Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
I'll say it a third time, the Allies would not have defeated the Axis Powers without any one of the Big Three, and possibly China.
The numbers don't lie. Simply looking at war production figures, the Commonwealth did not, and almost certainly could not, out-produce the Axis. GB could not have produced enough to cover it's own losses AND supply the Soviet Union. The Soviet mechanized offensives of 1943-'45 would not have been possible without American-made trucks, tractors, and armored vehicles. Without the USN, GB did not stand any chance at regaining it's empire in Asia. The Coral Sea battle and the Guadalcanal campaign (land and sea) quite possibly saved Australia from a Japanese invasion.
A lot of the arguments that the Commonwealth could have won the war without direct American involvement smacks of fantasist jingoism. It's one thing to not like America- fair play, there- but it's another to assert that it did not play a crucial role in the Allied victory.
As an aside, I will agree that MacArthur was a total ass-hat. He and Montgomery are two of the most overrated senior generals of the Western allies. Both were egomaniacs and, at best, average field commanders. If they hadn't been such great self-promoters with allies in the press, it's hard to see how either could have risen as high as they need. It's debatable as to who was worse, but if I had to pick one of them for my team, I'd probably go with Monty. I can't think of one redeeming quality of MacArthur. The only good thing he did in his career was supervise the occupation and rebuilding of Japan. Everything else, before and after WWII, is a study in mediocrity.
|
Both of them had their total screw-ups for sure
Monty had Arnhem and letting Rommel get away and prolong the war in Africa by at least four months
MacArthur let his air force get caught on the ground in Luzon (but even if he hadnt I doubt it would have changed things much) and managed to totally screw up getting Bataan supplied correctly (that was criminal in my mind - he had almost three weeks to get food, ammo and fuel there and didnt do the job at all - properly supplied they might have held out even longer then they did and hurt the Japanese even more)
As for the Chinese - look at what happened in 44-45 to them - the Japanese are completely getting their heads handed to them in the Central and Southwest Pacific and the Chinese lose a huge chunk of China, including a lot of important US Army Air Force bases, to a Japanese offensive - yes they occupied a lot of Army troops - but frankly they were a bigger hindrance than help
As for the Soviets - keep in mind that without the US going to a war footing as to production the Soviets may not have survived the 1942 German offensive - that it took a total screw up on Hitler's part (i.e. ordering the 6th to directly assault Stalingrad and get chewed up in city fighting along with the wheel south that cost the Germans time to bag what turned out to be only about 40,000 Russians) and a lot of American supplies to give them a fighting chance to stop that offensive
once they got thru 1942 and into 43 they had the ability to turn the game around - but it was US and British help that let them do it
And keep in mind that the Japanese made a huge mistake attacking the US at all - there was very little enthusiasm for going to war over the Dutch East Indies or Malaya - a Japanese attack without hitting the US may very well have seen Roosevelt unable to get a declaration of war thru Congress
remember how anti-war the US was - the draft vote that took place after Hitler invaded Russia passed by one vote