Did the USA actually "win" World War II?

[telsor]

Anyone notice that the RAAF has joined in the hunt for 370?

Our RAAF must be shite.

On the first, yeah, we still base a couple of planes in Malaysia, it would have been rude not to offer assistance, especially as they're well suited to the task (Orions).

I'm not sure how you draw the second conclusion though.

 

[little graham]

Actually by the end of WW2 Australia was ranked behind(well behind) the USA, USSR and the UK as the 4th most powerful Military power in the world.
Most able bodied people worked in the War Effort no matter what sex or age(to a point of course) if they wanted to be part of the War Effort they were allowed too.

Why do you demean Australia's military achievements?

Only two major countries exited ww2 in a stronger economic position than they entered, we were one. As with the other one we declared war on germany who had threatened us in no way shape or form, unlike the other one we declared war on japan, despite japan not having any issue with us.

In a previous post in this thread you claimed you were English.

Same thing, we bow to the same queen, participate in the same style of democracy, prey to same god, invade the same countries

 

[telsor]

Only two major countries exited ww2 in a stronger economic position than they entered, we were one. As with the other one we declared war on germany who had threatened us in no way shape or form, unlike the other one we declared war on japan, despite japan not having any issue with us.

major countries?

USA, USSR & Cominist China all emerged stronger. All far more major than us.

 

[Pessimistic]

Conventional wisdom for many is that the Soviet sacrifice and effort was the decisive factor in an Allied victory in World War Two and that US triumphalism is misplaced.

But did the USA actually provide the decisive elements?

They did after all:

* Conduct the vast majority of the heavy lifting in the Pacific, and almost all of it in terms of resources and infrastructure.

* Provide the Russians with vast amounts of supplies and equipment that without which, the Russian war effort would have been severely hampered.

* Provide vast amounts of supplies and equipment to the Brits that kept them up and fighting and more importantly, able to offer a European base from which to attack ze Germans.

* By mere dint of their participation they provided troops numbers and the ability to "project" their power that kept the Germans under attack and spending precious resources on numerous front - North Africa, Italy, D-Day and France, the daytime air war over Germany, the u-boat war in the Atlantic.

So, on points decision, did the US actually "win the war" for the Allies?

You stumbled on the answer there. They didnt give all that logistics and goods away so ww2 helped establish them as a superpower rather than just a power

 

[QuietB]

Germany lost it more than anyone won it. One nation cannot fight on every front, on land, at sea and in the air, and be expected to have any reasonable chance of beating pretty much every other major power in the world. Germany bit off too much, and the combined efforts of the rest of the world was too much for them to contend with. They went closer than they really should have though.

 

[Jakko]

Germany lost it more than anyone won it.

But conversely, they needed to take on a lot of the worlds powers to achieve their aim. In hindsight, their best bet was to consolidate after taking western Europe, played the long game, take north africa/suez, and keep Russia happy. Russia wouldn't be so stupid as to allow a decade or more of that dynamic without attacking though. Germany took the chances when they arose, its part of the reason for their success.

 

[little graham]

major countries?

USA, USSR & Cominist China all emerged stronger. All far more major than us.

I said two, the other was the USA. Russia did not come out it stronger, thousands of miles of prime land and infistructure was levelled, over 30 million dead. A massive army and air force that was to cause econmoic issues for years, how many million invalid? A million or so german soldiers to deal with ect and a crusade war with america. Russia may of overrun alot of central and eastern europe,but they were by far along way from being a stronger and richer economy.

China? Now they are,but they were not far past peasenthood in 1945. That really is clutching at staws.

 

[Pie eyed]

Same thing, we bow to the same queen, participate in the same style of democracy, prey to same god, invade the same countries

There is a rather big difference.
You either are or you lied.
No Australian would describe them self as English, even a staunch Monarchist, any more than Irishman, a Scotsman, a Canadian or an Indian.

 

[little graham]

There is a rather big difference.
You either are or you lied.
Australian would describe them self as British, even a staunch Monarchist.

How come british subjects can vote in australian elections? Have you ever seen a nasho's papers?

 

[telsor]

How come british subjects can vote in australian elections? Have you ever seen a nasho's papers?

They can't vote. They could, but that was stopped in the 70s or 80s.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

But conversely, they needed to take on a lot of the worlds powers to achieve their aim. In hindsight, their best bet was to consolidate after taking western Europe, played the long game, take north africa/suez, and keep Russia happy. Russia wouldn't be so stupid as to allow a decade or more of that dynamic without attacking though. Germany took the chances when they arose, its part of the reason for their success.

Yeah even if Hitler didn't go east and just consolidated in the West, no way Russia would have sat on its hands with such a clearly aggressive neighbour in its doorstep. They would have strengthened considerably.

As mad as ol Dolph was, it was the most rational plan to achieve his ultimate objective. The East was a massive part of his goals for the Reich, providing the living space for his eventually massive super race.

He hit hard and fast with Russia well below ultimate military capacity. And they actually came bloody close - had they broken through things would have been very different. Once the blitzkrieg was halted and they were bogged down, they were always going to be stretched and defeated.

 

[tazaa]

The US could not have won the war without Russia and vice versa.
But its more of a fact they realised they woule eventually win as the Nazis were gonna burn out from all the meth they were on so by biding their time the win was gonna come.

 

[little graham]

They can't vote. They could, but that was stopped in the 70s or 80s.

for new subjects it was stopped by the hawke gov

 

[JRoo]

They can't vote. They could, but that was stopped in the 70s or 80s.

I believe British subjects who resided in Australia before the law changes can still vote in Australian elections, maybe wrong but I seem to remember there being an issue of them able to vote in the republic debate.

 

[little graham]

I believe British subjects who resided in Australia before the law changes can still vote in Australian elections.

yes they can

 

[little graham]

Yeah even if Hitler didn't go east and just consolidated in the West, no way Russia would have sat on its hands with such a clearly aggressive neighbour in its doorstep. They would have strengthened considerably.

As mad as ol Dolph was, it was the most rational plan to achieve his ultimate objective. The East was a massive part of his goals for the Reich, providing the living space for his eventually massive super race.

He hit hard and fast with Russia well below ultimate military capacity. And they actually came bloody close - had they broken through things would have been very different. Once the blitzkrieg was halted and they were bogged down, they were always going to be stretched and defeated.

Thats the English propaganda ministers point of view....

 

[Shane Hird]

Without the U.S involvement changing the situation in Nth Africa, Hitler armed forces would have powered on for far much longer than they did. Along with the Battle of Malta by the British, it was critical the battle in the near-by desert was won and the English PM knew it.

It took Churchill a lot of work to get Roosevelt to commit his resources to this battle front and stands as a pivotal moment in WW2 where the tide began to turn against Germany.

Victory gave the Russians added confidence too as they planned to grind down and pound the Germans on the Eastern Front knowing they would eventually run out of supplies.

Of course this was part of many battles the Yanks eventually got involved in and without their massive war machine boosting the Allied firepower we would all be speaking German today.



http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_el_alamein.htm


El Alamein is 150 miles west of Cairo. By the summer of 1942, the Allies were in trouble throughout Europe. The attack onRussia - Operation Barbarossa - had pushed the Russians back; U-boats were having a major effect on Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic and western Europe seemed to be fully in the control of the Germans.

Hence the war in the desert of North Africa was pivotal. If the Afrika Korps got to the Suez Canal, the ability of the Allies to supply themselves would be severely dented. The only alternate supply route would be via South Africa - which was not only longer but a lot more dangerous due to the vagaries of the weather. The psychological blow of losing the Suez and losing in North Africa would have been incalculable - especially as this would have given Germany near enough free access to the oil in the Middle East

 

[Jakko]

Thats the English propaganda ministers point of view....

I presume you are angling to your old peeve of Hitler's late war sanity being a western propaganda creation? For all his publicly staged strength, he was surely a very insecure, messed up, point to prove product of the WW1 horrors. He gambled very well in the opening years of WW2 when apathy and a lack of modernisation among major western powers was a reality. But beyond that, the pressure must have been soul destroyingly monumental. No doubt this took a toll.

 

[Shane Hird]

I presume you are angling to your old peeve of Hitler's late war sanity being a western propaganda creation? For all his publicly staged strength, he was surely a very insecure, messed up, point to prove product of the WW1 horrors. He gambled very well in the opening years of WW2 when apathy and a lack of modernisation among major western powers was a reality. But beyond that, the pressure must have been soul destroyingly monumental. No doubt this took a toll.

When it was clear Rommel had failed in Nth Africa, Hiitler's plan for vast supplies of Arab oil were gone.

It would have crushed his hopes and dreams. It was all down hill from there after.

 

[little graham]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_el_alamein.htm

Might as well quote stormfront! One day you might understand how extreme the British version of history is.

I presume you are angling to your old peeve of Hitler's late war sanity being a western propaganda creation?

Why are you jumping to conclusions. Something to fear?

For all his publicly staged strength, he was surely a very insecure, messed up, point to prove product of the WW1 horrors.

On alot of drugs for the pain of the injuries received in his decorated war service.Was told he's blind for life in 1918.

He gambled very well in the opening years of WW2 when apathy and a lack of modernisation among major western powers was a reality.

Americans knew in the 20's how to flatten Europe. Thats when they started developing the tacticts used by the eighth airforce. At the same time the Ruskies was preparing the shock armies. You have to rethink that one.

The biggest gamble Hitler took was believing the English wanted something other than war. He should of done a few hundred thousand British soldiers in when he had the chance at Dunkirk and immediately hit the RAF, rather than sueing for an armistice. The other mistake was not giving Rommel a bigger force when he went to the desert to see what was left of the eighth army. They knew alot was destroyed in Greece, but were unsure what stayed behind.

 

[Shane Hird]

Might as well quote stormfront! One day you might understand how extreme the British version of history is.

wtf are u on about

 

[skilts]

wtf are u on about

wtf are u on about

wtf are u on about

Did you say something? You are an relentless emphaticist.

 

[Shane Hird]

Did you say something? You are an relentless emphaticist.

computer chucked a wobbly while posting...still wanna know wtf graham is talking about though...stormfront???

 

[thejester]

When it was clear Rommel had failed in Nth Africa, Hiitler's plan for vast supplies of Arab oil were gone.

It would have crushed his hopes and dreams. It was all down hill from there after.

Hitler never had a plan for 'vast supplies of Arab oil' - not least because in 1941-42 the Middle East accounted for only a very small fraction of the world's oil production. The Afrika Korps and Rommel were sent to Libya to stop the Italians getting kicked out of North Africa and that remained their basic mission - Rommel was stretching the spirit of his orders (and his logistics) to breaking point in pursuing his dream of getting to the Suez Canal, a dream that was never very realistic. The battles in North Africa were important for a variety of reasons but not anywhere near to the extent that website is claiming.

 

[Papa Juggs]

The answer of course is no.

Everybody is driving Japanese and German cars and those 2 countries are economic powerhouses.