Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Could Have Won WWII?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 14
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 template Next
  • #106
    Originally posted by Raellus View Post
    OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty.
    Doesn't look that way to me. Perhaps a bit of a break from the keyboard is in order for all those intimately involved with the discussion
    If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

    Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

    Mors ante pudorem

    Comment

    • #107
      Originally posted by Olefin View Post
      the facts on the ground are that without US participation in the war the UK and the Soviets in the end could have outlasted the Germans and Italians and Japanese but only if their populations were ready to basically face a very very very long war - and while that was possible in the Soviet Union it was not in the UK
      Another interesting assertion - one specifically at odds with the facts on the ground, both in terms of historical norms and immediate ones.

      Phil

      Comment

      • #108
        Originally posted by Raellus View Post
        OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty. I am well aware of historiography. You don't have to explain to me how historical interpretations change. You may have more teaching experience than I do (kudos to you sir) but you needn't talk down to me.
        I am sorry that you believe that I was talking down to you, as I was most definitely not. I was merely giving an example that is well known, and one I have had first hand experience of teaching, as an example ... nothing more, nothing less.

        Originally posted by Raellus View Post
        Since we're now cataloguing what our opposite is choosing to ignore, or "not grasping", let's list a few major points that you are ignoring or not grasping.
        • GB did not win the 7 Years War alone.
        • GB was on the winning side in the 7 Years War but lost her most prosperous N. American colonies in the balance, in large part do to mismanagement prompted by the massive debt taken on during said conflict. I'm referring now to the American Revolution. I understand that serious Anglophiles would probably like to pretend that it didn't happen, but it did.
        • The UK lost the North American colonies, some of them anyway, well after the end of the 7YW ... as a consequence, quite probably, but so what I never said that there were none ... nor did I say that there would not be consequences of the Commonwealth and Russia fighting alone against Germany ... in fact, I alluded to the likelihood that the world would be a very different place.

          The fact is, the UK won the 7YW and came out of it better than their principal allies who were, at best, able to manage regaining/holding the status quo ante.

          As for them having allies, yes. So Again, I never said that the UK could have won alone, and clearly indicated that it would fight alongside the Russians. As allies. Or co-belligerents. Or whatever.

          Also note that the UK supported governments in exile in WW2 in the same way as it fomented rebellion/alternative governments in the 7YW and the Napoleonic Wars ... something she has had a long historical track record of doing.

          Originally posted by Raellus View Post
        • GB did not win the Napoleonic Wars on her own either.
        • Oh, and she did not win WWI OR WWII alone either. You see a pattern here. So do I: Britain doesn't have a track record of defeated Continental Powers on its own or easily or cheaply.
        Indeed I see a pattern. But it is a strawman argument, I pointed out that the UK (assisting/assisted by) Russia could have won the war without US assistance and, at no point, claimed that it would be easy.


        Originally posted by Raellus View Post
      • GB's economy was strained to the breaking point during WWII (6 years). She received millions of dollars (billions, adjusted) in material and monetary aid from the U.S. during and immediately after the war. GB's economy was depressed after WWII ended, for quite some time. This does not speak of economic strength or staying power. See my next point.
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/UK_GDP.png


      Despite the fact that WW1 and WW2 were fought almost back to back, the National Debt never reached the heights that it did during the Napoleonic Wars ... and was paid down to pre-war levels in 40 years after the postwar peak rather than the century it took to do the same after the Napoleonic postwar peak.

      Much stronger, in fact, than earlier.

      As for the economic assistance, yes, again, so what The Brits suffered more relative pain during the Napoleonic period and took longer to pay the debt down ... and could have done so again.

      Note: This is not saying that it would be easy. Not at all. Merely that, based on their historical track record, it was possible.

      Originally posted by Raellus View Post
    • GB lost most of its overseas empire in the three decades following WWII. As far as I understand it, this was, in large part, due to its military weakness and inability to sustain its imperial holdings financially.
      • Something that was known and being prepared for well before WW2.

      In fact, it was known and understood well before WW1. Indeed, it was known and understood, but trumped by immediate jingoistic politics, as far back as the 1830s and pretty much definitively by the late 19th century.

      It may, or may not, on a case by case basis, have been accellerated by WW1 and WW2, but it was a process underway even before them.


      Originally posted by Raellus View Post
      Three of these four points, here repeated for the third time, put paid to your central argument that the British Commonwealth could have won the war against the Axis Powers without American assistance, even in a long, drawn out conflict. I'm not ignoring or failing to grasp that bolded point. I just disagree with it, and I have made arguments against it.
      Well, you've arguably put paid to an argument - unfortunately none of them are arguments I made, or they are based on assumptions that clearly were not part of the arguments I made.

      Originally posted by Raellus View Post
      Also, why did Japan have to attack U.S. possessions in the Asia and Pacific (i.e. the Philippines) in order to complete its conquest of French, Dutch, and British possessions in the region You treat this as an inevitability but I don't see it as such. Would you care to explain your reasoning
      Easy Peasy.

      1) The US was seen by the Japanese as a threat regardless of what was going on in Europe (you could argue that this was a complete misreading of the US and her intentions, though many historians would hem and haw about such an interpretation ... but that is what we know the Japanese believed).

      2) Japan didn't have the merchant fleet, especially tankers, to do anything but the most direct route from the Home islands to the British and Dutch possessions ... which meant they had to sail close to the PI, which the US were seen to be militarising, and which militarisation was seen to be directed at Japan by the Japanese (again, you could argue they were wrong in that belief, with the same hemming and hawing by historians as mentioned previously but, again, we know this is what the Japanese believed).

      3) Ergo, there was an imminent military threat against their plans on the part of what they believed to be a hostile power ... so, given the military domination of Japanese politics and the world view, correct or incorrect, that the military had, to protect their supply lines for the invasions and, then, more importantly, prevent interference with their shipping bringing the spoils home, they believed that the only option they had was to attack the US, take out the Pacific Fleet, take the PI etc. etc.

      Was this based on crazy reasoning and false assumptions At least partly. But, within their craziness, they were reasoning consistently ... ergo, unless you assume a US run by political and economic forces that are completely different to what actually existed then and there and also assume a sane, rational and logical (not to mention conciliatory) Japanese leadership, then a Japanese attack = the perceived necessity of attacking the US.

      Easy peasy, as I said.

      Phil

      Comment

      • #109
        I'm finding this debate rather frustrating. You're clearly an intelligent and well-read fellow. I bear you no ill will. This shouldn't be so painful, but it is. I was enjoying intellectual the tete-a-tete, but now I am not.

        First off, I don't like arguing against GB. I consider myself an Anglophile. I graduated from a British secondary in Montevideo, Uruguay. I enjoy watching football (come on, Arsenal!), the Mighty Boosh, and Doctor Who (Tom Baker is the Doctor, for my money). I've been to England twice in the last four years.

        Also, I'm one of the most reasonable and least jingoistic Americans on this board. I'll be the first to call out my country on foreign policy stumbles (I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the get-go) and regularly find myself as the sole American apologist for our biggest military rivals, Russia and China. I'm not trying to give the U.S.A. undue credit here.

        That's just part of it, though. The other part of it is that it's almost impossible to debate someone who resorts to "yeah, so what" as a response to legitimate arguments. I could just as easily respond "yeah, so what" to your entire thesis!

        So, I'll let you have the last word. This will be my last post in this thread. When your doctoral dissertation, How the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union Could/Would have defeated the Axis Powers in Europe and Asia without any direct American Assistance* is vetted and accepted by the senior history faculty of a reputable university, then I will concede defeat. Until that time, "so what"

        *Although I am sure you will qualify your position again before then.
        Last edited by Raellus; 11-24-2015, 09:06 PM.
        Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

        https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
        https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
        https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
        https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
        https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

        Comment

        • #110
          Just as, indeed, I find it disconcerting to have someone tell me that I am arguing a position I patently am not now, nor ever have.

          Likewise I await the chance to read your doctoral thesis as well.

          YMMV.

          Phil

          Comment

          • #111
            I think this is rather telling. http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm
            In the first six months of 1942, there was oean aggregate of 397 ships sunk in U.S. Navy-protected waters. And the totals do not include the many ships damaged. Overall, the numbers represent one of the greatest maritime disasters in history and the American nations worst-ever defeat at sea. In return, the US Navy was only able to sink six U-boats! (During the same period, the British et al. were credited with 32 U-boat kills.) So dire was the situation that at one point General George C. Marshall, US Army, wrote to Admiral King to say oe~another month or so of this would so cripple their means of transport they would be unable to bring US forces to bear against the enemy. Indeed, the Germans had a very good chance of disabling the entire US east coast, as Hickam told us, if only Hitler had permitted Doenitz to have the required numbers of U-boats, and the time to do it. If that had happened, Hickam speculated that the losses to the US oemight have proven terminal. During those deadly months of 1942, oeThe American Atlantic coast no longer belonged to the Americans. It quite literally had become the safe hunting ground for the U-boats of Nazi Germany, said Hickam, with U-boats destroying US ships oejust a few miles off Norfolk, practically within sight of the American fleet. Admiral Doenitz told a reporter in 1942 oeOur submarines are operating close inshore along the coast of the United States of America, so that bathers and sometimes entire coastal cities are witnesses to that drama of war, whose visual climaxes are constituted by the red glorioles of blazing tankers. By the end of June, Captain Wilder D. Baker, US Navy, finally said something about his Navys poor showing in the Atlantic oe~The Battle of the Atlantic is being lost.
            Reading that it would seem quite possible for the US to have been knocked out of the war, at least in Europe, leaving the Commonwealth to go it alone.

            A few paragraphs earlier it mentioned the Japanese never really bothered sending their subs to attack US shipping in the Pacific (even though the Germans constantly urged them to) and if they'd done so right from the beginning (December 1941), the US would have been extremely hard pressed to achieve anything there as well.

            As I read more and more of this, which was written by an American using primarily American sources, the more it shows the US did not contribute as much to the survival of the Commonwealth as it claimed. I find one particular paragraph of great interest:

            It is also ironic to note that the US Navy also apprompted or bought warships from Canada and the UK (including an aircraft carrier, HMS Victorious). This last comment is a minor, perhaps trivial point of course, but it, along with the U-boat hunting statistics mentioned above and the reality that Canadian and British ships had to escort allied shipping through American waters, surprises many who espouse the traditional oeIf it werent for us, youd all be speaking German polemics so often recited in certain lay circles. Actually, when the British deployed some two dozen ASW trawlers to the US east coast in 1942, the British viewed it as a oerescue mission.
            If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

            Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

            Mors ante pudorem

            Comment

            • #112
              I'd say that what this really shows us, is that the reality is often a complex beast that few historians have managed to capture in its entirety. That is to say, there's a lot of events that have escaped general attention and even for historians and researchers, people don't often have a 100% full picture of the event.

              For example, I've found in my own research on Cold War era military vehicles that many well known and credible authors have made some simple errors that should not have happened and the reason for this is that many, under a deadline, don't research the topic as well as they should and they fall back on earlier authors and the body of work they produced as the primary source material.

              As an illustration of this, I have a book by Greenhill, a company just as reputable as Jane's Information Group. The book claims to list "Over 800 vehicles from 1915 to the present, every armoured fighting vehicle that has ever existed". Ignoring the bit about "to the present" as the book was published in 2000 but within 10 minutes reading I found at least five vehicles that were not even referenced let alone included and I don't mean such things as obscure one-offs from some design group in Nazi German.
              They failed to list significant vehicles like the Canadian Bobcat APC, the Swiss MOWAG Typhoon or the US airportable T92 light tank.

              The point being, they didn't dig deep enough and they instead used earlier sources that were themselves incomplete. They were then unable to present a full picture but they themselves were also apparently unaware of this lack of knowledge.
              Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 11-25-2015, 08:57 PM. Reason: correcting spelling

              Comment

              • #113
                So far I've spent about 5-6 hours reading through the thesis mentioned above and I'm still only about 70% of the way through. It's big and absolutely comprehensive covering just about every detail.
                The more I read, the more I believe the T2K timeline wasn't just possible, but likely (with regard to naval operations). In fact it would seem the US navy would have been hard pressed to even achieve a result as good as they did off the coast of Norway in 1996 (virtual destruction) given the wide ranging failures of the navy command structure and absolute resistance to either change or acknowledging any problems. Anyone who raised/raises an issue it would seem is very quickly shut down an censured, their careers stalled. That is if they're not turned into a scapegoat and dismissed from service at the first opportunity.

                The US Navy appears to have a culture of cover up. Lessons learned through experience are ignored to protect the careers of those at the top.

                I STRONGLY encourage everyone to read it if they can (I know it's a big job, but well worth the effort).
                Last edited by Legbreaker; 11-26-2015, 12:06 AM.
                If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

                Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

                Mors ante pudorem

                Comment

                • #114
                  Originally posted by Legbreaker View Post
                  Tell that to the millions of people from many, many nations who fought and died there. To imply it was nothing but a "sideshow" is downright insulting!

                  So more people lost their life on the Eastern Front alone between 1941 and 1945 than the whole of Asia between 1937 and 1945, but we should ignore that fact and not call the war in Asia a sideshow compared to events in Europe as some in Asian might find that insulting. How insulted would the Russians be

                  Comment

                  • #115
                    Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                    Threat to who I don't understand this argument. It can only be valid from a very Eurocentric point of view.

                    Granted, the Japanese didn't ever really pose a serious threat to CONUS, but, without the USN to hold (and then push) them back, the rest of the Pacific world was in serious danger of Japanese conquest and domination. I'm that a vast majority of the billions of people in Asia would strenuously disagree with your "sideshow" assessment.

                    -
                    Not a direct physical threat to America at the time perhaps but certainly a threat to everyone in Europe.

                    In 1941-45 who was Japan's opposition in Asia China, the British and Dutch colonies and dominions and America across the Pacific Ocean.

                    In 1939-45 who was Germany's opposition, and were the forces assembled in the Far East against Japan comparable to those assembled against Germany.

                    Did Japan compare favourably in industrial and technological terms to Germany Was the Japanese Army as well equipped or as large as the German Army Did Japan engage in the industrial scale murder of millions of civilians in Asia Did Japan field jet fighters and ballistic missiles in 1944

                    Comment

                    • #116
                      Originally posted by aspqrz View Post
                      And you miss the point entirely.

                      The USSR was able to produce as much of pretty much anything it actually did produce because they didn't have to produce a lot of the stuff that the Allies provided to them. They could survive Butcher Stalin's squandering of their manpower and still field massive armies because they didn't have to have as many factory workers as they would have required without Lend Lease.

                      It is widely understood by specialists (and, afaict, never mentioned in non-specialist works) that Soviet Industry was wildly inefficient compared to Western Industry and that the fact that they were supplied by Lend Lease meant they could comb out far more now redundant workers than the Lend Lease supplies actually represented.

                      The fact that they produced a lot of stuff is ... nice ... but irrelevant.

                      And a lot of what they produced was, compared to allied stuff, crap ... they had to produce a lot of it because it wore out, broke down, or was unserviceable most of the time.

                      Allied Tanks, for example, were operational around 80% of the time. Russian Tanks About 30-40%. So the Russians had to field twice as many tanks as an Allied Force to simply have the same number operational.

                      Russian tanks wore out faster, too. T-34s typically went into battle with extra Transmissions loaded on their back deck because they were so unreliable and the MTBF of a T-34 was around 100 hours, or 250 klicks, before it required a major rebuild ... and after another 100 hours or 250 klicks it was more often than not uneconomic to repair.

                      A lot of Russian equipment was like that ... so if they produced a lot of it, that is not an indicator of the actual value of the stuff, or even how much of it was usable or survived the war.

                      Phil

                      So if I understand correctly you are saying that the USSR was only able to build so many tanks, artillery, munitions, aircraft etc in WW2 because Allied Lend Lease supplied them with everything else. Also unlike Britain for example the Soviets didn't have the specialised industrial expertise, machinery and tools to mass produce material that they would have needed to support themselves. Well if that is the case how come the Soviet Union was supplied with 10,982 millions dollars worth of Lend Lease and the British Empire was supplied with 31,387 million dollars worth of Lend Lease (3 times as much as the USSR) Also can you compare the difference between the material that the United States supplied to the Soviet Union and the British Empire for comparison to support that statement

                      Comment

                      • #117
                        Originally posted by aspqrz View Post
                        SMGs, Machineguns, Mortars, 25 pdr artillery. Ammunition and Artillery rounds.

                        Oh, and sixty Bathurst class Corvettes alone were built in Australia. Six Tribal Class Destroyers were built in Australia.

                        And we built RR Aero engines for a variety of, yes, imported aircraft.

                        However, we built around 700 Beauforts locally, too, around 400 Beaufighters, 700 odd Wirraway Trainers, 250 Boomerang Fighters etc.

                        Yes, not much in the greater scheme of things, but much more than most people, even most Australians, realise!

                        And rather more than you claimed.

                        Phil

                        Outside of small arms and munitions which almost every country in WW2 produced how much of Australia's war production was sent outside of Australia and the South West Pacific Area theatre

                        I stated that Australia produced 16 escorts in WW2. I included the Tribal Class Destroyers as escorts as that is the type of warship they are; escorts to larger fleet warships such as cruisers, capitol ships and aircraft carriers; But on closer examination I overstated that figure. Between 1939 and the end of the war Australia only produced 11 escorts (2 Grimsby Class Sloops, 6 River Class Frigates and 3 Tribal Class destroyers, and one of the Tribal Class was commissioned in May 1945).

                        I didn't include the Bathurst Class as escorts as they were originally classed as minesweepers, later re-designated corvettes and then classed again as minesweepers depending on their deployment. Incidentally 4 ships in the class were involved in mutinous activity due to the poor working and living conditions aboard these vessels, a record for a single class I think.

                        The Bristol Beaufort and Beaufighter were British designs. The 700 Beaufort's license built in Australia used American engines. The 365 Beaufighters were only built from 1944, and the Wirraway and Boomerang used American engines.

                        Comment

                        • #118
                          Originally posted by RN7 View Post
                          The Bristol Beaufort and Beaufighter were British designs. The 700 Beaufort's license built in Australia used American engines. The 365 Beaufighters were only built from 1944, and the Wirraway and Boomerang used American engines.
                          Although some of the Beaufort's and Boomerang's engines were built under license in Lidcombe NSW by General Motor's Holden subsidiary.

                          Comment

                          • #119
                            GODZILLA WON!

                            Can we now lock this thread
                            *************************************
                            Each day I encounter stupid people I keep wondering... is today when I get my first assault charge??

                            Comment

                            • #120
                              Originally posted by Cdnwolf View Post
                              GODZILLA WON!

                              Can we now lock this thread
                              I have a suggestion for you. Stop reading this thread.


                              Is it argumentative Yes it is, (in the proper sense of arguing a point).
                              Is it polarizing Yes it is.
                              Is it combatative Yeah we've seen that too.
                              Is it divisive No it isn't, not to the point of hostility.
                              I will agree that it has the potential to get heated and hostile but then so do many other threads were people argue from opposite sides.

                              Comment

                                • Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 template Next
                                Working...
                                X