Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Did America win the war for the Allies in WW2? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 8> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Husaria 
Pretorian 
Joined: 28-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 150 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Did America win the war for the Allies in WW2?Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 03:36 |
|
|
Thats the topic of the essay i have to write. I am going to argue no. We need to have 3 subtopics and mine are going to be.
Germany and the war in the east Hitlers incompetence and one have having to do something with the pacfic. Just posted this to ask people their opinion on the subtopics and maybe some suggestions. I am not looking for some easy answers just suggestions for topics. And if you agree that America did win the war for the allies i don't care i am not here to debate that. |
||
|
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine. |
||
 |
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke 
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 08:11 |
|
|
Hello Husaria Well the answer is both yes and no. The US only had an impact on the fighting by the middle of 1942. By that time Germany was in serious trouble in the east even though it still had a very remote chance of success. Russia was mobalising fast and even if the Germans took Moscow and the industrial cities on the Volag Russia by that time had almost all her industrial and population might further east well beyond any German force and they were ready to fight to the end and the regime was quite safe by that time. So the answer is no. However for the west the answer is definetly yes. Britain would have not survived let alone invaded Europe alone and there was no european power of real strength other than it to help in the fight.
But this only touches on the real subject of the question, the question implies that the US out of charity helped the allies win a war that it had no stake in going into it in the first place. That assumption is wrong. The US would have had to contend with Hitler sooner or later and it was Hitler who declared war on the US not the other way around and was in alliance with Japan.
Al-Jassas
|
||
|
||
|
gcle2003
King 
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 11:04 |
|
|
I agree with al Jassas' last point (and most of the rest).
However I don't agree that Britain would not have survived (though it's true it would never have invaded Europe alone). The Western situation would have been a continuation of the impasse that had been reached by the end of 1940, with British (remeber - Imperial British, not just UK) naval and air superiority balancing out German superiority on the ground.
In the very long run, without Soviet and US and Japanese intervention, I believe Germany would have collapsed before Britain, because of its lack of access to raw materials, particularly oil. (Moreover, Britain could pay the US for weaponry, whereas the Germans couldn't, and even if they had had the resources to do so, they couldn't ferry them to Europe.) Germany also had the problme of controlling - and providing for - the populations of the occupied countries.
Economics, not military prowess, would have been the decisive factor.
However, with the Soviets involved, but not the US and Japan, there is an easy win for the Allies, which was already apparent before US troops got involved (as al Jassas points out). But - bring in Japan, and Britain is suddenly in much deeper trouble.
The really dangerous situation for Britain is if Japan attacks, but does not attack the US - as al Jassas points out, the US didn't declare war on anyone of its own accord. Luckily Japan did attack the US, and Hitler did declare war on the US, and the US-British Empire-Soviet combination was always bound to defeat the German-Japanese one. Edited by gcle2003 - 09-Oct-2008 at 11:05 |
||
|
||
|
Husaria
Pretorian
Joined: 28-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 20:33 |
|
|
In my essay i am going to try stressing that the war in the east(russia) was already determined long before any major american involvment because i always felt americans were credited more than russians for their part in most westernized opinions.Also i am going to try proving the point that hitler did make alot of stubborn stupid decisions so whos to say he wouldnt do more if america wasnt involved?
|
||
|
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine. |
||
|
||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 21:23 |
|
|
Take a look at the economic realities. As they say, 'follow the money'. Include in that the ability to purchase weaponry and improvements in productivity.
Much to much emphasis tends to get put on comparing armies.
But yes, I would agree that the tide had turned before the US got involved other than in strategic bombing (in Europe) and in selling or leasing weaponry to Britain.
The turning points on the Russian and North African fronts were the (roughly) contemporaneous battles of Stalingrad and Alamein in the fall of 1942.
|
||
|
||
|
Husaria
Pretorian
Joined: 28-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 01:05 |
|
|
Don't want you doing the work for me but by economic realities you think i should compare Germany and Russia's ability for mobilization and industry ect as kind of a sub sub topic inside a topic mostly talking about stratigic aspects like weather,morale and tactics?
|
||
|
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine. |
||
|
||
|
Panther
General 
Joined: 20-Jan-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 818 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 03:05 |
|
|
Hmmm... something in the Pacific? Perosnally, i think the US contribution was just one of the three more important, but not the war winner on it's own. The same goes for the Russians and the British. I guess if i were you, i might title my subtopic: "The Search for Allied Coordination in the Far East-Pacific region"? Edited by Panther - 11-Oct-2008 at 03:06 |
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph 
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 03:37 |
|
Yes. This is complitely true.
But we should bare in mind that the origins of the "Westernized" opinion of the relative impacts of the Allies on the cause of the war lies in the Cold War.
The Western world for some reasons wasn't eager to emphasize the real decisive impact of the Eastern front on the outcome of the war.
The general impression of the fighting on the East for the Western public was created as something like Germans were winning all the time but then the were stopped by the "Russian winter" and then, there was a kind of stalemate, but only the ally landing in Italy and later Normandy put Germany on its knees.
That picture was actually just a creation of propaganda.
I remember there was a Soviet documentary made about the Eastern Front in English in the 1970th specifically in order "to enlight" the Western public about the titanic struggle in the East.
So, when the movie was finally broadcasted in the West, the Western producers gave it a very notable name: "The Unknown War."
Edited by Sarmat12 - 11-Oct-2008 at 03:44 |
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
Husaria
Pretorian
Joined: 28-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 05:36 |
|
Yes i also say that but my topic has to have a emphasis on how America Was not the war winner,ill try showing this by the drain Russia had on Germany,How germany was defeating itself at some points(some of hitlers choices) and now it comes to the one were i am not sure because i can't realy say that Japan would lose without American involvment so i am trying to think of somthing.Basicaly its like trying to argue that the Axis would lose even if America didn't get involved. Sarmat i agree with you totaly about how the west discredited Russian Victorys and Bravery.Its like their saying Germany was completly overruning Russia but than Russian winter was what stoped them in their tracks and destroyed them. Germany did make some significant land gains in the opening of the conflict in the east but stoped once Russia mobilized their defence and while winter was a factor it wasn't the sole one that destroyed Germany in the east i think the thousands of crazy Russians encircling you had more to do with that than freezing your ass off  . |
||
|
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine. |
||
|
||
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 818 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 06:37 |
|
Oh, i see what you are saying now? I must say, you sure did pick a difficult position, didn't you?
|
||
|
||
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 818 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 06:50 |
|
Oh yeah, Sarmat and Husaria, i'm sitting here with a stack of dated US govt. funded WW 2 hollywood videos staring me straight in the face, that... if it does or done anything, it had done a most wonderful & excellent job of portraying Russian victories and bravery of that era! I also have a couple of books on the Russian versions of WW2, and in regards to those books, if you two really want too talk about discrediting allied contributions, victories and bravery, then all i can say is... Hello pot, meet kettle!
Sorry guys, i don't buy it! Edited by Panther - 11-Oct-2008 at 06:50 |
||
|
||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 10:40 |
|
|
I agree with Panther on this one, from a British point of view. Newsreels and newspapers and magazines (no television then) continually emphasised the contribution the Russians were making to the war. I note that without thinking I wrote 'Russian' rather than 'Soviet' there: I think at that particular time we did start talking in terms of 'Russians' as opposed to 'Bolsheviks' or 'Soviets'.
That's after June 1941 of course. In 1939-40 the British public was not surprisingly anti-Soviet (and pro-Finnish).
|
||
|
||
|
Husaria
Pretorian
Joined: 28-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 18:34 |
|
|
Well its all about perception ain't it?Ask anyone around here why Germany lost in the east and they will say because of winter. But than again the general public isn't exactly well versed in history especially people in my age range 16-20.
|
||
|
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine. |
||
|
||
|
Husaria
Pretorian
Joined: 28-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 150 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 18:37 |
|
Yeah i can't have my topic changed to How Germany lost without American involvment but i have to take in account Italy and Japan. |
||
|
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine. |
||
|
||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 19:43 |
|
Actually yes I think you should. In war as much else the big guys usually beat the little guys and in WW2 Germany and Japan were the little guys, the Allies were the big guys, from the point of view of population, industrial production, and money.
Little guys either win fast, or they get beaten.
|
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 19:45 |
|
I'm not talking about the Western massmedia within the time period of 1941-1945. They were objective and commented the events of the Eastern Front without any bias. Churchill himself said that Russia "broke the back of the Nazists."
I was talking about the period of the Cold war, when unfortunately bias and propaganda came into play.
Otherwise the British producers of the film about the Eastern Front wouldn't have to name it "Unknown War" in 1978.
|
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 19:57 |
|
|
OK. Worth noting though that the bias and propaganda were two-way. One of the things I had to do in training was see a Soviet film once a week (though it was fairly easy to skive out of
 since the screenings were open to the public as well as us: the government just paid for them).
Plenty of stuff about the noble Red army (and noble farmworkers and noble factory workers), nothing about the West's contribution.
|
||
|
||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 21:25 |
|
|
Hello to you all
I don't agree with you Sarmat on what you said about western media diminishing Russian contribution to WWII. I saw till now 17 episodes of "The World at War" and it was more than obvious the admission and glorification of the Russian military machine particularly the episode "Red Star". They almost made gods of the Russian soldiers and commanders and the newsreels and interviews also do a similar part.
As for the decisiveness of the Russian controbution well I forgot to mention in my earlier post a fact that could have jeopardized all of what the Russians achieved as late as early 1944 and that is the Japanese factor. Japan had some 1.5 million men in Manchuria and Russia had practically none. Had the Japanese invaded at any time before Jan 44 (when Kiev fell) Russia would have been in deep trouble and it might have lost all what it had gained earlier (since Kursk) or at the best halted the necessary advance and enabled the Germans to dig in and turn the region into a quagmire for the Russians.
However in my opinion, with the circumstances on the ground there is no doubt that Russia, its early resiliance and later rebound, that was the decisive factor in the final victory not the US with its enourmous military machine.
Al-Jassas
|
||
|
||
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 05:22 |
|
|
The US military machine wasn't enormous until it started arming for WW2. Until it saw events unfold in Europe US generals didn't believe in Tanks, preferring cavalry, and their army was geared to fighting in the Americas and not overseas.
The biggest US asset in the war was their manufacturing industry. They could produce more than anyone else, and completely change their army in only a few years. Edited by Omar al Hashim - 12-Oct-2008 at 05:23 |
||
|
||
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 818 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 04:23 |
|
|
For my apologies to Husaria for being a off topic, but i feel this either needs to be addressed here, or possibly in another thread...
Speaking about bias and propaganda. Sarmat, the pro-soviet view wasn't just held between 40-45. Convincing many in the West about the threat that the Soviets represented would have been incredibly hard without any help from them. The question is why did the public mood change by the end 40's and the beginning of the 50's? For one thing, The intentional starving of Berliners with the Soviet imposed blockade of the city, didn't really help endear them too many in the West. Also, as was assumed then but only confirmed recently with the release of new documents, that the combined efforts of the Soviet, N. Koreans & eventually PRC involvement once things went against the Soviet and N. Korean efforts in over running the South Koreans, which was pretty much nearly the final nail in the coffin for any understanding between the two superpowers for the next several decades.
If Western people weren't afraid of communists in the 40's, then through the actions of mainly a Stalin driven combined communist governments throughout the late forties and early fifties, had pretty much eradicated any doubt in many a Westerners mind as to the intentions of what they had stood for! Ever noticed how quick the Korean war went for hot to cold once Stalin died?
What many consider as an unbiased view today in the west, was made possible thanks to early seventies diplomacy by both sides, the FOIA of the US government, and historians revisitng the cause & effects of the Cold War era, most especially since the fall of the USSR! What i am also saying is, if the Cold War era reflects a bit of a biased view from a Western viewpoint, then you have only the Soviets too blame for cutting off all sources of information because of their constantly extreme paranioa with the outside world! With the documents so far supplied, they had incredibly good reason for covering up their intentions. Otherwise, it would have been over way before it even started, due to a lack of belief in what the Soviet's really stood for! Notice, i say Soviets and not Russia(ns)?
Best regards,
Panther
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 8> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
