Debates
08 May 19
08 May 19
@divegeester saidI don’t quite understand why the USA wouldn’t just attack japan and let Europe go hang, or put it on hold until they defeated Japan a lot sooner by focusing all its resources on the Pacific theatre.
Unlikely without a catalyst; by most accounts the US were resistant to entering the war at that time. However had the Battle of Britain been unsuccessful and the Nazis invaded England I suspect Roosevelt would have felt compelled to act under domestic pressure.
I think Hitlers decision to attack Russia was every bit as significant. But I wouldn’t take anything away from the US for the blood and treasure it spent in opening up a western front against the Nazi war machine.
@wolfgang59 saidThat doesn't read well does it?
During wartime they are worthless.
I meant that they are not given any worth by the war-time governments/military leaders.
09 May 19
@wolfgang59 saidHaha
That doesn't read well does it?
I meant that they are not given any worth by the war-time governments/military leaders.
09 May 19
@kevcvs57 saidThe US and Germany were already fighting a de facto war in the Atlantic well before Pearl Harbor. It suited both not to declare war. that was it. The US was going to get into it sooner or later and the plans to invade Europe could have advanced well along before the formal declaration of war.
I don’t quite understand why the USA wouldn’t just attack japan and let Europe go hang, or put it on hold until they defeated Japan a lot sooner by focusing all its resources on the Pacific theatre.
I think Hitlers decision to attack Russia was every bit as significant. But I wouldn’t take anything away from the US for the blood and treasure it spent in opening up a western front against the Nazi war machine.
US and British military staffs has secret war plan meetings starting many months before Pearl Harbor.
Without the Japanese to fight, the US almost certainly would have pushed for an invasion of France in 1943, at the latest. They pushed for that anyway, but relented due to British resistance and the need for diversion of resources to the Pacific.
10 May 19
Yeah, god must have been ok with Nazi's murdering millions of people. BTW, I just saw a piece on BBC about that, and it turns out the very first people killed were not Jews, or Poles, but German citizens, 20,000 of them. They happened to be
handicapped and the Nazi's were trying to gene edit the hard way. Great folks those Nazi's. @shavixmir
10 May 19
1 edit
@sh76 saidYes ‘Lend Lease’ was a pretty clear indication of who Roosevelt was siding with. But there was some understandable public resistance to entanglement in a war between European powers.
The US and Germany were already fighting a de facto war in the Atlantic well before Pearl Harbor. It suited both not to declare war. that was it. The US was going to get into it sooner or later and the plans to invade Europe could have advanced well along before the formal declaration of war.
US and British military staffs has secret war plan meetings starting many months bef ...[text shortened]... yway, but relented due to British resistance and the need for diversion of resources to the Pacific.
10 May 19
The post that was quoted here has been removedI read somewhere years ago that it was the P-51 Mustang (specifically the P-51D) that decisively tipped air superiority over Germany in favour of the Allies, and it only started to make the difference from around the start of 1944. Upon seeing the P-51 over Berlin, Hermann Göring reportedly said: "The game is up". Previously, there hadn't been a fighter that could adequately escort long-range bombers from airfields in Britain to Germany and back again, and this helped the Luftwaffe inflict heavy casualties. With the P-51s actively engaging the Luftwaffe, Germany could no longer hold off Allied strategic bombing (many heavy flak emplacements, such as the infamous Dresden's, were later moved east to fight the Soviets, which worsened the problem).
10 May 19
The post that was quoted here has been removedI can't site any casus belli because such didn't turn out to be necessary.
My guess is that some cargo or even passenger ship being sunk in the Atlantic (a la the Lusitania) might have done it or perhaps when word started to trickle out about the incredible Nazi war crimes, or perhaps support for the war might have just slowly built to 55% or 60%, at which time Congress might have declared war if FDR asked for it.
Either way, the US and UK probably would have been ready with a plan ready to be put into action whenever the blow fell.
10 May 19
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedI understand that problems of landing craft and artificial harbors existed in 1943, but as you say, the Atlantic wall was weaker as well.
If the Allies could generate the type of invasion necessary for Torch in November of 1942, I have trouble imagining that they couldn't instead have mounted an invasion of France in 1943 with those same resources plus whatever they could generate in another half year. Even if not at Normandy or Calais, perhaps they could lave landed near Brest or Bordeaux where the Germans were weaker and which still could be supplied by sea (which they did end up doing later in the summer of 44). Capturing one of those ports might have been easier than Cherbourg.