Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[lesofprimus]

As to syscoms very detailed question "German or Russian", my mind believes that in occupied France, Germans impregnate Frenchies, have little braut eating blonde knights speaking German like their Daddys and their pals, Mayors and garbage collectors.... I would also assume that these little blonde German-Frenchies would also hang out/be babysitted etc etc by his mothers grandparents who speak only French....

Bi-lingual German teenagers running across Belgium and France, breeding with German speaking French/German maidens with hairy armpits....



German speaking children......

German takes over French by being breeded out through generations... I can buy that....

[machine shop tom]

You're forgetting that even on the eve of Pearl harbor, the isolationist crowd was still quite strong. And even on the evening of Dec 7th, there were still large numbers of congressman and senators that still hoped we would not be drawn into the European conflict.

And your also forgetting that the purpose of this thread is to show that without the US getting involved, then "contiental" Europe would be speaking German or Russian.

U.S involvement in WWII was inevitable on both fronts.

Had Britain been seen on the brink of falling (as it was in 1942 due to the success of the U-boats) Roosevelt would have seen war declared on Germany regardless of isolationist crowd.

I'm not forgetting the purpose of this thread. It was inevitable that the U.S. would get involved and have an impact of the lanquage spoken in Europe. The sad fact is that a large portion of Europe trade one dictator for another.

BTW, its "contintental" not "contiental".

tom

[lesofprimus]

I dont think Roosevelt would have gotten the US in a shooting War with Germany without the approval of the isolationists...

It was inevitable that the U.S. would get involved and have an impact of the lanquage spoken in Europe.

Hmmm, dont have much faith in that Tom...
AND FOR THE FU*KIN RECORD, ITS CONTINENTAL.... Ur both meatballs...

[machine shop tom]

AND FOR THE FU*KIN RECORD, ITS CONTINENTAL.... Ur both meatballs...

Damn, I HATE it when I find out I'm not perfect!!



tom

[lesofprimus]

Hehe...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As to syscoms very detailed question "German or Russian", my mind believes that in occupied France, Germans impregnate Frenchies, have little braut eating blonde knights speaking German like their Daddys and their pals, Mayors and garbage collectors.... I would also assume that these little blonde German-Frenchies would also hang out/be babysitted etc etc by his mothers grandparents who speak only French....

Bi-lingual German teenagers running across Belgium and France, breeding with German speaking French/German maidens with hairy armpits....

German speaking children......

German takes over French by being breeded out through generations... I can buy that....

I am a firm believer that if a World War ever breaks out again in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

[syscom3]

I am a firm believer that if a World War ever breaks out again in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

[machine shop tom]

I am a firm believer that if a World War ever breaks out again in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

Make that the WINNER has to take France and I guarantee there will be no more wars in Europe.

"We win! Wait, WE get France? Never mind, YOU win............."


tom

[Marcel]

I am a firm believer that if a World War ever breaks out again in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

I hope the french win then..

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

a paradox.

[Soren]

I'm with Les on this, although not about the armpit part

[rogthedodge]

Before we all have a 'let's slag off the French'-fest (always popular).

Let's not forget there was also fraternisation from the Dutch and others too - there are reports of Dutch ladies cooking etc for Luftwaffe pliots, both the Dutch and the Danes raised SS divisions etc.

Churchill niaively expected much from the occupied populations but many of them recognised the realities of the situation and got on with the occupiers. Hence SOE to stir it up a bit!

There were of course brave minorities in all european countries who did resist

Nothing to guarantee that the UK population wouldn't have done the same (very little resistance in Jersey!) - although after the mustard gas treatment and the auxilliary groups designed to spread terror / increase reprisals by the Germans the Brits may have resisted longer / more vigourously.

Chiurchill was an evil sod and his plans were designed to provoke retaliation against his own people and thus resistance.

[plan_D]

"Agrre'd. But by the time they can go to Europe, the war has been decided for Russia or Germany."

You seem 100% sure of this; if anything the war certainly would not have been decided by 1945 - it would be dragging on.

"You need 100's of thousands of trucks, 10's of thousands of aircraft and thousands of ships. Australia, SA and Canada didnt have the resources to do it. Plus much of the production from Australia would be going to support its own forces in the Pacific."

Britain and her Commonwealth provided tens of thousands of aircraft; and hundreds of thousands of trucks for the war effort. South Africa, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and Great Britain collectively had enough industrial capacity to run Germany into the ground.
If the U.S had never geared up for war; we wouldn't be saying the U.S had the industrial might or army because prior to World War II - it was pretty pathetic.

And syscom, do a little research and tell me how many U.S citizens were illiterate in 1941 - I'll give you a hint; it's around 40%. But yet the U.S managed to train and deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to the war effort ... how did they do this? The idea that the Commonwealth was, apparently, mostly illiterate so they can't fight is laughable.
Nevertheless; we need not compare the industrial capacity and manpower to the U.S - you compare to Germany. Where the British Commonwealth out-numbered and out-produced Germany.

"Germany's tanks and AFV's were superior right unto the last few months of the war (63 out of 68 months is quite impressive). And if the US hadnt enabled the Brits to invade Normandy in 1944, none of your centurion tanks would see combat in numbers."

I think you should accept that you don't know squat about the AFVs of World War II - in both 1939 and 1940; plus most of 1941 German AFVs were poor at best. Faced up against the British Maltida they were in deep trouble ...and against the Soviet T-34! It was only until the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 came along and the L/60 armed Pz.Kpfw III arrived that German armour began to pick up. When the Pz.Kpfw VI E arrived ... three years after the war started ...German AFVs became the bench-mark.

Great Britain was out-producing Germany in fighters; combined the VVS and RAF numbers and you'll see Germany are heavily inferior numbers wise in a fighter force. Plus the fact; Britain was on the offensive and Germany wasn't stopping it - even before the U.S came along.

Syscom; THE RAF WAS BOMBING BY DAY AND NIGHT!

It may not have been with the numbers the USAAF deployed - but given the better tactics and better weapons; Britain could have been destroying the vital German targets instead of just plastering it - like the USAAF did. Operation [i]Crossbow[/b] being a perfect example of American over-kill in the air offensive. The 2nd TAF destroyed more Noball sites than the U.S 9th Air Force for far less sorties ... the only force to destroy more Noball sites was the U.S 8th Air Force with a hell of a lot more effort and sortie numbers.

The facts are clear; Britain had a navy large enough to defeat the Kriegsmarine in 1939 all the way through 1945. The only problem the Royal Navy encountered was when fighting the Italian, Japanese and German but since the U.S is still fighting the Japanese navy then Britain is fine handling the German and Italian on its own.

[syscom3]

"Agrre'd. But by the time they can go to Europe, the war has been decided for Russia or Germany."

You seem 100% sure of this; if anything the war certainly would not have been decided by 1945 - it would be dragging on.

By the middle of 1944, the war would have been decided in the east, with either Germany or Russia winning, or even a truce. Theres nothing the Commonwealth could do to effect that outcome, unless Stalin allowed you to join in on the fighting in the east.

Britain and her Commonwealth provided tens of thousands of aircraft; and hundreds of thousands of trucks for the war effort. South Africa, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and Great Britain collectively had enough industrial capacity to run Germany into the ground.

Your war economy had maxed out in 1943. Thats a fact. There was nothing the Commonwealth could do about it. Now lets hear about all the big industrial plants, steel mills and massive aircraft factories that existed in Australia, Canada, India and SA. Hardly any.

If the U.S had never geared up for war; we wouldn't be saying the U.S had the industrial might or army because prior to World War II - it was pretty pathetic.

You show a lack of understanding for the economic aspects or warfare. Prior to the US getting in the war, we had lots of economic potential and reserve capacity. Thats what the Germans and Japanese didnt quite understand. Plus we had the manpower available to not only raise large armies and navies, but also to have enough people at home to run the factories and farms.

And syscom, do a little research and tell me how many U.S citizens were illiterate in 1941 - I'll give you a hint; it's around 40%. But yet the U.S managed to train and deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to the war effort ... how did they do this? The idea that the Commonwealth was, apparently, mostly illiterate so they can't fight is laughable.

So all these people in the colonies in Africa and India were educated enough to jump right in to fight a modern war? Most of them had never ridden in a car, let alone being shown how to maintain one.

Nevertheless; we need not compare the industrial capacity and manpower to the U.S - you compare to Germany. Where the British Commonwealth out-numbered and out-produced Germany.

And yet your production was well short of the production needed to build the air forces, supply the divisions and construct the navies needed to do the job. It was US production and manpower that made it possible for the allies to win. After all, if it was all that great, why did we have to give you the airplanes, ships and supply the troops?

No US in the European war, no allied victory.

I think you should accept that you don't know squat about the AFVs of World War II - in both 1939 and 1940; plus most of 1941 German AFVs were poor at best. Faced up against the British Maltida they were in deep trouble ...and against the Soviet T-34! It was only until the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 came along and the L/60 armed Pz.Kpfw III arrived that German armour began to pick up. When the Pz.Kpfw VI E arrived ... three years after the war started ...German AFVs became the bench-mark.

I think its been fairly well proven by others that the Panther and Tiger were quite superior to their US/UK counterparts. And they were only defeated in the long run by superior US production.

Great Britain was out-producing Germany in fighters; combined the VVS and RAF numbers and you'll see Germany are heavily inferior numbers wise in a fighter force. Plus the fact; Britain was on the offensive and Germany wasn't stopping it - even before the U.S came along.

Unfortunatly, your fighters didnt have the range necessary to get to where the LW was flying over. Namely Germany.

Syscom;THE RAF WAS BOMBING BY DAY AND NIGHT

Face it, Bomber Command was doing a great job at night, but it was not a credible threat at all during the day. It didnt do the deep penetration missions into Germany during the day untill well after the USAAF had cleared the skys of the LW. BC did a better job of attacking Germany's industries at night, but it was the USAAF that went in deep during the day and destroyed the LW.

It may not have been with the numbers the USAAF deployed - but given the better tactics and better weapons; Britain could have been destroying the vital German targets instead of just plastering it - like the USAAF did. Operation [i]Crossbow[/b] being a perfect example of American over-kill in the air offensive. The 2nd TAF destroyed more Noball sites than the U.S 9th Air Force for far less sorties ... the only force to destroy more Noball sites was the U.S 8th Air Force with a hell of a lot more effort and sortie numbers.

And whats the point?

The facts are clear; Britain had a navy large enough to defeat the Kriegsmarine in 1939 all the way through 1945. The only problem the Royal Navy encountered was when fighting the Italian, Japanese and German but since the U.S is still fighting the Japanese navy then Britain is fine handling the German and Italian on its own.

Is that why you needed our B24's for sub patrols, our escort carriers, destroyers and escorts for convoy protection?

[Hunter368]

This it getting good now.