Hi

 

I have got behind with this thread I note that Pete says we needed American help, we did but that did not win the war. A lot of help we recieved was offset by the US also dealing with the enemy. Before the war the Americns made millions by helping to set up Germany's war Industry. Thousands of Americans went to Germany before and during the ar and joined  their army. At the same time they were suplying oil to Germany via Turkey and Vichy France, they also supplied the Axis strategic metal via Franco's Spain.

 

Of course we supplied you with all your intelligence, although you try constantly to claim

 

The British lost thousands of men and materials due directly to secret intelligence passed to the Germans via USMilitary liasion officer attached to the British and a spy working from the US embassy in London.

 

By the time the US fired a shot in Europe the war had changed into our favour. The Russians had defeated Germans at Stalingrad and the British at Alamein and the battle of the Atlantic was going in our favour.

 

Considerin he US Army never won a battle in Europe, never led in a landing, never carried ou a succcessful raid.never fought an enemy without at least 5 to 1 advantage

 

The US forces was treated with scorn by friend and foe.

 

How can you claim to have won the war, when apart from trading with the enemy:

 

You killed as many of your own men than the enemy and a good few of your allies.

 

Your Aircrews flew to neuteral countries to avoid combat

 

As previously said, you never won a battle in Europe and never won one on land in the Pacific. Fighting a couple of thousand Japs who were completly cut off on an island berift of support were not real battle like Kohima and the Arakan. Okinnawa came as such a shock that it put you off invading the Jap mainland.

 

Lost the moral high ground by the murder of prisoners and civilians.

 

These fellers below probably did more to defeat the germans tha te majority of your infantry

 

'Dad's Army's' First Victim

On the 18th August, 1940 a detachment of the Home Guard, from their sandbagged emplacement on the South London outskirts, claimed the first bomber, a Dornier, to fall to the volunteer defenders. They shot it down after 180 rounds of rifle fire. 

 

Arnie

The fastest way to get rich is to invent something that the europeans can cut each others throat with. 

 

Your problems are your problem.  They are not our problems.  Remember we left you.  We did away with all your babble.  That is way we are great and you are not.

 

 

 

sunny

Redneck:  Your waisting your time with Arnie.  He is a proponent of "Once Upon a Time" no substance or back up just words.

Without American materiel its hard to see how the war in the west could have been won.

On the other hand, did American forces win at El Alemein ? ...and push the German/Italian armies 2000 miles back into Tunisia. Without that victory the allies would have suffered a collosal defeat - capture of the suez canal, occupation of oil rich lands, link up with forces in southern Russia.

Also look at the Battle of Britain.

Britain certainly did not 'win the war' but it certainly prevented a catastrophy.

 

If we're talking about who did most to actualy win the war then I think you have to look at Russia. Over 20 million casualties, majority of industry transfered beyond the caucus mountains in something like 3 months and something like 70% of  all German forces were posted there on average. For the majority of the war, for Germany the west was simply a 'wall' to hold back the western allies while the 'real' war was fought out in Russia - especialy southern Russia. That held until June '44 but even then the OKW hoped for a settlement with the west to continue the 'real' war with Russia

In order to "overrun England" the Germans would have to have got across the Channel first. Their navy was nowhere near large enough or strong enough to take on the Royal Navy. Germany could not have invaded GB no matter how many millions of men it had waiting on the other side.

I think we have to allow in those Russian casualty figures the enormous-millions-numbers executed by the NKVD and their battlefield police.

Russia did receive enormous amounts of materiel from the West - I've argued this point before - a lot of which she didn't need, having better of her own. She made a copy of the jeep (the GAZ) in 1938, and I might sayn the one thing which saved her was the British .3"/76.2 mm AA gun, converted into the T34's main armament and a very effective towed (later SP) anti-tank gun. All you gave them was SPAM and the Airacobra.

Bowlegged

 

We still feel an enormous amount of bitterness about the Irish denying us 300 miles more coverage into the Atlantic,by not giving  us ports, yet demanding we fed them from convoy stocks.

 

The German Navy I feel was very versatile, being designed basically to kill merchant shipping. Think of a U-Boat needing only 50 men, yet destroying, in 5-10 boat packs, 60-odd ships in some offensives. 

 

You lost 62 ships in the gulf of Mexico early 1942, even after ULTRA was fully jeopardised, simply because your Admiral King refused to heed British warnings. History records he hated us.

 

The Channel was kept virtually closed by the S-boats raiding right up to the beaches on which we were training for D-day (Slapton Sands).

 

We had to use Liverpool as our main Atlantic port, wheras the Channel ports could have been more useful.

 

 The German started the war with only 28 U-Boats, and I believe ended up producing some 300 per month. What killed her was fuel shortage . Forget the Russians. the highest death rate was the 75% suffered by the U-Boat arm. 30,000 out of 40,000 

 

Sorry, re-reading the above, I realise I've been a bit disjointed but I would summarise by saying the Germans didn't have our quantity of surface shipping  but still nearly managed to paralyse us (and you) with her resources.

 

Peter

It's stating the obvious, but what both Germany and Japan needed was a quick victory, a long war only wore them down through a shortage of manpower and resources.

Snow bird

 

Every point I have written are supported by the Impeial war museum after the release

of secret WW2 documents.

 

If the facts of the fraud of lend lease had have come to light during WW2 It is doubtful whether the Britsh would have stood for them. Certainly Churchill knew this and kept them quite until recently. As far as Roosevelt and later Trueman was concerned Lend lease was a method of destroying the British Empire. It was certainly true with the benefit of hind sight we would have got a better deal from Hitler by just standing aside after Dunkirk.

 

The actions of Roosevelt and his aids in late 1944 and early 45 certainly handed over vast tracts of Europe to the Russians and that is a fact. There is also strong evidence to support the accusasion that the US supplied the materials and know how to allow the Russians to build an A bomb.

 

But since you have never supplied references to support you views I will on return to UK supply you with sufficient  references to more than suport all my claims.

 

You Americans are supremly unaware how close the Briish were from withdrawing from Eisenhowers command. One of the reasons why Churchill lost the 1945 wartime election was his dealings with US during the war.

 

Bedel Smith, Eisenhowers Chief of Staff. Discussing with General Marshal's representative the worsening relations betwenn the British population and the US Forces. Said that he wished his boys were admired as much as the Red Army by the British.

 

Later when Marshal, Eisenhower and the other US Generals plotted to remove Montgomery from Command. Bedels Smihs was wise enough to warn that Montgomery's removal could initiate the withdrawl of Briton from the war to consentrate on its Empire in the Far East. How would the US have won then? With the Rheine to cross and no indestructable aircraft carrier to fly from and no Royal Navy to get your supplies over the pond. Think about it.

 

Arnie

Funk

Glad I've caught you. You're an engineer, and I was posting on American History the cargo of the I-52 , namely

On 10 March 1944, on her maiden voyage, I-52 (Commander Uno Kameo) departed Kure, Japan via Sasebo for Singapore. Her cargo from Japan included 9.8 tons of molybdenum, 11 tons of tungsten, 2.2 tons of gold in 146 bars packed in 49 metal boxes, 3 tons of opium and 54 kg of caffeine [2]. The gold was payment for German optical technology. She also carried 14 passengers, primarily Japanese technicians, who were to study German technology in anti-aircraft guns, and engines for torpedo boats.

And later, 157 tons of tin were loaded in Singapore.. Interestingly, the Germans exported optical glass, because the Japs were so behind on radar technology they need huge binos.

I believe tungsten was/is used for sharpening machine tools for cutting tank armour, and molybdenum is an ingredient for making armour plate. I know the Germans had to stop producing squeeze guns  because the tungsten cores were in too short supply.

Question Would the amounts quoted above have made a difference to war production and really justified sending such a huge sub 16,000 miles, or had someone lost his marbles?

 

Peter

Peter  

I

Hi Flash,     persoanly I think the quantities mentioned are virtualy insignificant.  probably more to do with diplomacy than making any real significant difference, however the opium would be very welcome

Thanks.

Proved a very expensive bit of diplomacy then.

Opium.........the Russians had plenty of it, and according to author Sven Hassel the germans were issued with opium cigarettes.

Peter