Did the USA actually "win" World War II?

blackcat

Irving's godfather and handle
Dec 29, 2003
28,355
14,116
Beverly Hills 90210 Antifa bracket
AFL Club
Richmond
aussie6.jpg

is thise the banner for those bunch of w@nkers the sports fans fanatics.

the only time I would ever lose myself to a mindnumbing event, is if I had a terminal disease, and Greg Ritchie and Merv were doing the Tour to the Caribbean.
 
May 20, 2006
11,550
5,623
In the Clique.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
is thise the banner for those bunch of w@nkers the sports fans fanatics.

the only time I would ever lose myself to a mindnumbing event, is if I had a terminal disease, and Greg Ritchie and Merv were doing the Tour to the Caribbean.
Am I unsure if I should talk to you as your county men may attack mine. Remember the Alamo ( or was it the Battle of the Boyne?)
 
I doubt there are many places in the world (apart from those who build tanks already) that could produce the thick sheets of composite armour required for modern tanks.

Given 6 months (at wartime speeds/priority), we'd be able to produce something better than a T-34. Real, modern, tanks production would require years.

We don't really have the infrastructure to build tanks, we could develop it if we wanted but Russia was able to refit 42 factories that produced heavy machinery into producing T-34s instead. We don't really build much similar to it so we would have to build the infrastructure from scratch.

I mean we can build submarines and we can build warships and those require steel fabrication on a grander scale than tanks do. However, we don't really have the infrastructure to produce 50,000 26 ton medium tanks in the space of 3 or 4 years.

We are rich enough as a nation to build the infrastructure but our docile nature means we would never build the infrastructure before it is needed and without it there it would be too late when you need it. Our GDP is 1.521 trillion USD in 2012 ($67,722 per capita) and Russia is 2.015 trillion USD in 2012 ($18,996 per capita), it is not like we don't have the wealth, we just utilise it poorly.

We are 5th in the world for GDP per capita, the countries ahead of us make us look like a super power so we are a wealthy nation and could afford to build these industries, we just lack the critical mass in terms of population and work force that develop the skills in those industries, it would take us a some time to skill people up for fabrication and manufacturing which isn't our strong suit.
 
We don't really have the infrastructure to build tanks, we could develop it if we wanted but Russia was able to refit 42 factories that produced heavy machinery into producing T-34s instead. We don't really build much similar to it so we would have to build the infrastructure from scratch.

I mean we can build submarines and we can build warships and those require steel fabrication on a grander scale than tanks do. However, we don't really have the infrastructure to produce 50,000 26 ton medium tanks in the space of 3 or 4 years.

We are rich enough as a nation to build the infrastructure but our docile nature means we would never build the infrastructure before it is needed and without it there it would be too late when you need it. Our GDP is 1.521 trillion USD in 2012 ($67,722 per capita) and Russia is 2.015 trillion USD in 2012 ($18,996 per capita), it is not like we don't have the wealth, we just utilise it poorly.

We are 5th in the world for GDP per capita, the countries ahead of us make us look like a super power so we are a wealthy nation and could afford to build these industries, we just lack the critical mass in terms of population and work force that develop the skills in those industries, it would take us a some time to skill people up for fabrication and manufacturing which isn't our strong suit.

We just don't have the market to justify such industries....and I'm not sure current factories could be retooled to build tanks the way the could 70 years back...things are a lot more specialised now.
 

darth_timon

Hakuna Matata!
Oct 24, 2011
7,264
4,096
UK
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Stevenage
There were two major theatres of war, Europe and the Pacific. In the first one yes, definitely the USA won the war since it ended with the unconditional surrender of the enemy. You don't get much more of a win than than that, so it's hard to see any merit for an argument they didn't win the Pacific side of it. In the European side of it they were on the winning team, and a major player in that team.

The Americans at the very least shortened the war by several years. The Russians may have had the long-term edge through ultimate manpower but the US brought a lot of troops and manpower of their own and took a lot of pressure off the Allies.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
Jan 26, 2006
40,446
31,699
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
We just don't have the market to justify such industries....and I'm not sure current factories could be retooled to build tanks the way the could 70 years back...things are a lot more specialised now.

From everything I have heard about our manufacturing we will have one bloody good naval industry.
 

Jakko

Club Legend
Apr 7, 2005
2,901
1,249
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide
Another thing about ww2 that really interests me, is the obscure smaller battles, or battles within battles that are always glossed over. By modern standards, the carnage from largely unknown skirmishes is almost unthinkable, and yet small scale when considering what else was taking place at the time.

This battle for example, usually loosely lumped in with the embarrassing fall of Singapore...



The Battle of Muar was the last major battle of the Malayan campaign. It took place from 14–22 January 1942 around Gemensah Bridge and on the Muar River. After the British defeat at Slim River, General Archibald Wavell, commander of ABDA, decided that Lieutenant General Lewis Heath's III Indian Corps should withdraw 150 miles south into the State of Johore to rest and regroup, whilst the 8th Australian Division would attempt to stop the Japanese advance.[3]
Allied soldiers, under the command of Major General Gordon Bennett, inflicted severe losses on Japanese forces at the Gemensah Bridge ambush and in a second battle a few miles north of the town of Gemas. Members of the Australian 8th Division killed an estimated 700 personnel from the Japanese Imperial Guards Division, in the ambush at the bridge itself, whilst Australian anti-tank guns destroyed several Japanese tanks in the battle north of Gemas.
Although the ambush was successful for the Allies, the defence of Muar and Bakri on the west coast was a complete failure which resulted in the near-annihilation of the 45th Indian Infantry Brigade and heavy casualties for its two attached Australian infantry battalions.[4] This was the first engagement between units of the British 18th Division and Japanese forces in Malaya.

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


I think it was an engagement around this time that I remember reading about maybe 12 years ago. About a 2pdr/engineer/with infantry support ambush of some lead Japanese tankers. A narrow road, the engineers had rigged explosives to down trees over the road, as well as to the rear, to prevent escape. End result was a close killing field for our 2pdr guns and infantry.

Its a good example of weopens suiting the tactics, or vice versa.. Those same 2pdr guns could never play the long range game of the german 88s in NA, but were ideal for short range targets and maneuverability by the crew, particularly against the weak Japanese armor.
 
From everything I have heard about our manufacturing we will have one bloody good naval industry.

We build warships because our government pays overs to have them built here. If we have a great industry, where are all the other countries paying us to build ships for them?
 

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Feb 14, 2002
17,797
6,858
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
I hate to do so, and hope I will be forgiven, for posting large slabs from Wikipedia like this, but this is the best summation available of the battle of Amiens, which started on August 8 1918. The strategy was devised by General Sir John Monash and his Chief of Staff, Brigadier Thomas Blamey. They had originally come up with this idea a month earlier, and employed the tactics, on a divisional level, at the battle of Le Hamel, and they were outstandingly successful. Monash's idea and Blamey's written orders and attention to detail for its completion routed the Germans in this battle.

The British General, Rawlinson, in concert with his compatriot Haig and the overall commander, Foch, were convinced by Monash that a similar tactic could work on a grander scale. It was proposed that British, Australian, French and Canadian troops be involved to take the heavily defended and vital supply town of Amiens. The idea was that the infantry would accompany the tanks, in an assault which wasn't presaged by the usual artillery bombardment lasting a couple of hours prior to the attack (which had previously tended to let the enemy know they were coming).

Prior to this, the mechanical unreliability of tanks made such a idea fraught. Monash and Blamey viewed the testing of the Mark V tank and decided it could be useful, and more dependable than its predecessors. It was decided that the artillery barrage would be unleashed contiguous with the troops and tanks being deployed. Using a 'creeping' artillery barrage, which moved further into the enemy lines, ahead of the troops' advance, they were able to confuse the Germans' response - the element of surprise. Monash also employed the Air Force as observers, to more accurately direct this 'creeping' artillery fire. The cavalry also came into play eventually, to more quickly harass the retreating Germans, once their lines had been breached.

Of the 500 tanks deployed in this battle, only four survived as serviceable, causing appalling loss of life. As with other conflicts in the 20th century, the casualties suffered by Air Force personnel were horrendous. However, the casualties suffered by the infantry were infinitesimal, in contrast to other battles on the Western Front, when compared to ground gained. Its effect on the morale of the German forces (which lost 72,000) was such that, the war was effectively ended.

Being the imbeciles that they were, the British High Command, in 1926, decided they would conduct manoeuvers on Salisbury Plain, in which the exact nature of these tactics were revealed. Blitzkrieg was born on this day, when they decided to invite their German counterparts to view the display.

More than 60% of British histories of the Western Front fail to mention Monash's remarkable achievements at all. Less than 5% even acknowledge Blamey's existence.

Foch disclosed his plan on 23 July 1918,[7] following the German retreat that had begun on 20 July. The plan called for reducing the Saint-Mihiel salient (which would later see combat in the Battle of Saint-Mihiel) and liberating the railway lines that ran through Amiens.

The commander of the British Expeditionary Force, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, already had plans in place for an attack near Amiens. When the British retreat had ended in April, the headquarters of the British Fourth Army under General Sir Henry Rawlinson had taken over the front astride the Somme. Its left hand corps was the British III Corps under Lieutenant General Richard Butler, while the Australian Corps under John Monash held the right flank and linked up with French armies to the south. On 30 May, all the Australian infantry divisions were united under the corps HQ, for the first time on the Western Front. The Australians had mounted a number of local counter-attacks which both revealed the suitability of the open and firm terrain south of the Somme for a larger offensive and also established and refined the methods which were to be used.[8]

Rawlinson had submitted Monash's proposals to Haig in July and Haig had forwarded them to Foch. At a meeting on 24 July, Foch agreed to the plan but insisted that the French First Army, which held the front to the south of the British Fourth Army, should participate. Rawlinson opposed this as his and Monash's plans depended on the large-scale use of tanks (now finally available in large numbers) to achieve surprise, by avoiding a preliminary bombardment. The French First Army lacked tanks and would be forced to bombard the German positions before the infantry advance began, thus removing the element of surprise. Eventually, it was agreed that the French would participate, but not launch their attack until 45 minutes after the Fourth Army.[3] It was also agreed to advance the proposed date of the attack from 10 August to 8 August, to strike the Germans before they had completed their withdrawal from the Marne salient.

Rawlinson had already finalised his plans in discussion with his Corps commanders (Butler, Monash, Sir Arthur Currie of the Canadian Corps and Lieutenant General Charles Kavanagh of the Cavalry Corps) on 21 July. For the first time, the Australians would attack side by side with the Canadian Corps. Both had a reputation for aggressive and innovative tactics and a strong record of success over the past two years.

The tactical methods had been tested by the Australians in a local counter-attack at the Battle of Hamel on 4 July. The German defenders of Hamel were deeply dug in, and their position commanded a very wide field of fire. Similar positions had resisted capture for two months in the Battle of the Somme. The Australians had used surprise rather than weight at Hamel. The artillery had opened fire only at the moment the infantry and tanks advanced, and the Germans were rapidly overrun.[9]

A key factor in the final plan was secrecy. There was to be no pre-battle bombardment, only artillery fire immediately prior to the advance of Australian, Canadian, and British forces.[7] The final plan for the Fourth Army involved 1,386 field guns and howitzers and 684 heavy guns,[1] making up 27 medium artillery brigades and thirteen heavy batteries, in addition to the infantry divisions' artillery. The fire plan for the Fourth Army's artillery was devised by Monash's senior artillery officer, Major General C.E.D. Budworth. British sound ranging advances in artillery techniques and aerial photographic reconnaissance made it possible to dispense with "ranging shots" to ensure accurate fire. Budworth had produced a timetable which allowed 504 out of 530 German guns[1] to be hit at "zero hour", while a creeping barrage preceded the infantry. This method was similar to the Feuerwalze which the Germans themselves had used in their Spring Offensive, but its effectiveness was increased by the surprise achieved.[10]

There were also to be 580 tanks. The Canadian and Australian Corps were each allocated a brigade of four battalions, with 108 Mark V fighting tanks, 36 Mark V "Star" tanks capable of carrying a squad of infantry armed with a Lewis gun and 24 unarmed tanks intended to carry supplies and ammunition forward. A single battalion of Mark V tanks was allocated to III Corps. The Cavalry Corps were allocated two battalions each of 48 Medium Mark A Whippet tanks.[11]

The Allies had successfully moved the Canadian Corps of four infantry divisions to Amiens without them being detected by the Germans. This was a noteworthy achievement and reflected well on the increasingly efficient staffwork of the British armies. A detachment from the Corps of two infantry battalions, a wireless unit and a casualty clearing station had been sent to the front near Ypres to bluff the Germans that the entire Corps was moving north to Flanders.[12] The Canadian Corps was not fully in position until 7 August. To maintain secrecy, the Allied commanders pasted the notice "Keep Your Mouth Shut" into orders issued to the men, and referred to the action as a "raid" rather than an "offensive".[13]

Preliminaries

Although the Germans were still on the offensive in late July 1918, the Allied armies were growing in strength, as more American units arrived in France, and British reinforcements were transferred from the Home Army in Britain and the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. The German commanders realized in early August that their forces might be forced onto the defensive, though Amiens was not considered to be a likely front. The Germans believed the French would probably attack the Saint-Mihiel front east of Rheims, or in Flanders near Mount Kemmel, while they believed the British would attack along either the Lys or near Albert. The Allies had indeed mounted a number of local counter-offensives in these sectors, both to gain local objectives to improve their defensive positions and to distract attention from the Amiens sector. German forces began to withdraw from the Lys and other fronts in response to these theories. The Allies maintained equal artillery and air fire along their various fronts, moving troops only at night, and feigning movements during the day to mask their actual intent.

The German front east of Amiens was held by their Second Army under General Georg von der Marwitz, with six divisions in line (and two facing the French 1st Army). There were only two divisions in immediate reserve. There was some concern among the Allies on 6 August when the German 27th Division actually attacked north of the Somme on part of the front on which the Allies planned to attack two days later. The German division (a specially selected and trained Stosstruppen formation) penetrated roughly 800 yards (730 m) into the one-and-a-half mile front.[14] This attack was made in retaliation for a trench raid by the 5th Australian Division north of the Somme on the night of 31 July, which had gained many prisoners, before the Australian Corps was concentrated south of the river.[15] The German division moved somewhat back to its original position on the morning of 7 August, but the movement still required changes to the Allied plan.

In the first phase, seven divisions attacked: the British 18th (Eastern) and 58th (2/1st London), the Australian 2nd and 3rd, and the Canadian 1st, 2nd and 3rd Divisions. Parts of the American 33rd Division supported the British attackers north of the Somme.

The attackers captured the first German position, advancing about 4,000 yards (3.7 km; 2.3 mi) by about 7:30 am.[18] In the centre, supporting units following the leading divisions attacked the second objective a further 2 miles (3.2 km) distant. Australian units reached their first objectives by 7:10 am, and by 8:20 am, the Australian 4th and 5th Divisions and the Canadian 4th Division passed through the initial breach in the German lines.[18] The third phase of the attack was assigned to infantry-carrying Mark V* tanks. However, the infantry was able to carry out this final step unaided.[18] The Allies penetrated well to the rear of the German defences and cavalry now continued the advance, one brigade in the Australian sector and two cavalry divisions in the Canadian sector. RAF and armoured car fire kept the retreating Germans from rallying.[18]

The Canadian and Australian forces in the centre advanced quickly, pushing the line 3 miles (4.8 km) forward from its starting point by 11:00 am. The speed of their advance was such that a party of German officers and some divisional staff were captured while eating breakfast.[20] A gap 15 miles (24 km) long was punched in the German line south of the Somme by the end of the day. There was less success north of the river, where the British III Corps had only a single tank battalion in support, the terrain was rougher and the German incursion of 6 August had disrupted some of the preparations. Although the attackers gained their first objectives, they were held up short of the Chipilly Spur, a steep wooded ridge.

The British Fourth Army took 13,000 prisoners while the French captured a further 3,000. Total German losses were estimated to be 30,000 on 8 August.[21] The Fourth Army's casualties, British, Australian and Canadian infantry, were approximately 8,800, exclusive of tank and air losses and those of their French allies.

German Army Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg noted the Allies' use of surprise and that Allied destruction of German lines of communication had hampered potential German counter-attacks by isolating command positions.[22] The German General Erich Ludendorff described the first day of Amiens as the "Schwarzer Tag des deutschen Heeres" ("the black day of the German Army"), not because of the ground lost to the advancing Allies, but because the morale of the German troops had sunk to the point where large numbers of troops began to capitulate.[3] He recounted instances of retreating troops shouting "You're prolonging the war!" at officers who tried to rally them, and "Blackleg!" at reserves moving up.[23] Five German divisions had effectively been engulfed. Allied forces pushed, on average, 7 miles (11 km) into enemy territory by the end of the day.[7] The Canadians gained 8 miles (13 km), Australians 7 miles (11 km), British 2 miles (3.2 km), and the French 5 miles (8.0 km).

Later fighting



A German 7.7 cm FK 96 n.A. field gun captured during the course of the battle by the 33rd Australian Battalion
The advance continued on 9 August, though not with the same spectacular results of the first day. The battle was widened on the north and the south of the initial attack (with the southern part of the battle (involving French forces) called Battle of Montdidier (French: Bataille de Montdidier)).

The infantry had outrun the supporting artillery[24] and the initial force of more than 500 tanks that played a large role in the Allied success was reduced to six tanks fit for battle within four days.[20] The Germans on Chipilly Spur commanded a wide field of fire to the south of the Somme, and their flanking fire held up the left units of the Australian Corps until late on 9 August, when a small Australian party slipped across the river and captured the village of Chipilly itself, together with a renewed attack by III Corps. On the Canadian front, congested roads and communication problems prevented the British 32nd Division being pushed forward rapidly enough to maintain the momentum of the advance.[25]

On 10 August, there were signs that the Germans were pulling out of the salient from Operation Michael. According to official reports, the Allies had captured nearly 50,000 prisoners and 500 guns by 27 August.[26] Even with the lessened armour the British drove 12 miles (19 km) into German positions by 13 August.[7]

Field Marshal Haig refused the request of Marshal Foch to continue the offensive, preferring instead to launch a fresh offensive by Byng's Third Army between the Ancre and Scarpe.[27]

Aftermath



8 August 1918 by Will Longstaff, showing German prisoners of war being led towards Amiens
The Battle of Amiens was a major turning point in the tempo of the war. The Germans had started the offensive with the Schlieffen Plan before the Race to the Sea slowed movement on the Western Front and the war devolved into trench warfare. The German Spring Offensive earlier that year had once again given Germany the offensive edge on the Western Front. Armoured support helped the Allies tear a hole through trench lines, weakening once impregnable trench positions. The British Third Army with no armoured support had almost no effect on the line while the Fourth, with fewer than a thousand tanks, broke deep into German territory.[3] Australian commander John Monash was knighted by King George V in the days following the battle.[28]

British war correspondent Philip Gibbs noted Amiens' effect on the war's tempo, saying on 27 August that, "the enemy...is on the defensive" and, "the initiative of attack is so completely in our hands that we are able to strike him at many different places." Gibbs also credits Amiens with a shift in troop morale, saying, "the change has been greater in the minds of men than in the taking of territory. On our side the army seems to be buoyed up with the enormous hope of getting on with this business quickly" and that, "there is a change also in the enemy's mind. They no longer have even a dim hope of victory on this western front. All they hope for now is to defend themselves long enough to gain peace by negotiation.
"[26]
 
Last edited:

Jakko

Club Legend
Apr 7, 2005
2,901
1,249
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide
Its also about not only trying new techniques, but making it work. The Arras Counterattack in 1940 is a good example. A last ditch attempt by the BEF and French to cut off the axis thrust to the coast, and famous for Rommel's exploits at the front. They gave it a shot, but didn't have the real understanding of how to supply and exploit it. Lack of proper communication is also a major key.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1940)
 

Jakko

Club Legend
Apr 7, 2005
2,901
1,249
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide
Also interesting about that 1940 French campaign, is that the Stug (pz3 chassis) and PZ4 (the workhorse of the german army in ww2, was upgraded and used throughout the war, like the stug). Both had low velocity 75mm guns at that stage, and were in quite low numbers. Contrast to the Matilda 2 British tank, which also were less than 2 dozen in total in France, but would find its niche in early North Africa campaign. The Matilda was never really able to upgrade its guns like the Stug and PZ4 series could, because of the width of the turret ring design. If the Matilda series was capable of housing the 6 pounder or even 75mm US (vanilla Sherman gun) up to 17pounders, the British tank force could have been much more formidable than they were.

Its all part of the compromise of war production, and needs. I have read accounts of the US Army planners, who made stipulations on tank gun designs along the lines of durability of the barrel, rather than sheer muzzle velocity, which in hindsight, is what you want from your lead tank elements. Sherman tanks problems were never really that they caught on fire easy (statistically, the german equivalent upgraded long barrel PZ4s were just as likely to flame from similar hits). It was always about the lack of muzzle velocity of the main gun. Even near the end of the war, Im pretty sure American tanks didn't have adjustable gunsights for their tanks, when it was virtually standard in 1940 german tanks.
 
skilts These things evolve.

A few months earlier, the German spring offensives had had a lot of the same 'features'.

Artillery and armour (with Infantry) making massive attacks to form a breakthrough.
Breakthrough forces bypassing strongly held positions in order to strike deep (leaving those positions to be mopped up by following forces).

It failed in large part due to command failures (like not bypassing the strongpoints), and logisitics not being able to keep up. Lack of air support (the allies controlled the skies by this point) would also have been a significant factor.

Simply, the Germans came up with the basic idea, tried it as a desperate last gasp (They HAD to win before the Americans started arriving in numbers) and didn't get it quite right.

Allied commanders, including Monash, saw what they did, figured out why it failed (and added a few of their own ideas that had been found to be effective) and used it back against the Germans, who by that stage were so exhaused and demoralised that almost anything would have worked on them.
 
May 20, 2006
11,550
5,623
In the Clique.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I hate to do so, and hope I will be forgiven, for posting large slabs from Wikipedia like this,

Several months back I looked up the Assyrian's on Wiki after a quiz night. Big and bold up the top of the page it said "Assyrians take it up the arse" Don't member that in last nights quiz I thought.

But yeah interesting stuff generally posted so far. I like to think that I am fairly well read on WW2 but there is a lot to read and catch up on no doubt.
 
We should look at Vietnam and Korea, in my view, if we're to debate American Honour. The Vietnemese wanted rid of their invaders France, a France behaving no different (before and after ww2) than Imperial Japan did. The Americans supported the French.The very France they liberated from Japans ally in ww2, Germany. American honor is where? America only fought for her right (and her white friends right) to rape and pillage, she didn't free anyone, she didn't liberate anyone.

No honor in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As said,the Germans could of been defeated 18 months before they were. how many millions died as a result of deliberately delaying the end in Europe? This cost Russia dearly, Russia were apparently a victim of NAZI aggression. This not a war that had to be fought.

These are very hard things to compute, after so many years of being taught one version, I know this.Here you have a number of examples of a window to the soul.I could one day get into the royalties German arms manufacturers paid to their American shareholders during ww2, into Swiss bank accounts.Collected at wars end.


OH s**t!
The allusion that there is any honor on war.............
It always amazes me that people look for some sanity or order in it. War is exactly what it appears to be.....humans laid bare, mores and norms removed.
 
Sep 22, 2011
40,568
87,808
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
US more or less defeated Japan on their own.

I think when it comes to Europe it's really most appropriate to look at as two seperate theatres. Because it was.

The US obviously had a huge say in the west from the invasion of Fortress Europe until the end of the war.

The Russians were suited to the east. Once winter hit it was always going to be a war of absolute attrition. The Russians were (relatively) poorly trained and equipped. But they had what that front required - a virtually inexhaustible supply of men, and from what I've read, the view seems to be they were tough as nails and probably better suited to the conditions.

Overall I think it's pretty difficult to argue that any one nation had a greater say in the outcome of war than the USA.

I think it's pretty much impossible to say what would have happened had they not been involved. The whole nature of "win" and "loss" changes. The Allied invasion of Europe probably couldn't have happened, definitely not so quickly, but I also sincerely doubt Nazi Germany would ever have pulled off or even attempted an invasion of Britain. The plans for Sealion were a joke and totally unrealistic.

I think Hitler would have seeked peace with the British. He had Western Europe and it would have left them to concentrate on the East. Anybody's guess as to what the Poms would have done, whether invasion of Europe would have been possible without US backing. Certainly not so quickly I wouldn't have thought.
 

kfc1

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 27, 2010
10,752
9,708
AFL Club
Essendon
I'm australian. I live in australia, if i want to talk down a bunch of soldiers who attacked my countrymen,I will. They were bad, they were so bad even the germans would shoot at them when they run away. Ted ballpitt captured hundreds with his chefs hat. They were that bad. You forgot to see that I compared the Italians to the english, apparantly according to englishmen,they (the english) won ww2.

It doesn't really matter if i praise or critisize, you're only gonna see what you want to.

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

1061

Club Legend
Sep 5, 2013
1,021
603
AFL Club
Collingwood
US more or less defeated Japan on their own.

Although with 8 million people we could not supply the manpower of a large population we did provide R&R for the US Armed forces as well as close to a million or so men and lots of well made equipment.

I don't think we could have defeated Japan on our own but we would have held them off and forced a peace deal with them. We play down our military role in the Pacific War too often, we did good and we should be proud of what we did.
 
Although with 8 million people we could not supply the manpower of a large population we did provide R&R for the US Armed forces as well as close to a million or so men and lots of well made equipment.

I don't think we could have defeated Japan on our own but we would have held them off and forced a peace deal with them. We play down our military role in the Pacific War too often, we did good and we should be proud of what we did.

Close to a million men? I suppose if you include the militia which couldn't leave Australia (and, famously, PNG)..Not least because we couldn't afford the loss of manpower for production at home (shuting down farming, factories, docks, railways, mines and the like would have been tough). Realistically, we had, maybe, 100K of 'real' troops.

We also didn't have the means to build large warships, without which there is no way we could fight such a war with any degree of success.

We helped out around the edges...We were certainly useful, but only that.
 

1061

Club Legend
Sep 5, 2013
1,021
603
AFL Club
Collingwood
Close to a million men? I suppose if you include the militia which couldn't leave Australia (and, famously, PNG)..Not least because we couldn't afford the loss of manpower for production at home (shuting down farming, factories, docks, railways, mines and the like would have been tough). Realistically, we had, maybe, 100K of 'real' troops.

We also didn't have the means to build large warships, without which there is no way we could fight such a war with any degree of success.

We helped out around the edges...We were certainly useful, but only that.

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?
 
Sep 22, 2011
40,568
87,808
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
Although with 8 million people we could not supply the manpower of a large population we did provide R&R for the US Armed forces as well as close to a million or so men and lots of well made equipment.

I don't think we could have defeated Japan on our own but we would have held them off and forced a peace deal with them. We play down our military role in the Pacific War too often, we did good and we should be proud of what we did.

We of course contributed. Significantly.

But I think the US would have prevailed in any case. And I don't beleive we could have halted the Japanese without the US.
 
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?

Being realistic isn't demeaning.

Warfare, especially in the modern age (20th Century) is largely about the logistics...the means to support the men in the field. We had the means to support 2, maybe 3 divisions on active duty, as well as an airforce and navy of similar size. For a country our size, that was an impressive achievement, but don't kid yourself that we were a major player.

As for being 4th...I think you're exagerating...Canada, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, France and China (OK, probably 2 Chinas depending on exactly when you're referring to) would all have been ahead of us when the war ended, and plenty more would have overtaken us rapidly after the war. Hell, in 4 years, even North Korea went flying past us. We were a major regional power in a region that was, at the time, a quiet backwater.
 
Back