QuoteReplyTopic: Did America win the war for the Allies in WW2? Posted: 29-Oct-2008 at 18:52
Beylerbeyi,
I don't see much to quibble with about what you say, except in shades of emphasis
I just want to focus some attention on the importance of Britain's economic superiority to Germany, given what seems to me to be to be undue emphasis being placed on weapons counts and armies. By economic superiority I simply mean money and people and access to raw materials. The longer a war goes on, the more that all counts.
Contributing to the struggle against Hitler was not being 'wussie'. 'Selling' implies they only did it for what they could get. Which is simply untrue.
On the contrary, your own words admit it. Yes they struggled against Hitler which was threatening their country. This is the reason they gave up such information, they didn't it give it freely. For this information they got Allies fighting their enemy, Germany, with increased chances of success. Isn't this a good price?
No. I was talking about the actual situation before the USSR got involved, when Germany (and Italy) had no-one to fight except Britain and the Commonwealth. What happened when the USSR was not involved is very pertinent to what happened when the USSR was not involved.
Operation Barbarossa started on June 22, 1941. The North African campaigns of Germany prior to this date were a relative success - they pushed back the Commonwealth forces, defeated them in several battles, conquered important points (operation Sunflower). Most counter-operations launched by the British in the first half of this year were a failure. The Middle-East theater was almost inexistent (some airforce participating in Anglo-Iraqi war). Not mentioning that operation Barbarossa was in preparations months prior to its launch. Yet you have said: "Why do you think Germany would have controlled North Africa and the Middle East? They totally failed there in real life" (Germany, not Italy!)
So now you offer two choices:
- either you are mostly ignorant of WWII events, yet you choose to reply in this thread
- you do have knowledge of WWII, but then your latest reply is dishonest, knowing that in that post you didn't actually refer to Germany's actions in NA and ME before operation Barbarossa and now you try to find a way out so you don't have to concede on anything.
Maybe you'll analyse your initial claim and reveal the mysteries of grammar and semantics which hide "before the USSR got involved part". Though I believe it's rather the second choice. Either way it's a petty, shameful attempt from your side.
That's simply not what I said.
Straw man. I didn't say you said that, I said "I'll rephrase a bit". If you have troubles following me, don't troll in threads, PM me.
I asked a question. I asked why he thought they would have probably controlled those areas wthout the USSR being involved, when, factually, they failed to control those areas when the USSR was not involved.
It is another straw man, you actually said "They totally failed there in real life" (emphasis mine) thus the question shows its rhetorical nuance by anticipating the answer. The idea that they failed to control those areas before USSR was involved is preposterous. To control NA (in ME they didn't launch any important operation) in few months while they were preparing a massive invasion of USSR?
I wasn't presenting some argument that he had not put forward and then demolishing it, because (a) he had put it forward and (b) I didn't demolish it.
Plain denial. Didn't you attack his argument that Germany could succeed in ME and NA without having USSR as enemy?
Well, actually no we're not discussing WWII in this subthread. We're discussing what might have happened in a one-on-one conflict between Britain and Germany, under the minimum assumption that Germany's blitkrieg against the continental west European coountries had succeeded.
Actually we're discussing who had the most important contribution among Allies in WWII and some created fictive scenarios where either USSR or US were absent in this war. Maybe you should read more carefully what the other people write ...
Again, all I did was ask a question - I said 'so USSR is out but Italy is in' or something similar. Asking a question about the assumptions being made is not assuming anything.
Perhaps reading what you reply to would help ...
In fact if anyone here is attributing assertions to the other side, it's you since you're claiming I made assumptions I never made.
The only correction I can make to those weapons systems is that the Essex Class carriers numbered 24, 14 of which saw active combat service. The others were completed either before shakedown and training were finished (3), or after the war ended (7).
EDIT: The Essex Class supported an air group of 90 to 105 planes whose configuration changed several times during the war.
The Independence Class were a stop gap due to CV losses at Coral Sea, Midway and the Solomons in 1942. However, cramped and unsuitable as they were, being converted from light cruiser hulls, they provided about the equivalent of another four or five Essex air groups.
Destroyers are sometimes dismissed as "small ships." Nothing could be further from the truth as they carried out many duties, some extremely hazardous, and provided often needed in-shore fire support. Four classes of modern destroyers were completed from 1942 to 45 totaling 396 ships. The destroyer was, and still is, the workhorse of any blue water navy.
The production of transports (Liberty ships, oilers, refrigeration ships, etc.), was over 33,000,000 tons.
EDIT: In addition, 141 (some say 130) escort carriers were either converted from merchantmen, or purpose built (122) in the US for convoy antisubmarine duty. Something like 36 or 38 were built for the RN to add to their six merchant conversions. These escort carriers could support an air group of 24 to 30 planes.
you're right, i've only had a fast look at my notes, on which i had Ticonderoga-Class of carriers separate from the Essex-Class carriers. from what i wrote down, four of them actually saw combat and three more were finished after the war.
yeah of course destroyers fullfill a very important role in naval warfare but they are still small ships
Contributing to the struggle against Hitler was not being 'wussie'. 'Selling' implies they only did it for what they could get. Which is simply untrue.
On the contrary, your own words admit it. Yes they struggled against Hitler which was threatening their country. This is the reason they gave up such information, they didn't it give it freely. For this information they got Allies fighting their enemy, Germany, with increased chances of success. Isn't this a good price?
You're implying a bargain - 'Agree to fight Hitler and we'll give you this', That's not what happened. The Poles gave the information to Britain in July 1939, after the British had entered into the military alliance. They had therefore got all they could hope for before passing the information on.
No. I was talking about the actual situation before the USSR got involved, when Germany (and Italy) had no-one to fight except Britain and the Commonwealth. What happened when the USSR was not involved is very pertinent to what happened when the USSR was not involved.
Operation Barbarossa started on June 22, 1941. The North African campaigns of Germany prior to this date were a relative success - they pushed back the Commonwealth forces, defeated them in several battles, conquered important points (operation Sunflower). Most counter-operations launched by the British in the first half of this year were a failure.
What tended to happen was that when a side got reinforcements it managed a successul attack, until the other side got reinforced, in which case the situation reversed itself. However it was much harder for the Germans to reinforce North Africa than it was for the British, who had shorter lines of communication over territory and sea they controlled, whereas the Germans had to fight their way across a British-controlled sea.
The Middle-East theater was almost inexistent (some airforce participating in Anglo-Iraqi war). Not mentioning that operation Barbarossa was in preparations months prior to its launch. Yet you have said: "Why do you think Germany would have controlled North Africa and the Middle East? They totally failed there in real life" (Germany, not Italy!)
So now you offer two choices:
- either you are mostly ignorant of WWII events, yet you choose to reply in this thread
- you do have knowledge of WWII, but then your latest reply is dishonest, knowing that in that post you didn't actually refer to Germany's actions in NA and ME before operation Barbarossa and now you try to find a way out so you don't have to concede on anything.
Neither is in fact true. As of June 1941 the position of the two opponents in North Africa was approximately where they started in the summer of 1940, after a series of back-and-forth advances and retreats ended up with pretty much of a stalemate. However, logistically the British were in a considerably stronger position in their ability to reinforce and supply. Rommel was a brilliant commander but he had no navy behind him.
Maybe you'll analyse your initial claim and reveal the mysteries of grammar and semantics which hide "before the USSR got involved part". Though I believe it's rather the second choice. Either way it's a petty, shameful attempt from your side.
Roughly speaking I'm assuming we're discussing a hypothetical scenario in which following the fall of France, no further countries got into the war - i.e. Germany and Japan didn't attack anyone. That leaves the position of Italy somewhat ambiguous, since it joined the war just as France collapsed, which is why I queried it earlier.
I have no idea why you are yattering on about grammar and semantics, or what on earth you mean by them here.
That's simply not what I said.
Straw man. I didn't say you said that, I said "I'll rephrase a bit". If you have troubles following me, don't troll in threads, PM me.
'Rephrasing' the other side's position is at the very heart of straw man rhetoric.
I asked a question. I asked why he thought they would have probably controlled those areas wthout the USSR being involved, when, factually, they failed to control those areas when the USSR was not involved.
It is another straw man, you actually said "They totally failed there in real life" (emphasis mine) thus the question shows its rhetorical nuance by anticipating the answer.
No it doesn't. You're just inventing stuff. They did fail. And they totally failed. That's not anticipating anything.
You'd do well not to read artifical nuances into what people say, and concentrate on what is actually said without inventing things.
The idea that they failed to control those areas before USSR was involved is preposterous. To control NA (in ME they didn't launch any important operation) in few months while they were preparing a massive invasion of USSR?
Those may well be the reasons they failed. However they failed. Or are you somewhat perversely claiming they succeded?
Explaining why they failed is not proving they didn't fail.
I wasn't presenting some argument that he had not put forward and then demolishing it, because (a) he had put it forward and (b) I didn't demolish it.
Plain denial. Didn't you attack his argument that Germany could succeed in ME and NA without having USSR as enemy?
[/QUOTE]
I didn't say I didn't attack it. You're so keen on reading what other people write, just re-read the sentence you're replying to.
I wrote '(a) he had put it forward and (b) I didn't demolish it'. Both are true. Neither mentions attacking it.
In any case here I didn't even attack it. I asked him to explain why he thought so, which in fact in a later post he did, without rasing any of the issues you have, or coming up with any of the insults you came up with. You seem to be getting confused with some other thread in some other forum in some other world.
Well, actually no we're not discussing WWII in this subthread. We're discussing what might have happened in a one-on-one conflict between Britain and Germany, under the minimum assumption that Germany's blitkrieg against the continental west European coountries had succeeded.
Actually we're discussing who had the most important contribution among Allies in WWII and some created fictive scenarios where either USSR or US were absent in this war. Maybe you should read more carefully what the other people write ...
We've been discussing all soprts of alternative scenarios that's true. One of them is where the USSR, the US and Japan are all not involved - i.e. a continuation of the situation that existed between May 1940 and June 1941, eithe win Italy in or with Italy out.
If you want to discuss something other variation on WW2, feel free.
Again, all I did was ask a question - I said 'so USSR is out but Italy is in' or something similar. Asking a question about the assumptions being made is not assuming anything.
Perhaps reading what you reply to would help ...
It does sometimes. Here I was asking for confirmation of what I had read.
In fact if anyone here is attributing assertions to the other side, it's you since you're claiming I made assumptions I never made.
The question is absurd. The US contributed towards victory ... yes. It was a crucial element ... yes. But you can take any of the major 3 Allied powers and say the same thing. The war was lost without any one of them.
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
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Did America win the war for the Allies in WW2?
