Jump to content


May 1940. Setting the record straight and what if's.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
302 replies to this topic

MrWuvems #21 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:09 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostGORGE ROMERO, on 22 May 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

they kinda do... :mellow:

 

Well if there's any bad reputation the US should have as fallout from WW2, other than the racism and nukes, it's not the ships sinking or anything. It's the fact that the US were death merchants, ignoring atrocities (because that means they'd have to get directly involved earlier) in order to funnel weapons to people doing their own fighting and taking credit for it. This gets compounded by the hellishly warped view of the war that was recorded into public consciousness during the cold war.



DoubleDown13 #22 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:10 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 7176 battles
  • 1,979
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostGORGE ROMERO, on 22 May 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

they kinda do... :mellow:

 

 

Hrmm.. I have never heard anything like that.. 



Dennis420b #23 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:11 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostX L1V3 0R D13 X, on 22 May 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

So what, the US was an isolationist country at the time--they didn‘t need an advanced military as a result. But how quickly they modernised their military when called upon. Btw, the US, with its Lend Lease program, became a production machine the likes of which were never seen before.


I would agree that the people of the US were isolationist, but the government was not. Pearl Harbor was a direct result of our oil embargo against the Japanese. We were litterally strangeling them to death, and forcing them to attack the Dutch East Indies and Burma. The Dutch had already been forced off of Europe by the Germans and most of the British Fleet was in the Atlantic, making the only force capable of stopping an invasion of the rich oil fields in Sumatra and Burma, the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. It was a well orchestrated move to insure that we would get involved in WW2. Pearl Harbor was no sneak attack, we basically forced it to happen.



GORGE ROMERO #24 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:12 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 6636 battles
  • 6,183
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostDoubleDown13, on 22 May 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

 

 

Hrmm.. I have never heard anything like that.. 

im just saying, no nation was perfect, not even america


 


Zxyphos #25 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:12 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18182 battles
  • 12,368
  • [RATT]
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostDoubleDown13, on 22 May 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

 

Yes, but no one tells jokes about it. We don't say, "The US ship sail faster sinking."  Etc.

That might be so but  if it wasn’t for the US supplying Britain  with vital food, oil and munitions, etc., via the North Atlantic shipping routes then Britain would have been defeated by the Germans, fact. The US kept Britain afloat, literally, and the brits gave up major concessions in order to have the US do so. It turns out, Britain had to give up its overseas bases and several colonial assets that later in the 20th century, hastened the end of the British Empire. Without the Lend-Lease program this war would of been prolonged with Britain's inevitable defeat.



Dennis420b #26 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:13 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
So if we all agree that no nation would have been able to stand up against the Germans in the same space and time (France, 1940), why do we persist with the jokes?

MrWuvems #27 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:17 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

So if we all agree that no nation would have been able to stand up against the Germans in the same space and time (France, 1940), why do we persist with the jokes?

 

Cold-war era nationalism.



GORGE ROMERO #28 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:17 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 6636 battles
  • 6,183
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

So if we all agree that no nation would have been able to stand up against the Germans in the same space and time (France, 1940), why do we persist with the jokes?

to lighten up the mood :smile:


 


Dennis420b #29 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:19 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostX L1V3 0R D13 X, on 22 May 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

That might be so but  if it wasn’t for the US supplying Britain  with vital food, oil and munitions, etc., via the North Atlantic shipping routes then Britain would have been defeated by the Germans, fact. The US kept Britain afloat, literally, and the brits gave up major concessions in order to have the US do so. It turns out, Britain had to give up its overseas bases and several colonial assets that later in the 20th century, hastened the end of the British Empire. Without the Lend-Lease program this war would of been prolonged with Britain's inevitable defeat.


So in your opinion lend lease allowed the Brits to semi-gracefully take a secondary role in the post war world? I often admired how the UK managed to remain significant and relevant despite losing "superpower" status. Most empires crumble, but the Brits actually come out better than most former superpowers. I can only hope that America can mirror this in our decline (yes IMHO the US "empire" is in its death-throws).



GORGE ROMERO #30 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:21 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 6636 battles
  • 6,183
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 06:19 PM, said:


So in your opinion lend lease allowed the Brits to semi-gracefully take a secondary role in the post war world? I often admired how the UK managed to remain significant and relevant despite losing "superpower" status. Most empires crumble, but the Brits actually come out better than most former superpowers. I can only hope that America can mirror this in our decline (yes IMHO the US "empire" is in its death-throws).

yes it is. america is going to fall apart any day now :sad: dont wanna be here when that happens


 


DoubleDown13 #31 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:22 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 7176 battles
  • 1,979
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostX L1V3 0R D13 X, on 22 May 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

That might be so but  if it wasn’t for the US supplying Britain  with vital food, oil and munitions, etc., via the North Atlantic shipping routes then Britain would have been defeated by the Germans, fact. The US kept Britain afloat, literally, and the brits gave up major concessions in order to have the US do so. It turns out, Britain had to give up its overseas bases and several colonial assets that later in the 20th century, hastened the end of the British Empire. Without the Lend-Lease program this war would of been prolonged with Britain's inevitable defeat.

 

You will not get an argument from me why we were brought into the war. Or that we kept the war machine running for the allies. 



Zxyphos #32 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:22 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18182 battles
  • 12,368
  • [RATT]
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:


Most empires crumble, but the Brits actually come out better than most former superpowers. I can only hope that America can mirror this in our decline (yes IMHO the US "empire" is in its death-throws).

I agree.



IIIHAL 9OOOIII #33 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:23 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1813 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

Awhile back someone started a thread that eventually got locked poking fun at the french tanks going backwards and a bunch of other anti-french stereotypes. But I debate that NO nation in 1940 given the same strategic position would be able to keep the Blitzkrieg at bay. The US army in 1940 is a joke. The only thing stopping the UK from being overrun was the English Channel and Germany's small and still recovering navy from the Norwegian assault. The USSR's performance in the Winter War of 39/40 shows that they would probably not be able to stop the same events from happening.

I am not saying that Germany could invade any of those countries, but rather that any country in the same space and time would fair no better.

Despite France having arguable the most competent tanks of the day, and a comparable sized force to the Germans, they had not anticipated what WW2 would be any different than WW1. But the Brits had no better inclination of what the future of warfare was to be either. The Spanish civil war was observed by all nations but it seems that only the Germans learned anything from it.

IMHO if you replace the French army of 1940 with any other nations army the results would be the same, making all of the negative french stereotyping really just nonsense.

Any thoughts?

 

You should watch a National Geographic documentary called "Apocalypse: The Second World War". I think it's the best I've seen on the subject, and I believe it covers what you're mentioning. It's 100% real footage. I tried finding it on youtube for you, but I could only find one episode in english (it's 6 episodes in total). I'll post it for you just so that you see the quality, and then maybe you'll want to look for the rest of it elsewhere. 

 

 

 



MrWuvems #34 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:24 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostGORGE ROMERO, on 22 May 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

yes it is. america is going to fall apart any day now :sad: dont wanna be here when that happens

 

I think he was more referring to the post-Spanish/American war empire, and empire in its own concept is dying in the more peaceful world (war-related deaths are actually really, really low compared to history).

But speaking of the modern world, the France=surrender stereotype may also be going away. France defaulted to its normal state, and they're the parent country the US inherited a lot of the aggression from. If you've been paying attention to the stances taken by NATO members, France has been really active, only relying on the US in specific circumstances.



Zxyphos #35 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:26 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18182 battles
  • 12,368
  • [RATT]
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

Well, one thing is for sure: The Nazis sure loved vacationing in cities like Paris after France's defeat. No bigger slap to the face, IMHO.



IIIHAL 9OOOIII #36 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:29 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1813 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostSixxGunnz, on 22 May 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

The French had the best tanks on the battlefield in 1940 of any nation at the time. It wasn't thier tanks but the tactics they used to deploy them. Like other nations they deployed them piecemeal as infantry support vehicles. Had they deployed them as independent armor units the outcome may have been different. 

Even the Germans recognized that thier own tanks were far inferior to the French and had to use Stukas and towed 88s to deal with most of the French tanks. It says a lot when your advasaries commend you on the battlefield. 

 

I don't know if you're correct about the french having superior tanks at the time, but even if you are, you have to remember it was the germans who invented blitzkrieg tactics.



Dennis420b #37 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:30 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
But then what if the US government elections of 36 or 40 were different. What if the US had a real isolationist government and we leave the Brits out to dry? Can England hold out? I mean it was bad, but could they have endured? Linengrad was seiged for a long time and they still managed to hold out. Could the Brits have managed the same? See Lion would have still been a large and possibly costly invasion. After the heavy cruiser Blucher was sunk, and and the battle-cruiser Schrnhorst still in dry dock with damage, plus the huge losses of destroyers during the Norwegian campaign, Sea Lion would still have to wait until possibly mid 41. By then the RAF was already showing that they could fight the Luftwaffe. I dont think its a slam dunk that had lend lease not been available that the Brits are out of the fight. 

Zxyphos #38 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:35 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18182 battles
  • 12,368
  • [RATT]
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

But then what if the US government elections of 36 or 40 were different. What if the US had a real isolationist government and we leave the Brits out to dry? Can England hold out? I mean it was bad, but could they have endured? Linengrad was seiged for a long time and they still managed to hold out. Could the Brits have managed the same? See Lion would have still been a large and possibly costly invasion. After the heavy cruiser Blucher was sunk, and and the battle-cruiser Schrnhorst still in dry dock with damage, plus the huge losses of destroyers during the Norwegian campaign, Sea Lion would still have to wait until possibly mid 41. By then the RAF was already showing that they could fight the Luftwaffe. I dont think its a slam dunk that had lend lease not been available that the Brits are out of the fight.

Utter nonsense. From everything I've read the Brits were down to less than 8 weeks in terms of vital supplies. Thus the reason the Brits had to give up so much to get the US involved with the program.

I don’t think it’s me overestimating anything, afterall it was Stalin that said this: “Without  American production the United Nations could never have won the war.”

— Joseph Stalin during the dinner at the Tehran Conference. Perhaps you can have a word with Stalin himself and tell him to refrain of overestimating America’s role. ;)



Dennis420b #39 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:37 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostChonMan, on 22 May 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

 

I don't know if you're correct about the french having superior tanks at the time, but even if you are, you have to remember it was the germans who invented blitzkrieg tactics.


gonna have to disagree with you there. French tanks are the best in 40. And the Brits laid the ground work for Germany's Blitzkrieg. J.F.C. Fuller is the father of modern tank warfare.



Dennis420b #40 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:39 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostX L1V3 0R D13 X, on 22 May 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Utter nonsense. From everything I've read the Brits were down to less than 8 weeks in terms of vital supplies. Thus the reason the Brits had to give up so much to get the US involved with the program.

I don’t think it’s me overestimating anything, afterall it was Stalin that said this: “Without  American production the United Nations could never have won the war.”

— Joseph Stalin during the dinner at the Tehran Conference. Perhaps you can have a word with Stalin himself and tell him to refrain of overestimating America’s role. ;)


Your probably right. I just hate giving the US any credit. As usual our biggest contribution is our wallet. I still think that the Brits could hold out until 42 at least based strictly on the status of most of the Kriegsmarine's capital ships despite Raeder's efforts to be prepared for Sea Lion, and the RAF performance.

 


Edited by Dennis420b, 22 May 2014 - 05:41 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users