could have taken berlin "The americans opened another front by Operation Overlord" Sure the second front was handy, but was it the us who opened it? Lets look at the numbers: Normandy Usa ~73000 Brittain 73305 Canada 21400 Neptune Usa 52889 Britrain and commonwealth: 112824 "Other" 4988 www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy-your-questions-answeredAm i the only one who sees that brittain and the us are almost equal at normandy, but the brittish just doubled at neptune? But does that take away that 125.889 troops were nothing? No, would d-day happen without the americans? Yes, but i think they wouldnt have comed further than the west of France For me its clear. The war would have been won without american aid. However, they gave much supplies and did great things in africa which saved the war by a very long amount of time. The war wouldnt be decisive, I dont think the russians couldnt take berlin without american supplies. I dont think the west of. Europe could have been freed without the us. Would the allies be able to recapture the most of its lost possesions? Yes Could they fully take germany amd beat the mazis? No |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 29, 2016 15:40:09 GMT
Could the allies beat back the nazis? Yes Could the allies fully beat the nazis for once and for all? No Yes, the american rol is being overvalued by hollywood. But without them i think the war wouldve end with a white peace. Heres why I think so: "The soviets could only beat back the germans due american aid" The Russian military was ill and had very, very bad and very, very little weapons. The 46 billion worth of investment came in handy. But were they all american? No, only 9.1 billion (still a lot btw) came from the US. The rest all came from Brittain and the comonwealth (mainly canada). orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-helpful-enough-i/However, 32% of the "russian" weapons came from american factories. Could they have dealed back the Germans that much in so little time without american weapons? I dont think so... (Couldnt find source) As you can see the americans didnt supplied everythig. But without those 32%, i dont think the russians could have taken berlin "The americans opened another front by Operation Overlord" Sure the second front was handy, but was it the us who opened it? Lets look at the numbers: Normandy Usa ~73000 Brittain 73305 Canada 21400 Neptune Usa 52889 Britrain and commonwealth: 112824 "Other" 4988 www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy-your-questions-answeredAm i the only one who sees that brittain and the us are almost equal at normandy, but the brittish just doubled at neptune? But does that take away that 125.889 troops were nothing? No, would d-day happen without the americans? Yes, but i think they wouldnt have comed further than the west of France For me its clear. The war would have been won without american aid. However, they gave much supplies and did great things in africa which saved the war by a very long amount of time. The war wouldnt be decisive, I dont think the russians couldnt take berlin without american supplies. I dont think the west of. Europe could have been freed without the us. Would the allies be able to recapture the most of its lost possesions? Yes Could they fully take germany amd beat the mazis? No Couldn't have said it better myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Franz von Hipper on Aug 29, 2016 15:52:13 GMT
Could the allies beat back the nazis? Yes Could the allies fully beat the nazis for once and for all? No Yes, the american rol is being overvalued by hollywood. But without them i think the war wouldve end with a white peace. Heres why I think so: "The soviets could only beat back the germans due american aid" The Russian military was ill and had very, very bad and very, very little weapons. The 46 billion worth of investment came in handy. But were they all american? No, only 9.1 billion (still a lot btw) came from the US. The rest all came from Brittain and the comonwealth (mainly canada). orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-helpful-enough-i/However, 32% of the "russian" weapons came from american factories. Could they have dealed back the Germans that much in so little time without american weapons? I dont think so... (Couldnt find source) As you can see the americans didnt supplied everythig. But without those 32%, i dont think the russians could have taken berlin "The americans opened another front by Operation Overlord" Sure the second front was handy, but was it the us who opened it? Lets look at the numbers: Normandy Usa ~73000 Brittain 73305 Canada 21400 Neptune Usa 52889 Britrain and commonwealth: 112824 "Other" 4988 www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy-your-questions-answeredAm i the only one who sees that brittain and the us are almost equal at normandy, but the brittish just doubled at neptune? But does that take away that 125.889 troops were nothing? No, would d-day happen without the americans? Yes, but i think they wouldnt have comed further than the west of France For me its clear. The war would have been won without american aid. However, they gave much supplies and did great things in africa which saved the war by a very long amount of time. The war wouldnt be decisive, I dont think the russians couldnt take berlin without american supplies. I dont think the west of. Europe could have been freed without the us. Would the allies be able to recapture the most of its lost possesions? Yes Could they fully take germany amd beat the mazis? No Couldn't have said it better myself. Couldn't have replied better myself |
|
|
|
Post by Conrad von Hotzendorf on Aug 29, 2016 16:01:35 GMT
Yeah but if Britain was not there then the war would truly ne over by Christmas If you have anymore surrender jokes, send them to Austria, they litteraly welcomed the Germans in Vienna during WW2 SILENCE MORTAL |
|
|
|
Post by Franz von Hipper on Aug 29, 2016 16:05:01 GMT
If you have anymore surrender jokes, send them to Austria, they litteraly welcomed the Germans in Vienna during WW2 SILENCE MORTAL Calm down Conrad, enjoy this "The Great War" T-Shirt .org/image/xdhf4cnaj/]  [/url] |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 29, 2016 17:04:44 GMT
Calm down Conrad, enjoy this "The Great War" T-Shirt The Austrians tell me to tell us that they wish to direct the surrender jokes to Luxembourg and Denmark. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Aug 29, 2016 17:22:14 GMT
Calm down Conrad, enjoy this "The Great War" T-Shirt I simply love this channel. Best channel I've ever subscribed to. |
|
|
|
Post by Franz von Hipper on Aug 29, 2016 17:24:05 GMT
Calm down Conrad, enjoy this "The Great War" T-Shirt The Austrians tell me to tell us that they wish to direct the surrender jokes to Luxembourg and Denmark. Jeebus, I guess I have a talent for derailing threads. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Aug 29, 2016 17:49:13 GMT
Honestly you guys... I would say WW1 reflects best the role USA had in both wars in Europe. Both sides were pretty exhausted in manpower and equipment as the war dragged on for quite a few years. The Americans came in pretty late, they were fresh, had plenty of men and equipment. Swarm, swarm, swarm. The enemy side couldn't handle the final blow handled by the American while they fought pretty decently against the Allies before America came in. (We fought for maybe under a year or so) WW2, a bit more actively involved than WW1 by comparison but the idea is same, we broke the stalemate and stomped over the enemy with superior numbers (not to mention superior quality of equipment because our factories were untouched by war). We made the decisive push toward victory possible with a surge of our military pouring into Europe. RL warfare is closer to a RTS than a TBS if you're using an analogy to consider things in history, btw. Of course, RTS games aren't even that close to RL anyway, just less unrealistic in comparison to other wargames. It's like Axis side and Allies side were locked up 3 vs 3 until a person came in from waiting on the sidelines and changed the whole war into a landslide. It took some time for the effects to be fully felt, ofc. Sure, we might look like we were simply the ending point, but we made an exclamation point in the story of WW2, and we brought up the world's largest industrial base nation-wise with us as well. That big stick of Roosevelt became a Mjolnir in the 1940's and struck down the Axis powers. Last add: @ NetherFreek, the bank of England was committing financial suicide, investing so much into USSR and in their own war efforts. They were going bankrupt. The only reason why they would do that to their own finances instead of surrendering to Germany is because they knew that America was willing to bail them out of their debts. It happened in WW1, and in the inter-war years (and sure enough, it did happen that way postwar for UK afterwards too). We bailed out UK in at least 3 major occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Aug 29, 2016 18:45:01 GMT
Well, in ww1 the comming of the americans was the turn around of the war. Both sides were heavily sufferd and the us brought in whats necessary for the entente victory of ww1. Wont doubt that. However, in ww2 the comming of the americans wasnt the turn around in the war. It was the battle of stalingrad, afterwards all german hopes were totally doomed at kursk. And as i said above, i think the nazis wouldnt fall without the americams, but they wouldve been beaten back towards a little more than they owned before the war. But the bringing in of fresh troops confuses me, the americans were heavily outnumbered bh the British in dragoon, overlord and even torch. For me, americas roll in europe in ww2 was mostly due lend-lease and supplying weapons. See it as a balance In ww1 both sides were equal, nor the centrals nor the entente could make the major change --> us enters the war --> the war changed in advamtage of the entente. In ww2 the allied side was a bit bigger, but not enough to fully beat back the nazis towards berlin. --> us enters the war --> allies are able to fully destroy everything from the nazis. As for the brittish. I dont think they would have surrendered. The brittish won the battle of brittain without any help. They destroyed 1887 from the 2550 planes the germans had. This war ensured the Brittish had a huge air-supremacy over the nazis. nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slag_om_EngelandAlso the brittish had a huge navy advantage over the nazis. Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_history_of_World_War_IIDue to the air and navy advantage of the brittish the germans couldnt take brittain at all. They won sealion even before it was started, since the nazis had cancelled it. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_BritainThe brittish wouldnt surrender, not because they thought the us would come help them out, but because brittain couldnt be taken by the nazis. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Aug 29, 2016 18:58:44 GMT
Well, in the bigger picture... if UK didn't have the backing of USA... they wouldn't have managed to held on so stubbornly. Their economy was wobbling too close to the edge and would likely to have a full-on collapse if it weren't for USA.
Troop numbers, tbh, the Brits were cold and callous, they wouldn't throw in their boys without the good ol' GI Joe jumping into the same battle.
The principle is even stronger in the world of finances for the Brits. Want a good visible example of how British thinking works in money? Watch Mary Poppins the movie. It has a part where a English gentleman sing something like "Precision, punctuality, prudence, perfection, progressive." (I'm running out of P words for a Brit to sing lol)
It's a good picture of how British were extreme tightwads with their finances, but boy... when they do invest, they invest BIG. It's how they used to be the biggest fish in the ocean of financial markets, overtaking Netherlands. (Granted, industrialization helps, but they were investing into profitable growth which is good financial sense in the market of money). Because of their perfectionist cold calculated nature, they wouldn't have thrown everything out the window in spending so much if they knew America would remain strictly neutral and not bail them out.
Knowing that America, their giant son, was coming to their side with certainty helps the UK feel free to throw their weight against the Nazi warmachine. It's a multi-level effect on everything. Money, equipment and men. (Maybe change the 2nd one to machines, to make it all M's lol).
|
|
.jpg)
