Well, yes, once you ignore the idiocy of Germany going to war unilaterally without the US having any warning whatsoever (or at all, really), or was that V2? Anyway, while the rest made sense, the trigger was ROTFLMAO stuff.

YMMV

Phil

Well Germany going to war is pretty much the central theme of T2K, after all there probably would have been no war in Europe if they hadn't.

While I have no disagreement with what was said above, this statement I cannot accept:

• Timothy McVeigh, and his assistants, who blew up the Morruh Federal Building in Oklahoma City were nice white christian terrorists, born and raised in the United States.
  
• The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, was a nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States.
  
• Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber was a nice nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States.
  
• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber is Muslim, but is a naturalized US citizen, having lived in the US since he was 9. He certainly does not look particularly arab.
  
• Dylan Roof, a nice nice white christian terrorist, born and raised in the United States, killed 9 people in a Charleston, SC church this past June (2015) hoping to start a race war by his own admission.

This list does not include the nice christian white people in the US who seem to have gone off their rocker, taken guns and opened up in classrooms (college to grade school), movie theatres or elsewhere for some mental illness.

So, shall we put a watch on all those nice white christian folk, too?

So, yes, it is racist blindness (IMHO) to concentrate your security efforts on one set of potential targets while ignoring others with no better track record.


Uncle Ted

Ted Kaczynski was an atheist not a Christian

Eric Rudolph is a member of a cult sect of the Mormons, not a Christian

As for McVeigh - In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." In McVeigh's biography American Terrorist, released in 2002, he stated that he did not believe in a hell and that science is his religion. In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic

so lets give it a rest shall we

This is a very valid point, although as Olefin has pointed out many of these people weren't really Christian. However these individuals in America acted alone or did to a large extent, whereas the Islamic ISIS supporters (and Al Qaeda) were part of an organised multi-national extremist network with funding and support. Most of them were also indoctrinated/brainwashed into this type of rapid anti-everything not Islamic thinking by so called religious people, and they have legions of potential supporters in the Islamic world and among people of certain ethnic backgrounds in the Western world.

No, I cannot "let it rest."

When untruths are presented as facts, and used as a justification for mistreatment or repression, I don't let it rest.

Oh, and don't tell Moromons they are aren't christians unless you want to hear a long lecture.

Uncle Ted

Hmmm.

You did note the bit about 'recent' - and the specificity of 'terrorist attacks'

McVeigh and Kaczynski are hardly recent, even if one bends the definition beyond breaking point.

As for the loons going on shooting rampages in the US, well, they are serial or spree killers and not terrorists. Yes, even Roof.

Which leaves the Tsarnaevs, who are both muslim and terrorists ... and should, therefore, have been profiled.

YMMV

Phil

About you ruse of the term "untruths"
 

As was pointed out by Olefin YOUR naming on YOUR list of several persons that acted in what were acts of terror as "nice white Christians" is somewhat in error or downright untruth.
Which?
The job of finding and deterring criminal behavior is tuff, not using available information about who is doing what makes it a lot tougher, further giving those that are being closely scrutinized a defense is adding to the smoke screen.
IMHO

Exactly.

Phil

Indeed it was. However to believe that the Germans could blithely go to war without any intelligence leaks to the US is ... downright silly.

YMMV

Phil

Stranger things have happened.
Although they might like to think it, the US isn't infallible.

Wrong
 

Yes we are...pffft

Sshhhhh!!!

We don't want to let them in on the secret :D

Of course, the US did, at least, win two major world wars in the 20th century - Germany ... didn't ...

Phil

No they didn't, they assisted. :)
You've been watching too many American war movies.

And now...Mali, it appears.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/africa...ing/index.html

Doesn't anyone use anything besides AK-47s?
Funny how we'll soon be hearing how it's nothing to do with islam and it's all Israel's fault...

Attachment 3561

They did a lot more than just assist - without the huge amount of supplies we sent the Russians they would have, at best, managed a tie on the Eastern Front - they had the bodies but we put them on wheels and those wheels are what they used for the offensives of 43-45 that destroyed the Germans

As for the Pacifc War - yes we got help from Australia and others but the war against Japan was basically an American show from 1943 on

Not when you look at the context of the T2K timeline. And I think that keeping intelligence leaks from the Soviets and the East German government would be more relevant as I don't think the US was against German Reunification.

WWII was a team effort. Without any one of the Big Three, the Allies couldn't have won.

The amounts of war material shipped by the U.S. to many of its allies during and even before its official entry to the war is simply staggering. If any factor can be singled out for doing the most to win the war, it's allied war production, and the U.S., hands down, produced the most.

This is partially valid if you're just looking at offensive operations that regained territory. It ignores the huge role that Chinese, British, and ANZAC forces played in tying down Japanese troops in China, Burma, and New Guinea. If those Japanese troops had been free to deploy elsewhere, the U.S.A.'s island hopping would have taken A LOT longer to reach the Japanese home islands.

Absolutely. Boils my blood when Americans (and others) state the US won the war. They didn't even enter it until December 1941, nearly two years after it commenced, and would have been nearly impossible without the use of Australia as a base.
It is in fact rather insulting to the rest of the world.

Tell it to the Chinese, who had been at war with the Japs since 1937.

As for the US winning the war, well, while the UK probably could have hung on, and probably supported the USSR just enough for it to hang on as well, the reality is that, even as weak as the Germans were (economically speaking), the war would have been much much much longer without the direct involvement of the US ... but the 'allies' would probably have won ... eventually ... think the Napoleonic Wars (1789-1812/15) ... so, 1939-1961 ... or, more likely, the UK would have managed an A Bomb (as they had an actual Atomic program, which the Germans really didn't ... and were on the right track, which the Germans patently weren't) by the late 1940s or early to mid 1950s.

It would have been a much nastier war.

(And, no, it is unlikely that the UK would have been crippled economically any more than she was by the demands of the Napoleonic and earlier World Wars ... historically speaking the Brits have managed to manage the economic side of their wars very well for the last 2-3 centuries at least, including WW1 and WW2)

So, yes, US involvement certainly meant that the war was much shorter, much less nasty (!) and more certain in its outcome, but they were, indeed, an assist rather than the decisive factor.

Of course, I expect US School History Books tell a different story, if they cover WW2 at all. I know Aussie schoolbooks have changed dramatically over my teaching career - when I started teaching in 1977 they covered WW2 in broad worldwide strokes, mentioning Australia peripherally ... when I finished in 2013/4 they covered Australia in New Guinea with peripheral mention of our involvement in Singapore and the Western Desert and even less coverage of the war as a whole.

Phil

I teach history in an American high school. I make it a point to explain that the U.S.A. did not win WWII on its own, not by a long shot. I show my students how many enemy combatant casualties each of the major allies caused. The Russians destroyed more German divisions and killed/captured more German soldiers than the rest of the Allies combined. I show them how the U.S. could not have participated in the liberation of western Europe without a secure base on Europe's doorstep (i.e. Great Britain). I need to make more of a point of stressing Australia's similar importance in the PTO.

That said, my students also learn that the other Allies could not have won the war without direct U.S. involvement. I show the students production figures from all of the main combatants. I don't need to say much- the numbers tell most of the story. The U.S. out-produced most other combatants combined in ship tonnage (warships and merchant shipping), aircraft, and ammunition. Much of that production went to Great Britain and the U.S.S.R., helping to keep them afloat in their darkest hours. The U.S.A. narrowly beat the Soviets in tank production. The Soviets contributed more manpower than any of the other Allies and they also took far more casualties.

Without USN assistance, the Royal Navy wouldn't have been able to win the Battle of the Atlantic. Cut off from its global empire by German U-Boats, Great Britain would have been in much worse shape, economically, than it was during the Napoleonic Wars. It's unlikely that they could have carried on the war on their own. The German threat to Egypt wasn't truly eliminated until the U.S. contributed to Allied operations in North Africa. Although it's not impossible, it's highly unlikely that an economically isolated Great Britain could have developed and delivered its own atomic weapons before being forced to sue for peace with the Axis.

Guys, the numbers really don't lie. It was a team effort. As I said before, without any one of the Big Three, and arguably China, the Allies could not have won WWII.

Could the Germans have won the Battle of the Atlantic?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: They could (and did) do a lot of damage, but even before the US involvement they weren't winning it. In fact, US involvement (and idiots like Adm. King) meant that the Germans actually sank more shipping after the US became involved than before.

The things that put the final nail in the coffin of the U-Boat threat, such as that threat was, was the allocation of about 50 Long Range Bombers to close the Mid-Atlantic gap ... something the UK could have done at any time, if it had been rammed home to them that it was needful. As it was, they figured it out eventually, and did so by themselves.

Could (indeed, would!) the Germans have done more damage if there had been no direct US assistance?

Sure, but they never had the resources to expand their U-Boat fleet enough to keep ahead of their losses and ramp up numbers to the point where, overall, they were winning.

As for North Africa - it was a peripheral theater of no real importance. Rommel had no real chance of doing more than he actually managed - it was just a resource sink that made German efforts on the East Front more difficult (the DAK had the truck-borne logistics element of an entire Army Group, like Army Group Center, for example).

The best the Germans had hoped for was that they could delay an inevitable Allied victory (aka British Commonwealth victory) of materiel superiority ... Rommel was a flash in the pan who dazzled Hitler into committing forces that could have been better used elsewhere.

Phil

Sorry guys but without the US being involved in the war the Allies lose or best case fight the Germans and Italians to a tie in Europe as Japan takes what it wants in Asia and get the resources she needs to go from just dangerous to very very dangerous - especially considering that there is no way the UK alone had the resources to take on the Italian Fleet, the Germans and the Japanese - and the Soviet navy was a joke

As Churchill said the moment he knew they had won the war was when Hitler declared war on the US - up until then it was a fight for national survival - after that he knew it was just a matter of time.

Keep in mind that what stopped Rommel in the end was the fact that the US entering the war allowed the British to be able to commit troops and resources that they couldn't have otherwise.

As for Australia - yes we needed them as a base as we needed the UK as well - but if the US hadn't entered the war Australia and New Zealand would have had no choice but to evacuate everything they had back home to defend themselves against Japan - take the New Zealanders and the 9th division out of the line for the British in 1942 and Rommel ends up in Cairo and Alexandria, let alone the almost 400 US tanks that got there in time that would never have been shipped if we weren't in the war

Yes we didn't win it on our own - but without us being in it I highly doubt you would have ever seen an Allied victory of any sort where Germany, Italy and Japan surrender - the more likely situation would have been a very long and drawn out war ending with both sides becoming too exhausted to fight any longer and mutually deciding to end it

And the Germans were only in Africa because the Italian "brilliance" of Mussolini. Attacking Egypt in 1940 and failing miserably forced the Germans to help out if only to stop their ally from collapsing. Even then the Italians developed a reputation of surrendering en masse whenever faced with stiff opposition. Of course being issued with obsolescent WWI equipment certainly didn't help their cause...

You assume that the UK, ON ITS OWN, could have inflicted enough casualties on the German U-Boat fleet to stay ahead of U-Boat production AND keep enough of its own merchant tonnage at sea to support its own domestic needs and defend its global empire. I'd like to see credible numbers to back that assertion. You also assume that the UK's military production could have covered its own losses on land, at sea, and in the air, let alone create a materiel advantage versus the Axis. No, it could not. Production figures back that up. If you look at the correlation of forces, simply based on domestic production during 1939-1945, the Germans were beating the British in most key categories. This also takes into account any curtailment of Axis production caused by Allied strategic bombing operations (which included tens of thousands of U.S. made and/or operated aircraft). Add in the other European Axis powers, and the divide widens. Look at the populations of the UK and the Greater German Reich. Once again, Germany had a significant numerical advantage. I don't think any serious professional historian on either side of the Atlantic would stake his/her reputation on the assertion that the UK could have beaten the Axis, or even just the European Axis Powers, without substantial U.S. assistance.

Second, although North Africa was a peripheral theatre, it was as mush a resource sink for the UK as it was for Germany. Furthermore, if the Germans hadn't had to worry about a possible invasion of western Europe, they would have been free to send more troops and tanks to Rommel. They also could have covered their transportation across the Med with fighters. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that, thus reinforced, the Germans could have defeated the Commonwealth forces in North Africa, thus taking control of the Suez Canal and thereby complicating things even further for the UK.

Anyway, if you believe that the UK could have done it alone, then there's probably nothing I can present that will change your mind.

The UK by herself basically was able to barely keep herself fed while holding the Germans in the Middle East by the skin of their teeth - and only because Hitler was so busy obsessing about the Soviet Union that he never put the forces that could have won the Middle East for Germany into action in Africa - if you take a look at the history of the fighting in the Middle East in 1941 and mid 42 you see just how close it was for the British - if the New Zealand troops hadn't broken out at Mersa Matruh Rommel might have broken thru at First El Alamein

and the only reason the British didn't get their fleet exterminated in the IO by the Japanese was that they got damn lucky and didn't get spotted - otherwise Nagumo would have put three aircraft carriers and 5 battleships on the bottom of the IO instead of just Hermes and two heavy cruisers and you can pretty much kiss the British fleet outside of Home Waters and the Med goodbye

(now this is fun - been years since I last had a good WWII discussion - where is Roel and RN7 when we need them?)

Not wanting to offend anybody's national honour here about WW2 but I think I would be on the side of those who think that America's contribution was the key element in defeating Germany and Japan. Sometimes wish we had some Russian members on this site, or even better some Germans and Japanese to give their views.

As Raellus has stated American war material production figures were simply staggering, and the US economy was barely affected by the war. It is just impossible to ignore the contribution of the US economy to the Allied victory.

Some points.

Soviet manpower and war production beat the German Army in Europe. Soviet war production matched America in many statistics, although generally not in technology. It has been pointed out that America (and to a lesser extent Britain and Canada) mechanised the Soviet Army through Lend Lease, but the Germans were also far less mechanised than the US and British Army and they devoted the lion share of their land and air forces to fighting the Soviets on the Eastern Front. The concentration of manpower and materials in battles on the Eastern Front were larger than the west after 1940 and until 1945.

Soviet mechanised forces and tactics in China in the late 1930's shocked the Japanese Army so much that Japan never attacked Soviet forces again for the remainder of the Second World War..

The British Empire was vulnerable to disruption by a powerful and determined foe. The British Empire was not industrialised outside of Canada, and contributed manpower and raw materials that were reliant on British shipping to transport it. Also the British-Indian Army raised over 2 million troops in the war but contributed far less than ANZAC, Canadian and South African forces. I don't think the British trusted or rated the Indian Army that highly.

The North African Theatre was only peripheral in material terms compared with the Eastern Front and Western Europe after D-Day. If the Germans had taken Suez then they would have marched into the Middle East with its oil reserves, or the southern Soviet Union with its oil reserves.

British technology greatly contributed to the Allied victory. Britain invented radar and sonar (ASDIC) and remained ahead of the curve in computers and electronics, and they were the only ones even near the Germans in jet engines.

After D-Day statically something like 70% of the Allied divisions in North-West Europe were American, but British armoured divisions were bigger than their American counterparts and the British also had a number of independent armoured brigades that were about half the size of an American armoured divisions but were not counted in the statistics.

The British largely won the Battle of Atlantic despite the later contribution of the US Navy. German tactics and advances in submarine and torpedo technology were consistently countered by British advances in anti-submarine technology.

The Pacific War was won by America, and the fact that it was a sideshow compared to the war in Europe makes it all the more remarkable. Most of America's war effort was directed against Germany and supporting the UK and USSR. Burma, China and New Guinea were important theatres but the war at sea and in the air was won by American military power. After 1941 the Royal Navy disappeared from the Pacific Ocean and no heavy British warships were sent back to the Pacific until 1944.

Macarthur went out of his way to purposely sideline all non-American forces in the Pacific. Any unit which wasn't US Marines or Army, even navy or air force was relegated to containment and clean up duties far behind the front - take Bougainville in 1944-45 for example.

He did that precisely so he could claim America won the war and in particular, HE won it. Always had an eye on self promotion and it would seem (in my opinion at least) was aiming to take a run at US President at some point. Of course his screw up(s) in Korea put paid to that.

Hmm, I think we've completely thread jacked this... :o

I would dispute that America's contribution to WW2 was the key element in defeating Germany and Japan.
I would argue that the people who really "won" WW2 for us, were the Chinese.

The Chinese held up many thousands of Japanese troops, troops that would have been available to advance Japanese agendas in the Pacific. Troops that would have been free to tie up half the Soviet forces and keep them from being used against Germany.

May I make a small request?
 

please start a new and different thread for this rehash and chest pounding.
Several hundred innocent people were murdered by thugs.
Let us remember them and what THAT attack was about and what it might mean perhaps but this is not right.
IMHO
Harry O

Interesting assumption(s).

The ones that are simply unsupportable on any level you care to name are -

* Japan runs wild in Asia and the US does nothing.

* The Japanese actively ally with the Germans.

Yes, it is, I suppose, possible that the US would not get involved with a European war, but she showed herself willing to push the Japanese to the wire and (from their insane, but consistent, point of view) forced them to attack Pearl Harbour.

The moment that happens, even if the US does a 'Pacific First' or, indeed, a 'Pacific Only', strategy, Japan is doomed and irrelevant.

That single fact makes the possibility of any active Japanese alliance with the German both so unlikely as to be not worth considering, and if they did, it would merely draw the US into the European war ... maybe only as a co-Belligerent rather than as an ally.

The German economy didn't have enough raw materials, and couldn't get them. They simply could. not. get. them. They were either on different continents and couldn't be shipped because the Commonwealth Navies prevented it or they weren't present in the quantities needed in locations the Germans could access ... or they were, possibly, available in significant (but still inadequate) quantities, and ther Germans could, theoretically, have reached those locations but, if they did, there was no way of transporting them from those locations back to where they were actually needed in any quantity.

And, again, the U-Boats never managed to consistently sink enough merchant shipping to overwhelm the Commonwealth and did not have the resources to produce the number of U-Boats and crews to do so in the face of relatively simple and cheap fixes such as the LRB patrols across the mid-Atlantic gap.

I do not say, and never did, that the Commonwealth would have had an easy victory - merely that, as shown by the Napoleonic Wars (and the earlier world wars against the French), a continental power cannot defeat a naval power and, as long as the naval power maintains its blockade and foments rebellion and alliances against said continental power, they will eventually win.

And, gee, economically speaking the Brits always managed to pay down the debt wars that were longer and (relatively) more expensive in terms of GDP than WW2 quite quickly.

Now, you could make a political argument and claim that the Brits couldn't maintain the rage, so to speak, and that they would eventually throw up a Quisling and sue for some sort of peace ... good luck with finding historical examples for that.

Phil

Interestingly enough, this is the line the old USSR managed to sell the West hook, line and sinker during WW2 and during the following Cold War through to the late 1980s.

If you read more recent economic histories of the Soviet War Effort, especially (of course) by Western economists and historians you will find that it is now widely accepted amongst specialist circles that -

* Lend Lease was the enabler of the Soviet War effort. No ifs, no buts, no ands, no maybes.

* Whole segments of the Soviet War Economy simply produced only a fraction of what the Red Army required, and the bulk was actually provided by the Allies ... and this was in key areas (for example, something like 60% of all explosives produced in the USSR was produced from precursors shipped there from the west ... 100% of Soviet Rolling Stock, Rail and Locomotive requirements during 42-45 were provided by the allies ... most of the telephone wire [and all of the waterproof stuff] for field phones was produced by the allies ... 80% of all Tank Radios were supplied by the Western Allies ... most of the Boots and Uniforms, ditto ... something like half of the field rations ... etc. etc.)

* The manpower that Stalin's incompetence continually wasted was only available because Lend Lease provided all the above ... if it hadn't, assuming that the Soviets could have produced it at all, or in the quantities needed, they would have had to strip men out of the army to do it ... and, indeed, had to do exactly that on at least one occasion (1942?) if not more.

Could the Russians have held on without US Lend Lease? Probably. At much greater cost. Commonwealth LL would probably have been enough to stave off defeat ...

But the few popular histories that actually delve into economic realities are almost all stuck in a pre-1980's time warp and still spout the propaganda that the Sovs sold the West for so long.

Dig deeper and you'll find a different story.

Phil

Australia had an industrial base as well. Of course, our population in 1939 was, IIRC, around 7 million people.

We had an iron and steel industry and considerable engineering and production plant for a country of our size. We produced Corvettes, Fighter Bombers, Fighters, Tanks almost all of our small arms (Rifles, SMGs, Machineguns etc.) and ammunition.

No, we didn't have the same level of industrialisation as Canada, but that was mostly because of the small population.

The Kiwis, on the other hand, had virtually nothing, and that's still the case ... look at the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Automatic_Rifle

for how hard up they were.

There was also a NZ movie some years ago about a loner in rural NZ during WW2 who refused to hand in his privately owned SMLE when the government confiscated all of them (I don't suppose there could have been more than several hundred all over NZ at the time, certainly not several thousand) because they were so short.

Phil

I just can't agree with this statement. Germany was by far the most powerful Axis state, and what about the contribution of the Soviets to Allied victory. Also the Soviets didn't have half their army in the Far East for the duration of the war, they only redeployed large forces to Asia after the defeat of Germany.

The Pacific War was a sideshow in WW2 compared with the war in Europe, although it may not have felt that way to those who fought in it. China could barely arm its own army, and it made little headway against Japanese forces who occupied China for the duration of the war. The Japanese Army was also inferior in material, technology and tactics to the German Army, and its largest army in China was simply bulldozed by the Soviets in the last few weeks of the war.

On the contrary Western history emphasise the importance of the Anglo-American contribution to defeat of the Axis, and overlooks the importance of the Soviet war effort.

Yet the United States supplied the Soviet Union with 10,982 million dollars worth of Lend Lease while the British Commonwealth received 31,387 million dollars worth of Lend Lease

Yet the Soviets were able to produce 92,595 tanks, 105,251 anti-tank and self-propelled guns, 516,648 artillery and anti-aircraft guns, 403,300 mortars, 1,477,400 machine guns, 197,100 trucks and lorries, 63,087 fighter aircraft, 37,549 ground attack aircraft, 21,116 bomber aircraft, 17,332 transport aircraft, 4,061 training aircraft, 25 destroyers and 52 submarines, and from 1937-1945 produced 9.3% of the world's oil, 10.6% of the world's coal, 14.3% of the world's iron ore, 40.5% of the worlds manganese ore, 15.3% of the world's chrome ore, 24.5% of the world's phosphates, 26.5% of the world's wheat, 22,7% of the world's sugar beet and 15% of the world's meat all by themselves.

The Soviets unlike the Germans for example (and the Japanese) hadn't got the luxury of employing slave labour to work in its factories and mines, or like the United States who was never physically threatened in WW2 wasn't able to cherry pick its physically most able and healthy manpower for military service.

British Lend Lease to the Soviet Union: 7,000 aircraft, 27 warships, 5,218 tanks, 5,000 anti-tank guns, 6,900 vehicles, aircraft engines, radar sets and boots. Useful but a drop in the pan when you consider that the Soviets produced on average 25,000 tanks a year after 1942 (and better armed and armoured than what Britain supplied), 125,000 artillery guns a year on average after 1942, and over 30,000 aircraft a year after 1942.

Australia was essentially an agricultural and mining economy in the Second World War with some small scale engineering and metal processing in its cities in the southeast strip. It still is today to a large extent. Australia did produce war material (Sentinel tanks, scout cars, rifles, training aircraft, 16 escorts) but most if it never left Australia. Practically all of its combat aircraft, warships and tanks and artillery were supplied by Britain and America.

Thread Split
 

I'm not sure what good discussing the Paris attacks will do, but I've created another thread (Who Won WWII?) to continue the discussion that had strayed OT from the original topic of this thread. If you'd like to continue that debate, head over to the new thread. If you want to talk more about Paris et al, you can continue to do so here.

Rob from Armslist Media on Youtube did a great video entitled Why Do Islamic Jihadists Hate Us? It is definitely worth watching.