OT Attack in Paris 60 dead

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

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

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

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

Yes we are...pffft

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Although they might like to think it, the US isn't infallible.

Sshhhhh!!!

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

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

Phil

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Of course, the US did, at least, win two major world wars in the 20th century

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

[Jason Weiser]

And now...Mali, it appears.

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

[Legbreaker]

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

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

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

[Raellus]

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

Originally Posted by Olefin

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

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.

Originally Posted by Olefin

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

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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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