Why America won the second world war

[loseyourname]

but once russia beat germany had we avoided being attacked by japan and stayed out of WW2 england and russia would have an eazy time beating japan with the help of the british empire and common wealth plus china

You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgeable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power? Did they even have Pacific fleets? Taking back China is one thing, but what about the rest of the Japanese holdings and the Japanese islands themselves?

 

[Smurf]

other misinformation in this thread
ALL GERMAN TANKS USED GAS not diesel fuel, that was a problem for them
as a glass bottle with gas in it would lite them up [molitov cocktail]
most russian tanks inc the T-34 did use diesel

My mistake. Good thing I had that disclaimer

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, are you forgetting there was a war in the Pacific? The Soviet Union, Britain, and France were definitely not going to beat the Japanese without American help.

It's an interesting idea. In truth the Americans caused the Pacific war as they entered it. It is possible that it may not have happened at all if the Americans (and British) had continued peacefull relations with Japan. As I stated in one of my first posts Britain believed it's self capable of effectively fighting in Either Europe or the Far East, but not both simultaneously. If Japan was not provoked by the USA they would not have gone to war with Britain so soon, and so Britain would have:
1. More resources to use against Germany - Possibly ending the war much earlier than with American intervention.
2. After the European war, could have pursued either peacefull relations with Japan or moved larger portions of their navy to the pacific fleet which would still be intact at Singapore in order to fight Japan on the seas.

I don't doubt that if Britain really wanted to they could have defeated both Japan and Germany single handedly. Just not both at the same time... or perferably just one over-all. (in which case it wouldn't have been a world war )

The USSR was also capable of defending it's self from the Japanese if not at war with Germany at the same time, or at all (which is obviously less likely). Or, at the least the USSR was capable of defending it's continental territory.

 

[Smurf]

I agree, in fact in July 1938 Russia beat the Japanese in a major battle near Lake Hassan on the border of Manchukuo.

Well the soviets are credited with the Victory, but in truth they suffered heavily in that battle from Japanese air superiority.

The major difference to the outcome without US military involvement is probably that after the war Russia would have controlled pretty much all of europe.

That's probably true, except Britain may have launched their own D-Day on their own if they had all the resources of the Empire backing the war in Europe. They could have, and probably would have liberated France and the Low lands, possibly more. But this is all speculation now as nothing even close to this happened historically. All we can say is that Britain would have had the capability, we can't predict what they would have done.

 

[Smurf]

You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgeable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power?

They could have, at the least, starved the Japanese islands into surrender like Germany tried to do with England, but with much bigger, surface, fleets

Did they even have Pacific fleets?

Yes, sort of, it wasn't called that I don't think. The British fleet was based in Singapore though. The Russian navy however wasn't a whole lot to be reckoned with, pacific or otherwise, it's mainly Britain in this scenario.

 

[Smurf]

sherman tanks were not very good fighting the germans tanks , nicknamed ronsons they light up the first hit every time
only the fact the the USA produced 10 times the numbers of them allowed us to win in the west.

Yes, that was the German nickname for the Sherman, however it was somewhat unwarranted. Other tanks often blew up on their first hit too, namely because the ammunition was not secured properly and ignited when it got hit. The Sherman received it's nickname before this was known, when the problem was thought to be part of the engine or fuel tanks (can't remember exactly) that caused ignition when aggrevated.

 

[Art]

Well the soviets are credited with the Victory, but in truth they suffered heavily in that battle from Japanese air superiority.

It was a severe enough blow to the Japanese (having suffered 17,000 casualities from 30,000 troops engaged in the battle) to persuade them to sue for peace and to change their policy to seek new resources to the south instead of the north. It's long term effect was a huge reluctance by the Japanese to attack the USSR in support of Germany during WW2.

 

[ray b]

You really think so? I'm not all that knowledgeable concerning this particular war, but I was under the impression that Japan was pretty well protected, given that their homeland and foreign strongholds were mostly on fortified islands. Could Russia and Britain really have unseated Japanese naval power? Did they even have Pacific fleets? Taking back China is one thing, but what about the rest of the Japanese holdings and the Japanese islands themselves?

on land japan had a lite army with no heavy or even medium tanks their light tank was little more than other armys scoutcar
they used mortors instead of artilery even moved troops by bicycle
this was very succesfull early in the war againts understrenght colonial troops
and in china
but once we and the brits were moderized and supplyed and went on the attack with heavy equipment
we NEVER LOST A BATTLE againts japan by 1943

navy aircraft they had were good and long ranged but poor or no armor and lite consturction led to many losses of their better pilots and they never were able to train effective replacements and they didnot upgrade the aircraft intill very late in the war
japans aircraft carriers were fast BUT UNARMORED so a few hits distroyed them
all british aircraft carriers were armored on the decks and able to survive far more bomb hits as were their aircraft with armored fuel tanks that selfsealed
and armor protection for the pilot
submarine warfare japan allmost never attacked convoys or ever lone supply ships
but only saw honnor in attacking warships this led to heavy losses of their subs and free flow of our supplys
while we attacked their oil tankers and supply ships leading to japan being very short of fuel and food in later part of the war

we island hopped and left many of the stronger islands to starve without needing to take everyone

 

[Anttech]

That strategy was strongly considered for most of the war. The unconditional surrender policy only took effect after the Africa campaign (i think). No, I don't think it would have really been stupid. A country doesn't regain full capacity to fight war in a few years <- THAT is stupid.

I don't understand, are you being ironic? becuase it certainly is a stupid statement! (and you are usually so clever smurf ;-) )Considering the Fact that WW1 and WW2 were started by the Germans... ?

I think it is perfectly justifiable. Germany was not capable of prolonged warfare, especially not against an enemy as powerfull and big as Russia. I'm not saying Russia would have no matter what, but that it could have.

Considering Finland kick the Russians ass, the Nazi's (at the beginning of the war) would have ahad no problems at all

 

[Pengwuino]

How did this get resurected?

 

[Anttech]

How did this get resurected?

I was sent here by smurf from this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=784335#post784335

 

[Manchot]

It took Germany less than 20 years to recover from WWI, in which they were completely eviscerated. It probably would've taken them less time if not for the worldwide depression in that time span. You see, the thing about fascist countries is that though they are terrible places to live, they tend to have excellent economies. At the same time, they manage to stir up feelings of nationalism to get peoples' spirits up. Therefore, they can rebound from war relatively quickly. Obviously, there's also a chance that they wouldn't have rebounded quickly, but why take the risk? What compelling reason would we have to give the aggressors of a war the benefit of the doubt? Should we also throw convicted murderers back on the street without any prison time, simply because they might not kill again?

Actually, this is related to another huge problem with not finishing the war: the justice issue. Do you not think that the people responsible for the Holocaust should have been held responsible for their actions? What about the rape of Nanking? Or the murder of 2500 people through the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor? Should Hitler himself have gone scot-free? (By the way, that would've happened if we had just stopped attacking Germany.)

 

[Smurf]

After world war two Russia was easily the most powerfull state on the continent, and dominated Europe. It would never have let Germany get back to a power strong enough to rival it. Provided the USA follows the same course it did historically, neither would they.

So, in conclusion, even if the Germans had negotiated a peacefull end tot eh war and even kept their original borders they would still be caught between the cold war, a few years earlier.

Also, keep in mind that nearing the end the Nazi party was losing confidence in Hitler. If Hitler had negotiated peace he could very well have been forced out of office (and probably executed), not making democracy impossible in Germany.

 

[Smurf]

It took Germany less than 20 years to recover from WWI, in which they were completely eviscerated. It probably would've taken them less time if not for the worldwide depression in that time span.

1. Actually if not for the depression I would argue it never would have happened at all. The weimer republic was the german people's first experience with democracy. When their economy fell to shambles they blamed it on democracy, allowing someone like Hitler to take control in the first place. Hitler was the one that brought Germany to the state of strength and aggression it was in for WW2.

2. Germany was never actually invaded in WW1. They never had any of their territory bombed or occupied. German civilians, while many died of Famine, did not know the horrors of their new weapons. It was fought entirely on, above and off the coast of foreign land.

In World War Two, I need only say one word: Dresden, and you know it wasn't the same. But even more significant is the deaths. The deaths from WW1, while huge, pale compared to WW2. In World War one, Germany lost 1,800,000 soldiers, about 500,000 civilians. In WW2: 4,000,000 military, 2,350,000 civilian. If you're wondering about the ratio, that's 81 people per 1000.

Also remember their industry was being flattened by British bombers continuously.

So really, there is no comparison to World War One.

 

[Smurf]

Actually, this is related to another huge problem with not finishing the war: the justice issue. Do you not think that the people responsible for the Holocaust should have been held responsible for their actions? What about the rape of Nanking? Or the murder of 2500 people through the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor? Should Hitler himself have gone scot-free? (By the way, that would've happened if we had just stopped attacking Germany.)

Frankly I consider the entire war crimes thing for the Holocaust one big publicity stunt and I don't see the world being worse off if it hadn't happened.

Here's an article discussing certain effects of the unconditional surrender policy:

http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/10.html

Also, look to earlier parts of this thread. If America had not entered the war at all (unconditional surrender was roosevelt's idea) it could very possibly have prevented a lot of bloodshed.

 

[Astronuc]

A correction on the American fleet losses at Pearl Harbor - five ships were permanently lost.

These were the battleships Arizona, Oklahoma, the old battleship Utah (then used as a target ship), and the destroyers Cassin and Downes; nevertheless, much usable material was salvaged from them, including the two aft main turrets from Arizona. Heavy casualties resulted due to Arizona's magazine exploding and the Oklahoma capsizing. Four ships sunk during the attack were later raised and returned to duty, including the battleships California, West Virginia and Nevada. California and West Virginia had an effective torpedo-defense system which held up remarkably well, despite the weight of fire they had to endure, enabling most of their crews to be saved. Many of the surviving battleships were heavily refitted, allowing them to better cope with Japanese threats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Down the road, a major turning point in the conflict between Japan and US was the Battle of Midway, where the Japanese Navy lost 4 fleet carriers - Soryu, Hiryu, Akagi and Kaga.

The loss of four fleet carriers—leaving only Zuikaku and Shokaku—stopped the expansion of the Japanese Empire in the Pacific, and put Japan on the defensive. What made it a turning point for the Japanese Navy was that they lost their dominating force of large numbers of carriers with well-trained pilots, and from this, the Japanese would never recover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

It would have been difficult for the US to stay on the sidelines during the war as many or most of its principal trading partners were being attacked.

Another factor in the Pacific Theatre was the US submarine force, which IIRC sank more than 4 million tons (or its 54% of this number) of Japanese shipping - both naval and merchant. There is a book, PIG BOATS, by Theodore Roscoe originally re-published by Bantam in 1967, which chronicles a lot of the US submarine warfare in WWII.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_of_World_War_Two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy

And don't forget the impact of the Battle of Britain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

And an interesting read by a guy named Gene Whitt - http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.38Learning%20More%20from%20History.htm
http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.37Learning%20fromHistory.htm#Learning%20from%20History
http://www.whittsflying.com/index.htm

 

[Smurf]

And an interesting read by a guy named Gene Whitt - http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.38Learning%20More%20from%20History.htm
http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.37Learning%20fromHistory.htm#Learning%20from%20History
http://www.whittsflying.com/index.htm

Awsome stuff, thanks a load.