- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In hindsight was it a mistake for the US to ally with the Soviet Union during WW2.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 1:26 pm to doubleb
Posted on 2/26/23 at 1:26 pm to doubleb
I was born in this time and most of my family fought the war or built the materials to fight, so yes, I would say I have a vivid memory of what happened closer to when it was actually happening.
The US was dealing with the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl and more worried about what was happening here than in Europe. The pulse of the country was isolationist and the military was outdated with more material to fight WWI type equipment. My old man trained troops in WWII and at the start he was training calvary units (you know horses) before they changed after Pearl Harbor at the end of 41'. Even then, not like this happened overnight and better to think of all of 42 as shifting from outdated warfare to more modern warfare.
The early US tanks were the Grant (heavy) and Stuart (light) and neither were a threat to German III's and IV's. German 88's could take out US armor long before they got close. If memory serves, the Shermans were not out till 43 or 44 and by then they were easy prey to Tigers and Panthers.
This is not "what ifs" this is reality
Some say - and I tend to believe it - that we encouraged the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor - just so it would light the fire to switch from isolationism to action.
As for England, Hitler had the Duke of Windsor in his pocket, same way he had Henry Ford and others industrialists in the US saying how great Germany was.
It was Churchill who saw that the "coal" military of WW I was to slow for the "oil" military of the next war. Single greatest threat to Hitler was not Stalin or Roosevelt but Churchill.
The US was dealing with the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl and more worried about what was happening here than in Europe. The pulse of the country was isolationist and the military was outdated with more material to fight WWI type equipment. My old man trained troops in WWII and at the start he was training calvary units (you know horses) before they changed after Pearl Harbor at the end of 41'. Even then, not like this happened overnight and better to think of all of 42 as shifting from outdated warfare to more modern warfare.
The early US tanks were the Grant (heavy) and Stuart (light) and neither were a threat to German III's and IV's. German 88's could take out US armor long before they got close. If memory serves, the Shermans were not out till 43 or 44 and by then they were easy prey to Tigers and Panthers.
quote:
Now you come back with a series of what ifs
This is not "what ifs" this is reality
Some say - and I tend to believe it - that we encouraged the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor - just so it would light the fire to switch from isolationism to action.
As for England, Hitler had the Duke of Windsor in his pocket, same way he had Henry Ford and others industrialists in the US saying how great Germany was.
It was Churchill who saw that the "coal" military of WW I was to slow for the "oil" military of the next war. Single greatest threat to Hitler was not Stalin or Roosevelt but Churchill.
0
Posted on 2/26/23 at 1:36 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
A German invasion of the U.S. would have never succeeded.
You are not addressing the issues...
If Germany does Sea Lion prior to Barbarossa they finish England as England has no oil and would have to fight with coal. How do you fly Spitfires with coal, how do you put the Navy in the water to fight with coal when the Germans have oil?
Once Germany takes England, they head east and take Russia
You keep forgetting they have jets (Me 262) and are switching from V1's (slow and inaccurate) to V2's (fast and accurate)
If they attack the America's they would not come from Europe, they would come across the Bering Straight (which Japan had already shown as possible) and a West Coast invasion to take the California oil (Chevron).
Posted on 2/26/23 at 1:48 pm to bdavids09
At the Yalta Conference Churchill blew his gasket several times during the meetings with Stalin and Roosevelt.
Stalin had Roosevelt in his pocket and basically played him against Churchill. Roosevelt was weak from Polio and was fascinated by communism and admired stalin.
fdr should have not been at that conference. This was a situation where poor health of a leader negatively affected World History. fdr should have resigned after the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because of poor health.
Churchill knew what stalin had planned for eastern Europe after WW2.
A strong US president at Yalta would have changed the history of eastern Europe. No Berlin Blockade,no communism in Hungary or Cechoslovakia, no Iron Curtain.
Stalin had Roosevelt in his pocket and basically played him against Churchill. Roosevelt was weak from Polio and was fascinated by communism and admired stalin.
fdr should have not been at that conference. This was a situation where poor health of a leader negatively affected World History. fdr should have resigned after the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because of poor health.
Churchill knew what stalin had planned for eastern Europe after WW2.
A strong US president at Yalta would have changed the history of eastern Europe. No Berlin Blockade,no communism in Hungary or Cechoslovakia, no Iron Curtain.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 1:57 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
You are not addressing the issues...
If Germany does Sea Lion prior to Barbarossa they finish England as England has no oil and would have to fight with coal. How do you fly Spitfires with coal, how do you put the Navy in the water to fight with coal when the Germans have oil
England didn't produce its oil in England, it got the majority of its oil imports from its colonies in the Middle East and Malaya. Anything they didn't produce in those two locations they got from the United States.
quote:
Once Germany takes England, they head east and take Russia
This isn't a guarantee at all.
quote:
You keep forgetting they have jets (Me 262)
Which would have been useless in a hypothetical invasion of the United States as they didn't have anywhere close to the range to get to the United States. The Kriegsmarine didn't have a single aircraft carrier to transport them either, plus without catapult technology they wouldn't have been able to take off or land from a carrier.
quote:
and are switching from V1's (slow and inaccurate) to V2's (fast and accurate)
V2s had an effective range of 200 miles. It is a distance of over 2,000 miles from the coast of Europe to the coast of the United States.
quote:
If they attack the America's they would not come from Europe, they would come across the Bering Straight
How? There is absolutely no conceivable way an army in the 1940s could have sustained a supply line like that over unforgiving terrain using roads that barely even deserve the name. But let's assume for a moment they were dumb enough to try. They make it over the Bering Sea and into Alaska. Then what? They would then have to cross the highest mountains on the North American continent just to get to the continental United States - natural defensive barriers that the U.S. Army would use to make mince meat of the Wehrmacht. And then once they are through the mountains, it's 3,500 miles to the White House against the most heavily armed civilian population in the world. Good luck.
Also...Japan never showed it to be possible. They occupied two islands in the Aleutians and never sniffed mainland Alaska.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 2:17 pm to SantaFe
Soviet agents in the US government fed Stalin all of the US fall-back positions that FDR would accept. All Stalin had to do was say "Nyet" until he got what he wanted.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 2:19 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
If Germany does Sea Lion prior to Barbarossa they finish England as England has no oil and would have to fight with coal
Germany tried with everything they had to defeat the Royal Air Force months before Barbarossa. They failed despite all those great planes you tout. The Brits beat them in the air making any sea invasion suicide.
Sea Lion was dead making Hitler look elsewhere for targets. He couldn’t take on the Brits in Europe so he turned to Africa after the Italians fell flat on their face.
As for German tanks, yes they were way better than ours, but where were we going to face German tanks? If they couldn’t reach England they weren’t reaching the US.
And we all know what really happened, the US was a fast learner and an enormous engine for producing war material. Wd built ships, planes and tanks way faster and in larger quantities than anyone. We had no issues with resourced or labor.
Germany wasn’t nearly formidable enough to invade the US.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 2:25 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
England didn't produce its oil in England
Correct
quote:
Middle East
Under German control
quote:
Malaya
Under Japanese control
Uboats were cheaper to build than English ships. Germany can make that trade all day till they take down England. If no oil gets from the Middle East or or the Far East, how do you power the tanks, planes, and ships on an island country with no oil resources.
quote:
V2s had an effective range of 200 miles.
You assume the Germans stop at the V2? The rocket scientist we got from the Germans (via US and USSR) propelled both to space. Are you really telling me if they remain in Germany they would not be able to hit the US in 5 years?
quote:
There is absolutely no conceivable way an army in the 1940s could have sustained a supply line like that
Again, if England is done before Pearl Harbor. Germans and Japanese are done with Russia by say 45. You think they could not invade the America's (North & South) by say 1950? Between the two of them they would control 3 of the 4 spheres of oil on the Earth.
Look at the biggest oil companies on the earth and they still root to the 4 spheres of oil from 100 years ago. The more you think things change the more they stay the same.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 2:45 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Under German control
How?
Germany has taken England but that doesn't mean in your scenario that Great Britain surrenders to him. The British Empire makes up 25% of the globe and England is only a small part of it. The government likely retreats to India and the bulk of Britain's army and navy make Asia their main base of operations.
In order for the Germans to successfully control the Middle East, they have to take the Soviet Union. Even with England under control that'll take time.
quote:
Under Japanese control
Not necessarily. See above. The British Empire now mainly operates out of the Pacific and a British defeat in Europe likely triggers a U.S. declaration of war before Japan's December 1941 offensive into the South Pacific.
quote:
Uboats were cheaper to build than English ships. Germany can make that trade all day till they take down England.
But they have already taken down England in your hypothetical scenario. Now they are taking on the United States, whose undersea fleet is superior to that of the Kriegsmarine.
quote:
You assume the Germans stop at the V2? The rocket scientist we got from the Germans (via US and USSR) propelled both to space. Are you really telling me if they remain in Germany they would not be able to hit the US in 5 years?
Yes, I am. Because those German scientists didn't develop the first ICBM until 1957 with the Soviet Union's R-7 Semyorka.
quote:
Germans and Japanese are done with Russia by say 45. You think they could not invade the America's (North & South) by say 1950? Between the two of them they would control 3 of the 4 spheres of oil on the Earth.
The only way this would work is if the United States is just sitting idly by watching all of this happen and doing nothing to prepare. It doesn't matter if you control three of the four spheres of oil on earth. You still need to be able to get the oil to the United States for use in combat against a hostile navy that by 1945 would number over 1,200 major surface combatants. That number would include 99 aircraft carriers and 18 battleships. You are not going to get an army into Alaska via the Bering Strait without naval and air supremacy. You are not going to get that against the might of the United States Navy. It's just not happening.
And assuming you are able to do that, you are then facing off against a U.S. Army which numbers roughly 12 million men. Keep in mind, under this scenario, Germany and Japan have spent the previous four years fighting the Soviet Union. Tens of millions are dead and now you are about to face off against a superior navy, air force, and army.
People tend to forget that in September 1945 the United States military was the most powerful fighting force the world had ever seen.
This post was edited on 2/26/23 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 2/26/23 at 2:46 pm to doubleb
quote:
Germany tried with everything they had to defeat the Royal Air Force months before Barbarossa.
Yes, and it took its toll on England. Had Hitler continued, they win. Hitler was an idiot and turned on Russia too soon. England had 200 to 500 years of coal on their island but no oil. Churchill knew this all along but so many others in his country refused to believe him.
quote:
US was a fast learner and an enormous engine for producing war material.
Yes, but they were well behind the curve. The Germans had the best technology but an inept leader. The US had resources but outdated technology and economic crisis. The Russians had bodies and cheaper but effective technology.
Looks at it this way
100K builds 1 Tiger
100K builds 5 T-34's
100K builds 10 Shermans
1 Tiger can kill all 10 Shermans before they take out the Tiger
1 Tiger can kill 4 of the 5 T-34's before the 5th on kills the Tiger
US can build all the Shermans they want but not effective
Germany can build Tigers but they are expensive
Russians can produce more T-34's and they are cheaper and faster to build
One of the German generals (after the Germans had penetrated the initial Russian lines) commented on the Russian reinforcements swarming them like rats.
Think about this ...
Once Germany attacked Russia, they never had less than 60% of their army deployed there
By D-day, 80% to 90% of the German army was deployed on the Russian Front
quote:
Germany wasn’t nearly formidable enough to invade the US.
They were formidable, just had an inept leader in charge
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:01 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The British Empire makes up 25% of the globe and England is only a small part of it.
Yes and No
The British Empire (while vast) did not mean bodies. They ruled India (one of the largest populations on earth) with about 1,000 actual British troops. Same with China. The English also operated under a different system. When India was going for independence their native people lay on the train tacks till the British stopped the trains. This would not work with the germans as they would respond buy throwing more coal in the firebox and speeding the trains up.
quote:
In order for the Germans to successfully control the Middle East, they have to take the Soviet Union.
No, they take the Middle East to control the flow of oil to Europe. Then they take Russia to control the oil to Russia.
Think about this ...
More Russians died at Stalingrad (~1 million) than the US suffered in the entire war (~400K)
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:09 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
If Germany does Sea Lion prior to Barbarossa they finish England as England has no oil and would have to fight with coal.
Most of England’s oil came from the US. Germany tried and could not stop England from being supplied from overseas. They beat Germany in the air once and Germany never tried again.[
quote]Once Germany takes England, they head east and take Russia [/quote]
They couldn’t, but if they had they weren’t going to invade the US. They were going to attack Russia. By 1942 we were in the war and there was no way Germany was going to beat the US and Russia and the remnants of the British Empire.
Their rockets were not strategic weapons. They weren’t useful in battles. They were more of a terror weapon than anything.
And by 1945 Japan was toast. Germany wasn’t going to get any help from them even if they somehow beat Russia..
You can what if this to death, but Germany wasn’t going to invade California.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:10 pm to bdavids09
How many more troops would the US and it's allies be willing to lose to fight a war of attrition against the most seasoned fighting force in the world at the time? you really think the US could just carve through 1945 USSR? We had no tanks that could come close to what they were mass producing. and their air force at the time was nothing to take lightly either.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:11 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Once Germany takes England,
Nazi Germany was never capable of invading and holding the UK. Operation Sea Lion was always fantasy.
This post was edited on 2/26/23 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:19 pm to UnAnon
quote:
UnAnonHow many more troops would the US and it's allies be willing to lose to fight a war of attrition against the most seasoned fighting force in the world at the time? y
We all know the answer was none.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:24 pm to doubleb
It's crazy that a Country that lost 10 percent
10
percent
of its population from the start to finish of the war clawed its way to Berlin and there's people that think the allies would have just marched right to Moscow without a serious and senseless amount of bloodshed on both sides. For what cause? To remove the hammer and sickle?
10
percent
of its population from the start to finish of the war clawed its way to Berlin and there's people that think the allies would have just marched right to Moscow without a serious and senseless amount of bloodshed on both sides. For what cause? To remove the hammer and sickle?
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:27 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Soviet agents in the US government…
I was going to point this out earlier concerning Yalta. At least one high ranking member in the American side was, in fact, a Soviet spy. So were several members of the State Department and the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.
This post was edited on 2/26/23 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:35 pm to Tiger Attorney
quote:
You act like that would have been easy. The Red Army was a force to be reckoned with and was willing to sustain unlimited casualties.
Do you even nuclear weapon bro?
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:35 pm to UnAnon
quote:
of its population from the start to finish of the war clawed its way to Berlin and there's people that think the allies would have just marched right to Moscow without a serious and senseless amount of bloodshed on both sides. For what cause? To remove the hammer and sickle?
We would have used our weapons of mass destruction
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:40 pm to UnAnon
quote:
We had no tanks that could come close to what they were mass producing. and their air force at the time was nothing to take lightly either.
That is not counting the best part of their army, ATG's and artillery. Both cheap and easy to produce. Build 100 Russian ATG's for less than 1 Tiger.
Posted on 2/26/23 at 3:43 pm to RuckMaul1
If the allies don't gain a year or two in time for the early invasion of Russia, Germany gets the nuclear card first and the rocket technology first to deliver them.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News