[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

My point exactly. And, to other posters, no, I am not trolling and the fact that Historians don't suggest that the Commonwealth could have won alone is unsurprising. Historians document what did happen, generally speaking, and shy away from explaining what could have happened except in the shortest of short terms, maybe medium term if they stretch it.

And, of course, many Historians, even respected ones, don't actually do a lot of (and, in some cases, any at all) original research ... they simply rehash what is available in secondary sources and seldom check to see whether those secondary sources are based on reliable primary sources.

This is one of the reasons why our understanding of the war in the East has so radically changed in the last quarter century ... decades of Soviet lies and misinformation is gradually being chipped away at by people like Glantz (good researcher, terrible writer btw). But even before that by people such as Barber and Harrison in books such as "The Soviet Home Front, 1941-5: a Social and Economic History of the USSR in World War II" and in others of their extensive writings on the Soviet economy.

Unfortunately, this material has yet to make its way into the wider historical context, especially in generalist histories and histories aimed at a non-specialist audience.

So are you implying that the Soviets (and the Germans) lied about the Eastern Front in the Second World War, and that we should discount the forces listed as being present in the campaigns and battles on the Eastern Front and the casualty rates incurred during them?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Similar material is increasingly available in specialist economic and historical circles that debunks many of the more ludicrous claims about such things as the U Boat campaign bringing the UK to its knees or that it could have defeated her single handedly.

And what should we make of the naval losses statistics during the battle of the Atlantic?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

As for the Japanese - well, as I noted elsewhere, the US and Japanese were on a path to conflict without the UK anywhere. If the Japs decided to steal all the resources they needed because of the US embargoes, they will, indeed, almost certainly go to war with the UK etc. Unfortunately, military reality, and their own unique and not entirely crazy (but always consistent within its own crazy logic) take on reality meant that, to take and secure the resources of Malaya, Borneo, the DEI and elsewhere they needed to take out the US forces in the PI. Which meant war with the US.

Although Japan's actions may have been guided by the fact that Germany had taken control over most of Europe, pinned Britain against the wall and declared war on the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Now, if the US decides to ignore Europe and simply fight the Japs, the Japs are not a major problem for the Commonwealth for more than a year, maybe a year and a bit ... after all, as we all know, the US put 80% of its war effort into Europe and only 20% into the Pacific. If they had put 100% into the Pacific they would have swamped the Japs at least a year, and more likely 1.5-2 years, earlier ... though without the A-Bomb, of course.

Well the US would have had to have beaten the Imperial Japanese Navy and also mobilise its manpower and industry to create military forces capable of clearing the Japanese from the Pacific which would have taken longer than a year or two.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And the A-Bomb. Tubealloys provided a lot of the theoretical and engineering underpinning for the US program on the, mistaken, understanding that the US would share the fruits of such ... so the UK didn't expend resources on it. If the US was not involved, then the program would have continued ... granted, much less quickly than the Manhattan Engineering District did, but I never suggested it would.

Well if the UK and US didn't cooperate in Atomic research and Britain went ahead alone I don't think we would have seen Atomic bomb's until the 1950's

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And, of course, I note you completely ignore the historical stick-to-it-ivity of the British Empire at war over the last several centuries and her ability to fund and pay off such wars within extremely short periods of time.

I just get annoyed at people trotting out 'facts' that are now known to not be such in specialist circles and pooh-poohing anyone who disagrees with those disproven assertions.

Not trolling at all.

Phil

Although the relevance of history is important to us all I think the logistics, tactics, technology and cost of mechanised warfare of the mid-20th Century would differ somewhat to warfare and realities fought by the British Empire during the Seven years War and Napoleonic wars, when armies used gunpowder and muskets and navies were dependent on sail and wind.