Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Derfman, I think all of the dutch people with any historical sense are very grateful to your country for the role it played in WWII. I totally agree with your two statements. We also owe a lot of gratatude to the Commonwealth (with a special mention of the Canadians in our case) and other allied soldiers who fought for our freedom. Still it was only half a victory as only half of europe was liberated, the rest suffered under another dictatorship, being the USSR. We must not forget that. I think most people here have problems about the way the question was asked in this thread is it suggest that US did it alone. Syscom didn't really mean that, but it provoked a lot of people nonetheless.
Must say it did develope in quite an interesting discusion in the end.
.....I think most people here have problems about the way the question was asked in this thread is it suggest that US did it alone. Syscom didn't really mean that, but it provoked a lot of people nonetheless.
Must say it did develope in quite an interesting discusion in the end.
Syscom I didn't say that you claimed that, only that the title of the thread is a little suggestive one and could be understood like that. People tend to get angry about statements like that, so that's what happens in this thread as there are some Americans who are arrogant enough to think that way. I'm not saying anyone on the forum is like that, although we have a quickly banned nutty guy even now and then
THE ALLIES HAD TO WORK TOGETHER BRITIAN&RUSSIA NEEDED THE U.S.A THE U.S.A NEEDED BRITIAN&RUSSIA
Its factual and accurate. So why are people getting angry? Is it because they never have really thought about the difficulties the allies had in the war?
Maybe dwell on the cool stuff like military might and not on the boring stuff like logistics and industrial capacity?
I still say it would of been a long drawn out war between Commonwealth, Russia and Axis. The war would of ended with very different borders then we have today and there would of been no clear winner. (Keeping in mind Japan would of ended up in a war with USA at some time after 41)
Its factual and accurate. So why are people getting angry? Is it because they never have really thought about the difficulties the allies had in the war?
I think you are right Hunter, if the UK are able to survive and keep Russia in the war, the most likely outcome is that Russia defeats Germany. (possibly the UK is able to prevent France from Commie control, maybe not) The Soviets end up occuping Germany, and facing the UK across the channel. On the east front Japan is able to digest all of China, and there is another uneasy hostile truce in the east between Japan USSR.
I still want to know how the the Brits and others are going to compete with the Germans without US machine tools
One consequence of your scenario has struck me which you may want to chew over.
If the USA isn't giving any assistance to the UK then your aeroplane, weapons and naval shipyards wouldn't have been built up during the period 1939-1941.
It was the orders from the UK and France that financed the expansion of America's military infrastructure. Your ability to arm yourselves wouldn't have been nearly as well developed, leaving the USA in a very difficult position when attacked by Japan.
The British and French orders are important to the build up of the US infrastructure. US aircraft orders were small by European standards which is understandable but advanced designs were being progressed. The production facilities were built up on the back of the European orders. Financially the US manufactures were in trouble when France fell. {Martin} and Douglas in particular were in serious danger of collapse, they had invested huge sums in the creation of the factories but with France gone, there was no money coming in to pay for them. This was a key factor in the UK's decision to take on all the French orders, even if they were aircraft such as the Martin Maryland, that we originally had no interest in.
Freebird, in 1939, 1940 and 1941, the US began a series of military buildups. The navy was first with several fiscal authorizations to build and supply a massive "two ocean navy"
In 1941, both the Army and Air Corps received an ever increasing number of funds to expand.
Syscom said:Your scenario doesnt make sense as it never occured in the first place, namely what actually did happen prior to Dec 7th 1941.
Yes Syscom, but the buildup was pushed by Roosevelt his Congressional allies over the objections of the isolationists who didn't want to spend the money. The congress was sharply divided on the question, in 1941 the bill allowing the continuation of the army buildup by the extention of the "Selective Service Act" was passed by one vote. The authorization for the Air Corps to buy 582 P-40 fighters for $12 million was similarly opposed as "overly extravagent excessive" The state of the US military in the fall of 1940 is described by D. Eisenhower as "almost complete military weakness" and the US having "pitifully inadequate defences" {Eisenhower - Crusade in Europe ch 1 pg. 2} The isolationists did not see a great need to change this, as they felt that the US was safe in it's own hemisphere and would not be involved in war in the near future.[/quote
But in the end, money was authorized. It didnt matter if it was by one vote, because the majority was for rearming.
Even if the bills to expand the Navy Air Corps in 1941 were passed by Congress, they would be vetoed by the isolationist President. Why would you need an expanded 2 ocean navy if your whole platform was to stay out of wars?
Because many people saw that military weakness was futile in the face of three hostile powers. You can rearm AND still stay neutral.
Remember that in Bill's scenario there is no US-German or US-Japan tension as the new isolationist President is also willing to allow Japan to have it's way in the far east.
This is my thread and scenario. There is no doubt that the Japanese WOULD attack the US at Hawaii and the Philipines as planned, due to the military necessities of securing the sea's and the flanks of their empire.
Partly because they were pushed by the President.But in the end, money was authorized. It didnt matter if it was by one vote, because the majority was for rearming.
Syscom said:Because many people saw that military weakness was futile in the face of three hostile powers. You can rearm AND still stay neutral.
This is my thread and scenario. There is no doubt that the Japanese WOULD attack the US at Hawaii and the Philipines as planned, due to the military necessities of securing the sea's and the flanks of their empire.