Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

How would the world be now, in 2007, had U.S. and the allies lost W.W.2 to Germany and Japan?

"We'd all be speakin' German! Yuck!"

-R. Lee Ermy

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"We'd all be speakin' German! Yuck!"

-R. Lee Ermy

I'm asking cause yesterday I was watching a good WW2 doc on TV called "War" and found out that Germany actually attacked the U.S. during WW2..Damn I didn't know that...Like their forces literally came to the U.S. to strike it.

German subs attacked cargo carriers from the shores of Boston to oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1944 they downed like 3-4 a week for like a half a year.

Then you had Japan taking over all the islands in the pacific and just almost , Hawaii. So it did come pretty close.

After all, Germany's army was twice that of the U.S. and they had a technologically superior war machine going for them so. I just imagined if they'd won.

I think the way WW2 played out so much went right for the US. I won't go into great detail but so many of the people and events went in favor of the US that if they hadn't Germany and Japan would have certainly won the war.

Two that i will quickly mention were the Battle of Britian and the loss of the intelligensia from Germany i.e. scientists like Einstein. These were two critical factors that led to America's costly but ultimately successful victory over Germany and Japan.

The question as to what would have happened had Germany and Japan won is pretty clear. Japan would control most of the Pacific including the West coast of the U.S. While, the East coast and all of Europe would be controlled by the Nazi. One player to keep in mind is the USSR. Even if the US and Britain would have failed against Hitler and his Nazis, the Russians almost certainly would ha e kept on fighting and the war could concievably have gone on for several more years.

Originally posted by History Buff
I think the way WW2 played out so much went right for the US. I won't go into great detail but so many of the people and events went in favor of the US that if they hadn't Germany and Japan would have certainly won the war.


Orale! The US practically carried the Allies.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Orale! The US practically carried the Allies.

And Germany practically carried......Germany.


We rule!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
And Germany practically carried......Germany.


We rule!!!

In video games, in my life, my nazi body count must number in the hundreds of thousands.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And Germany practically carried......Germany.


We rule!!!

Germany and Japan were so busy protecting their own asses, they forgot the other existed.

Germany pwnz.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"We'd all be speakin' German! Yuck!"

-R. Lee Ermy

I was just about to say the same thing! LMAO.

But hey good thing we won. Who knows what Germany would've did. Poison us or have their way with our people just and destroy america.

Why would they destroy land they could use

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Why would they destroy land they could use

The people, not the land.

Yes America saved us.

After us having to fight of the Germans for years.

If Germany and Japan won, we'd be better off.

The world would be cleaner.

Originally posted by Joli Bug-Azi
If Germany and Japan won, we'd be better off.


The world would be full of nice and efficient cars, so I guess thats one plus of an Axis victory.

How much more of a mess do you guys honestly think we'd be in?

People are still massare'd by the thousands every day. Just in different ways.

Originally posted by Joli Bug-Azi
How much more of a mess do you guys honestly think we'd be in?

People are still massare'd by the thousands every day. Just in different ways.

The world would be drastically different. The US would be split into a Japanese sphere of influence (all states west of the Mississippi) and a German one (all states east of it). According to the History Channel.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm asking cause yesterday I was watching a good WW2 doc on TV called "War" and found out that Germany actually attacked the U.S. during WW2..Damn I didn't know that...Like their forces literally came to the U.S. to strike it.

German subs attacked cargo carriers from the shores of Boston to oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1944 they downed like 3-4 a week for like a half a year.

Then you had Japan taking over all the islands in the pacific and just almost , Hawaii. So it did come pretty close.

After all, Germany's army was twice that of the U.S. and they had a technologically superior war machine going for them so. I just imagined if they'd won.

It's true they declared war against them, but it wouldn't have mattered since Roosevelt already before the declaration of war from Hitler was helping Britain with supplies and it would only have been a matter of time before US had joined a 100%, and no the German forces never sat foot on american soil they had enough to do in USSR.

That's correct.

No Japan launched a blitz war against USA, but they knew they would lose all sources from that point of time point to that if there was anything they wanted to avoid it was war with USA.

No there army wasn't twice as big else USA couldn't have afforded a war on two fronts on the scale that they waged it. Also the German war machine wasn't superior to any other army just organised in a more efficient way.

The thing about ww2 is Hitler didn't want war with Britain or the US, mostly because we won last time. Also, there is evidence that it was the jews who brought both into the war...both wars. A Jewish group known as the Zionists also thought up the Treaty of Versailles, and Germany was controlled by Zionists. Is there any wonder why Hitler hated the Jews?

Originally posted by Joli Bug-Azi
How much more of a mess do you guys honestly think we'd be in?

People are still massare'd by the thousands every day. Just in different ways.
Are you freakin' serious? Well for one thing a huge chunk of the population would've been wiped out. If you've forgotten Germans=dead jews. Plus you add on the regular shit we deal with today, and Russia and America would've probably been for the most part wiped out, then they'd go for the rest of the world, and all of the gypsies and jews and any other large group Hitler and the Nazis saw unfit to live in the world would likely be killed.

Originally posted by Utrigita
It's true they declared war against them, but it wouldn't have mattered since Roosevelt already before the declaration of war from Hitler was helping Britain with supplies and it would only have been a matter of time before US had joined a 100%, and no the German forces never sat foot on american soil they had enough to do in USSR.

That's correct.

No Japan launched a blitz war against USA, but they knew they would lose all sources from that point of time point to that if there was anything they wanted to avoid it was war with USA.

No there army wasn't twice as big else USA couldn't have afforded a war on two fronts on the scale that they waged it. Also the German war machine wasn't superior to any other army just organised in a more efficient way.

tell that to the producer of the show and the footage he somehow attained of down U.S. tankers and the hands of German sub. And i never said they set foot on US soil. He said they came to our shores and proved it.

Originally posted by Utrigita
No there army wasn't twice as big else USA couldn't have afforded a war on two fronts on the scale that they waged it. Also the German war machine wasn't superior to any other army just organised in a more efficient way.

Huh?

While I'm no history buff, this defies everything I've personally been told about WWII by the History channel, by teachers and professors, and by my own research. From everywhere else I've read, it's pretty much the unanimous conclusion that the German military, per capita, was superior to ours. Their technology was initially better, their training was better, and their tactics were better (prior to Hitler submitting to his lunacy). Hell, look at what they did to the Russians when they invaded. Initially, they stomped the hell out of them, despite the fact that it was winter, they were undersupplied, and they were outnumbered.

Realistically, there's no way that Germany could have done as well as it did against the Allies if it were not, in some way, superior on the field.

It all doesnt matter because we had the bomb in the end and we would of just dropped it on Berlin and all of Germany.

Boom. No more WW2.

Originally posted by Gideon
Huh?

While I'm no history buff, this defies everything I've personally been told about WWII by the History channel, by teachers and professors, and by my own research. From everywhere else I've read, it's pretty much the unanimous conclusion that the German military, per capita, was superior to ours. Their technology was initially better, their training was better, and their tactics were better (prior to Hitler submitting to his lunacy). Hell, look at what they did to the Russians when they invaded. Initially, they stomped the hell out of them, despite the fact that it was winter, they were undersupplied, and they were outnumbered.

Realistically, there's no way that Germany could have done as well as it did against the Allies if it were not, in some way, superior on the field.

Thats where you are wrong all analyses on the field shows that what really made the difference between the German army and the allies was the way it was organized. Hitler choosed to invest a large part of his funds in producing Tanks and was proud about them he also organized them into speciel groups. The allies on the other hand hated the tanks and the tanks was spread out through each company instead of being gathered into organized unites. Current research shows that Franch had 1. more tanks 2. better equipped tanks. But the real differene is that in germanny we have a new set of generals open for new ideas when the allies still have the good old dustbacks that won the first world war.

Of Cause they stomped the hell out of the Sovjets the red armywas still rebuilding why do you think Stalin made a deal with Hitler in the first place. Secondly there wasn't any intelligent Generals left in the red army they had been killed ore sent to the siberian workcamps prior to erruption of world war II by Stalin who feared a revolt. I believe only one got back, but that was a montgomery they got back, which stopped the Germans dead in there tracks at Stalingrad and planned there defeat at Kursk.

Ever heard of blitzkrieg, thats basically what the germans utilized against the allies, none expected the germans to roll straight through Holland and belgien all expected them to attack the magninot line which probably wouldn't have stopped them but would have decreased them enough for the allies to win. And I never said that they wasn't superior in some way I merely pointed out that the Germans war machine to me guns manpower tanks etc wasn't superior to the other nations.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
tell that to the producer of the show and the footage he somehow attained of down U.S. tankers and the hands of German sub. And i never said they set foot on US soil. He said they came to our shores and proved it.

I misunderstood you then, I was under the impression that the TV show that you where watching claimed that the Germans actually had groundbased war in the US with the americans.

Althought all of your points are correct except one Utrigita, I would have to disagree with you about the technology. I've seen it on history channel and I had some of my proffesors tell me, that during WW2 Germany had the most superior technology by a long shot. A few months ago I saw a program on history channel which talked about alot of the new inventions in WW2 that were cunning, but where never put into a final use. There were around 15, and only 1 of them was American while 14 was German. It showed the germans making a plan of making an enormous air carrier made completely of ice, using a huge glacier to make it. Since ice expands when freezes it would float on water no matter how big the ship is. They created half of the ship before they threw out the plan because they couldn't create a material suitable for the flight tracks on it. Another device they created was a supersonic wave emitter, which would have been put to use if they hadn't lost since it was created so close to their downfall. It was basicly a stationary 'turret' which emmited incredulous amounts of sound waves, which would render the targets deaf and screaming in agony. The device that the Americans made was a special rolling tank which could deploy and roll really fast, and upon hard impact it exploded. They wanted to use this on D-DAy as it could also roll upon the water. However this device was discarded as they could not find a way to direct where it goes efficiently.


The German's tanks had much more armor and weapons than all the other tanks, especially their Panzer's. However I will have to agree with you that Germany's main advantage was in it's Blitzkrieg. The tactic of how it deployed it's battalions of tanks swiftly over the battlefield followed by a sweep of infantry was new to everyone, and it was terryifing.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
Althought all of your points are correct except one Utrigita, I would have to disagree with you about the technology. I've seen it on history channel and I had some of my proffesors tell me, that during WW2 Germany had the most superior technology by a long shot. A few months ago I saw a program on history channel which talked about alot of the new inventions in WW2 that were cunning, but where never put into a final use. There were around 15, and only 1 of them was American while 14 was German. It showed the germans making a plan of making an enormous air carrier made completely of ice, using a huge glacier to make it. Since ice expands when freezes it would float on water no matter how big the ship is. They created half of the ship before they threw out the plan because they couldn't create a material suitable for the flight tracks on it. Another device they created was a supersonic wave emitter, which would have been put to use if they hadn't lost since it was created so close to their downfall. It was basicly a stationary 'turret' which emmited incredulous amounts of sound waves, which would render the targets deaf and screaming in agony. The device that the Americans made was a special rolling tank which could deploy and roll really fast, and upon hard impact it exploded. They wanted to use this on D-DAy as it could also roll upon the water. However this device was discarded as they could not find a way to direct where it goes efficiently.

I would like to specify that all my points are made from the beginning of the second world war, I know fully well that during the war the Germans technology grow and they produced numerous military Items that was far ahead of there time, like the V2 rockets for instance which actually worked like the numerous aircraft that was put into production in the late 1944. Also most of those 14 issues that you are listing was dropped mainly because of numerous things to name a few would be that the germans knew it would be impossible to accomplished, the ice carrier for instance would be extremely weak against attacks, the sound wave emitter only worked within a few meters today we have expanded it to roughly 10 meters I believe (not sure). But most importantly most of the scientific discoveries was simply to expensive to put into further production.

The German's tanks had much more armor and weapons than all the other tanks, especially their Panzer's. However I will have to agree with you that Germany's main advantage was in it's Blitzkrieg. The tactic of how it deployed it's battalions of tanks swiftly over the battlefield followed by a sweep of infantry was new to everyone, and it was terrifying.

Sorry spidervald but that simply isn't true that the germans armies tanks was better equipped this said by the material I have read and being told by my teachers that the germans Tanks main advantage in the WW2 was there number against the enemies tanks which normally was one per company and the way the germans utilized them.

I'm assuming that we are only talking about the beginning of the war???

This is a statement from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VI_Ausf._B


The very heavy armor and powerful long-range gun gave the Tiger II the advantage against virtually all opposing tanks. This was especially true on the Western Front, where the British and U.S. forces had almost no heavy tanks with which to oppose it. In a defensive position it was difficult to destroy, but offensively it performed with less success.

The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks being able to penetrate the front armour of the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and IS-2 at 2500 m, 1800 m and 1200 m respectively. Defensively, the M4 Sherman was unable to penetrate the front even at point blank and the M26 Pershing and IS-2 had to come within 1300 m and 200 m respectively.



Shows that the tank had an advantage against almost all allied tanks.

The Allies won because they had superior production facilities than the Germans, and superior intelligence branch, and dont forget, the bomb.

Even though, the Tiger had its superior advantage, it didnt help that it took a massive amount of resources to build.

Same with the V2 rocket. Impratical. It was more of an propanda weapon than an offensive weapon. During the pre-invasion of the Normandy, Hitler and Co. sent V2 rockets to London on a daily basis. Completly ineffective. Didnt do anything.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
This is a statement from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VI_Ausf._B


The very heavy armor and powerful long-range gun gave the Tiger II the advantage against virtually all opposing tanks. This was especially true on the Western Front, where the British and U.S. forces had almost no heavy tanks with which to oppose it. In a defensive position it was difficult to destroy, but offensively it performed with less success.

The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks being able to penetrate the front armour of the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and IS-2 at 2500 m, 1800 m and 1200 m respectively. Defensively, the M4 Sherman was unable to penetrate the front even at point blank and the M26 Pershing and IS-2 had to come within 1300 m and 200 m respectively.



Shows that the tank had an advantage against almost all allied tanks.

and it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about

I'm refering to the beginning at the war. and the tank you illustrated was first built in 1943 I believe I would say in the middel of the war wouldn't you think

Originally posted by Smasandian
The Allies won because they had superior production facilities than the Germans, and superior intelligence branch, and dont forget, the bomb.

USA had superior production facilities, and I don't know about the superior intelligence the Germans had enigma.

Even though, the Tiger had its superior advantage, it didnt help that it took a massive amount of resources to build.



Same with the V2 rocket. Impratical. It was more of an propanda weapon than an offensive weapon. During the pre-invasion of the Normandy, Hitler and Co. sent V2 rockets to London on a daily basis. Completly ineffective. Didnt do anything.

anything that blowing the city to ruins

Originally posted by Smasandian
The Allies won because they had superior production facilities than the Germans, and superior intelligence branch, and dont forget, the bomb.


More specifically, the US.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm asking cause yesterday I was watching a good WW2 doc on TV called "War" and found out that Germany actually attacked the U.S. during WW2..Damn I didn't know that...Like their forces literally came to the U.S. to strike it.

German subs attacked cargo carriers from the shores of Boston to oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1944 they downed like 3-4 a week for like a half a year.



Thankfully they lost.

To your first point America would had declared war on Germany sooner or latter, Hitler was quick off the blocks so to speak.

Your second point about the U-Boats I find hard to believe as the U-Boats lost the war in July 1943.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
This is a statement from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VI_Ausf._B


The very heavy armor and powerful long-range gun gave the Tiger II the advantage against virtually all opposing tanks. This was especially true on the Western Front, where the British and U.S. forces had almost no heavy tanks with which to oppose it. In a defensive position it was difficult to destroy, but offensively it performed with less success.

The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks being able to penetrate the front armour of the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and IS-2 at 2500 m, 1800 m and 1200 m respectively. Defensively, the M4 Sherman was unable to penetrate the front even at point blank and the M26 Pershing and IS-2 had to come within 1300 m and 200 m respectively.



Shows that the tank had an advantage against almost all allied tanks.

The Soviet ISU152 was known as the animal killer which could take on a Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
More specifically, the US.

Yes, true, but to think the US was the only reason that the Allies won is complete and utter shit.

The British intelligence division pretty much found and double crossed every German spy, they also broke the Enigma, which allowed them to find the spies by using Ultra.

Without that intelligence, D-Day might have not worked.

The States were good for production facilities (from car factories), manpower and the "brawn"

The British had in ingeniuty from the Double Cross Intelligence system, radar and sonar, alot of the basic work of the atomic bomb, special tanks like DD tanks, the crab that brought up mines and invention of the artificial ports that protected the boats after D-Day.

I'm not saying the US didnt do anything, but I'm just saying that the British and the US were both equally important to the Allies win.

The V-2 rocket was an terror weapon, which was ineffective. At the time, the British people already have been bombed countless times, so a few rockets wont make much difference. The Germans had the ME-262 which was the best fighter plane in the war, but they couldnt get any support because Hitler wanted bombers to bomb London. If they created those fighters instead of those V-2 Rockets, D-Day could of been completely different.

Lastly, all this doesnt matter because in an fictional setting, the Germans and Japan would of never won because in the end, the Alliees would of dropped A-bombs all over the place. Germany and Japan would of lost anyways, no matter what happens during the war.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Yes, true, but to think the US was the only reason that the Allies won is complete and utter shit.


That is true, but let's be honest, the US carried the Allies. All three major Allied Powers; UK, USA and USSR were all importnant and did their parts, but the US pulled its weight even more than the other two. Aside from taking Berlin in April of '45 can you name any German-Russian battle in which the Russians weren't just protecting their own asses?

One thing I really don't like is when the History Channel has a show about the Pacific War and they say Japanese vs Allied forces............um, can we be a little more specific there? I don't recall any South Pacific battles in which British or Soviet troops took an island from the Japanese.

When Americans say they carried the war when they FINALLY joined, they seem to forget we had been fighting a war for years and they hadn't. They were still strong.

Originally posted by B.A
When Americans say they carried the war when they FINALLY joined, they seem to forget we had been fighting a war for years and they hadn't. They were still strong.

Who's "we"?

Dec 1941 - Sep 1945 is nearly four years. It's not like we joined at the last minute. Say we joined in '39, ok, the only deifference is that an Allied victory would have occured faster.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Who's "we"?

Dec 1941 - Sep 1945 is nearly four years. It's not like we joined at the last minute. Say we joined in '39, ok, the only deifference is that an Allied victory would have occured faster. Yeah, just a difference of a few million Jews.

That too.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That is true, but let's be honest, the US carried the Allies. All three major Allied Powers; UK, USA and USSR were all importnant and did their parts, but the US pulled its weight even more than the other two. Aside from taking Berlin in April of '45 can you name any German-Russian battle in which the Russians weren't just protecting their own asses?

One thing I really don't like is when the History Channel has a show about the Pacific War and they say Japanese vs Allied forces............um, can we be a little more specific there? I don't recall any South Pacific battles in which British or Soviet troops took an island from the Japanese.

Way to be completely shortsighted.

Give me an example of US doing more than all the other Allies? Are we just talking actual battles?

Or we talk the whole scope of it?

Because either way each Allied power did some to contribute incredibly to WW2.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Way to be completely shortsighted.


How? What am I not seeing or realizing? I consider myself a WW2 buff, so if I need to be straightened out on anything, by all means do it.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Give me an example of US doing more than all the other Allies? Are we just talking actual battles?

Or we talk the whole scope of it?


Battles won, production capabilities, materiel and personnel.

And to answer that first question: just take a look at the Pacific War, the combatants on both sides, and the victors in those various campaigns. Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Wake Island, Saipan, Peleilu, Tarawa, Okinawa etc etc etc.

UK and USSR were practiacally backed into a corner, so the US had to do all the traveling to make up for their slack.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Because either way each Allied power did some to contribute incredibly to WW2.

I agree and I already said that. The UK's main contribution was giving the US a staging area for D-day, and Russia was more of a psychological edge for the Allies. Their mere size and close proximity to Germany took some heat from the western front.

So basically, the British gave an staging area and thats it?

No; main. They were at D-day also, so was Canada. And the British helped out on the European mainland.

No, no, no.

Your saying it like the US invaded Europe and the other Allies just helped out.

In reality, the Allies invaded Europe, not just the States with some help.

Originally posted by Smasandian

Your saying it like the US invaded Europe and the other Allies just helped out.

In reality, the Allies invaded Europe, not just the States with some help.

Yes to the first one, and the opposite to you what said on the second sentance.

I'm not saying the other Allies did nothing, but they didn't do as much as the US. America won that war....England and Russia helped us do that.

I know what your saying.

I'm saying its bullshit. America didnt win the war....the Allies won because all of them helped out. (In reality, there isnt a clear cut way of finding that out)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not saying the other Allies did nothing, but they didn't do as much as the US. America won that war....England and Russia helped us do that.

Without Russia having engaged Germany when Hitler broke there peace theaty I would have liked to see the way the Americans was planning on winning. The Allies won not because of Number alone but also the fact that the germans was tired from the blitzkrieg that lasted from 1939 to 1943 when they began to lose the steam rapidly, and hitler becomming insane had probbaly something to do with it to.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

I'm not saying the other Allies did nothing, but they didn't do as much as the US. America won that war....England and Russia helped us do that.

In terms of Europe you have just insulted Russia, the Ost front was the biggest and longest land war fought. Hitler bled his army's white in Russia which cost him dearly when he faced 1944, the Ost Front had only one rule win or die.

Originally posted by Koenig
In terms of Europe you have just insulted Russia, the Ost front was the biggest and longest land war fought. Hitler bled his army's white in Russia which cost him dearly when he faced 1944, the Ost Front had only one rule win or die.

agreed

Originally posted by Utrigita
Without Russia having engaged Germany when Hitler broke there peace theaty I would have liked to see the way the Americans was planning on winning. The Allies won not because of Number alone but also the fact that the germans was tired from the blitzkrieg that lasted from 1939 to 1943 when they began to lose the steam rapidly, and hitler becomming insane had probbaly something to do with it to.

Originally posted by Koenig
In terms of Europe you have just insulted Russia, the Ost front was the biggest and longest land war fought. Hitler bled his army's white in Russia which cost him dearly when he faced 1944, the Ost Front had only one rule win or die.

I already said that Russia's presence and close proximity to Germany helped out.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I already said that Russia's presence and close proximity to Germany helped out.

Your wording sounded like America saved the world from Germany & Japan with some minor help from the Allies.

PS: I'm not the first to see it.

Originally posted by Koenig
Your wording sounded like America saved the world from Germany & Japan with some minor help from the Allies.

PS: I'm not the first to see it.

That's basically what I'm saying, yes. I've never said that American acted alone, but we certainly did the most. I'm the first to acknowledge that England and Russia did their parts.

I won't dispute the pacific front as America committed 60% of there force there and in Europe it was 40%. But the fact stands the largest Allied army in Europe was the Russian Army, as I said they bled Hitler's army white on the Ost Front. Hitler only made those big gains in 41/42 due to Stalin wiping out a number of officer's in about 1937 and the dreadful war with Finland in 39/40 only proved Stalin made a error.

The Battle of Moscow showed the Germans they could be stopped and after Stalingrad 42/43 this showed the Russians they were now able to beat the Germans. And in the summer of 43 Kursk was a major victory for the Soviet Union, as this was the battle that stopped Hitler in his tracks. From this point on the Red Army would drive Hitler out of Russia and on the 23rd June 1944 the Soviet army launched there great summer offensive, Operation Bagration.

UK would get f*cked

Originally posted by Koenig
Your wording sounded like America saved the world from Germany & Japan with some minor help from the Allies.

PS: I'm not the first to see it.
I have to agree here. Looks like Uncle Sam likes to edit his own history books....

Originally posted by grey fox
I have to agree here. Looks like Uncle Sam likes to edit his own history books.... It would seem so, wouldn't it? Admittedly, America did save the war during War World I; Germany and the Central powers would have defeated the Entente within six months if America didn't join. But to say America was the one and only power behind the Allies is just dumb.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
It would seem so, wouldn't it? Admittedly, America did save the war during War World I; Germany and the Central powers would have defeated the Entente within six months if America didn't join. But to say America was the one and only power behind the Allies is just dumb.

America wasn't the great hero of World War I they only stopped being neutral when the germans declared full sub war thus hurting USA finances. Until that point of time USA where following Monroe Doctrine to the letter.

Also France and England and there allies was pretty much holding out until 1917 when the russian revolution led to the ost front being dissolved, but the german war machine, no matter how many men they got germany was still like England stuck in the trenches. And in 1917 it was only a question of time before the home front in germany would collapse.

Originally posted by Koenig
I won't dispute the pacific front as America committed 60% of there force there and in Europe it was 40%. But the fact stands the largest Allied army in Europe was the Russian Army, as I said they bled Hitler's army white on the Ost Front. Hitler only made those big gains in 41/42 due to Stalin wiping out a number of officer's in about 1937 and the dreadful war with Finland in 39/40 only proved Stalin made a error.

The Battle of Moscow showed the Germans they could be stopped and after Stalingrad 42/43 this showed the Russians they were now able to beat the Germans. And in the summer of 43 Kursk was a major victory for the Soviet Union, as this was the battle that stopped Hitler in his tracks. From this point on the Red Army would drive Hitler out of Russia and on the 23rd June 1944 the Soviet army launched there great summer offensive, Operation Bagration.

agreed

Originally posted by Utrigita
America wasn't the great hero of World War I they only stopped being neutral when the germans declared full sub war thus hurting USA finances. Until that point of time USA where following Monroe Doctrine to the letter. The reason why America entered has no bearing on the fact that, when they did enter, they saved the Entente powers.

No, the surplus and addition of troops coming to the Western front would have overtaken the Entente powers, and it was the American troops entering the war that offset that; it's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The reason why America entered has no bearing on the fact that, when they did enter, they saved the Entente powers.

Thats true but you make them sounds like they came like the mysterious stranger riding on his horse with guns blazing clearing out all opposition. On fact is that America wasn't the heroes of World War I, they entered for selfish reasons and that is a well documented fact.

sorry it wasn't you that maked it sound in that way my bad.

No, the surplus and addition of troops coming to the Western front would have overtaken the Entente powers, and it was the American troops entering the war that offset that; it's as simple as that.

No it wouldn't what make you think that a war that have raged for about 3 years without anyone gaining a advantage no matter what methods was utilized would suddenly change because of the extra men from the Ost Front? Fact is that it wouldn't. The western front would have been pushed back but so slowly that it would probably be years before the war would have ended and at that point of time the home front for the germans would already have cracked, it was always just a matter of time.

No the English were mostly the biggest fighters and they were on the verge of collapsing.

I think we would have been taken over, become communist, then broke free.

Why do some Europeans get so upset at the fact that if it wasn't for the US the Allies most likely would have lost the First World War?

I'm British and have no trouble accepting that fact...

Russia won WW2

Originally posted by inimalist
Russia won WW2

How exactly?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How exactly?

They were on the winning side.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They were on the winning side.

I thought he meant, Russia won, all other nations lost.

Yes inimalist I was going to say that. If it was not for Russia's huge military might and it's freezing -20 degree winters Germany would have gained controll of Russia then most if not all of Europe and then went on to most likely defeat the U.S with the help of Japan and the other axis nations. I don't know America's role in WW1 but it was certainly Russia who in a sense saved the day for the allies in WW2. America didn't even bother with WW2 until nearly 3 years after it started and even then it was only because Japan attacked them and so Germany and Italy decalred war on the U.S, they entered through no choice of there own.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How exactly?

Defeating the brunt of the German offensive and capturing half of Europe, gaining international power that exists until this day, redefining the balance of power in the world for more than half a century...

And I would argue that their victories and sacrifices at least rival, if not far exceed those of the Americans.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
How would the world be now, in 2007, had U.S. and the allies lost W.W.2 to Germany and Japan? they'd be valued allies to us

they most likely wouldn't take britain

even less likely they'd take the u.s.

eventually we would join their clan, breed with their women and in time our differences would be forgotten

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How exactly? cannon fodder

Originally posted by Smasandian
It all doesnt matter because we had the bomb in the end and we would of just dropped it on Berlin and all of Germany.

Boom. No more WW2.

America could only construct its bomb because a German U-Boat - U234 left from Denmark to go to Japan carrying Uranium so that the Japs could make their own A-Bomb surrendered after Germany collapsed.

If D-Day had failed, the US would not have been able to create a bomb...

Oh and to answer the original question...there'd be no black people.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
America could only construct its bomb because a German U-Boat - U234 left from Denmark to go to Japan carrying Uranium so that the Japs could make their own A-Bomb surrendered after Germany collapsed.

wow, i was totally unaware of that

Originally posted by inimalist
wow, i was totally unaware of that

I could be wrong, but that was certainly what a History documentary was saying...
http://www.ihffilm.com/840.html
apparently the Japanese on board committed suicide after trying to blow up the U-Boat...to stop the American's getting the Uranium.

Originally posted by Magee
Yes inimalist I was going to say that. If it was not for Russia's huge military might and it's freezing -20 degree winters Germany would have gained controll of Russia then most if not all of Europe and then went on to most likely defeat the U.S with the help of Japan and the other axis nations. I don't know America's role in WW1 but it was certainly Russia who in a sense saved the day for the allies in WW2. America didn't even bother with WW2 until nearly 3 years after it started and even then it was only because Japan attacked them and so Germany and Italy decalred war on the U.S, they entered through no choice of there own.

And the Hammer-&-Sickle flying over the Reichstag.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I could be wrong, but that was certainly what a History documentary was saying...
http://www.ihffilm.com/840.html
apparently the Japanese on board committed suicide after trying to blow up the U-Boat...to stop the American's getting the Uranium.

ya, there is a wiki on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterseeboot_234

I must have misunderstood you, I took what you meant as saying that was the origins of the american nuclear program, but ya, if japan had a bomb in 44, that would have changed things a lot.

However, I am pretty sure, with the exception of Hawaii and Alaska, that it would be almost impossibly difficult to drop a bomb on the american mainland (although, I could be overestimating their detection abilities)

Originally posted by inimalist
Defeating the brunt of the German offensive and capturing half of Europe, gaining international power that exists until this day, redefining the balance of power in the world for more than half a century...

And I would argue that their victories and sacrifices at least rival, if not far exceed those of the Americans.

Yeah Russia definitely made the most sacrifice in the war.

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

It would be impossible, because they lacked a bomber that had the fuel capabilities. But they did have a mission where they wanted to drop the bubonic plague on San Diego.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
How would the world be now, in 2007, had U.S. and the allies lost W.W.2 to Germany and Japan?

We'd all be eating shit and raw fish?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Orale! The US practically carried the Allies.

It was an equal effort.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
It was an equal effort.

Sure 50% US and 50% every nation in Europe

Russia really did the most. They essentially conquered half of Europe at the end.

Who cares...what a pathetic thing to argue about...

It seems to me Americans are trying to claw back some credibility because they failed in the most terrible fashion in Vietnam and in Iraq and the Europeans are trying to prove they're not completely incompetent since the collapse of their Empires...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
How would the world be now, in 2007, had U.S. and the allies lost W.W.2 to Germany and Japan? I think there was a movie about this, called The Philadelphia Experiment two.

Yup, found it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107819/

Im just saying, it's easy to say that Germany and Japan would have won had America never joined the shit, but the same can be said with the absence of just about any one of the top nations involved the allied effort. I think the airforce had much to do with winning the war, an airforce that America didn't have. I'm not trying to say that any one nation did more or less during the war, just that it took everything and everyone that was involved, to win a war that could have been lost by either side at any time.

Eisenhower could have slipped on a banana skin and smashed his head wide open while Paton slipped in the shower banged his head and lose his memory.

my whole point was to mention Russia, who is sadly overlooked in the West for their contribution to WW2, which in any measure is equal to that of the Americans.

No, it isn't a contest, but instead an ego check to those who believe that the saviors of WW2 were the Yankees.

more narrative correction than anything

An American lad said something quite amusing to me the other day on xbox live. He said: "hey, you British f@g, when was the last time you won a war?"

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
An American lad said something quite amusing to me the other day on xbox live. He said: "hey, you British f@g, when was the last time you won a war?"

Did you have an answer?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did you have an answer?

The Falklands perhaps...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did you have an answer?

Told him that I had personally won no wars, then asked him when the last time America had won a war was.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Told him that I had personally won no wars, then asked him when the last time America had won a war was.

The answer was Falklands...

I can see the Newsweek headline now...

chillmeistergen strikes back!

http://www.forces80.com/images/The_empire_strikes_back_newsweek.jpg

Quite possibly...the best Headline ever...

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Told him that I had personally won no wars, then asked him when the last time America had won a war was.

War on Dru--

War on Terr--

Vietn--

Grenada

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The Falklands perhaps...

Because everybody wants to waste their time invading a plot of land with no strategic value.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because everybody wants to waste their time invading a plot of land with no strategic value.

A war is a war...

Its symbolic anyway...

Besides, are you telling me the US would just ignore the invasion of one of its many small and rather irrelevant islands?

Also, you'll find they give the UK claim to a large part of the Antarctic Shelf...which means Oil...

Not bad for a plot of land with no strategic value.

didn't I make a similar thread like this once.???

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
An American lad said something quite amusing to me the other day on xbox live. He said: "hey, you British f@g, when was the last time you won a war?"

Why did he call you a ***?

It seems to be somewhat of a trend, people here the accent, call anyone British a British ***. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but an awful lot of people do.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It seems to be somewhat of a trend, people here the accent, call anyone British a British ***. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but an awful lot of people do.

So its a trend in video game culture?

He must have said it for a reason; something provoked him. If he was gonna call anyone that, he should've left off the added "British".

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It seems to be somewhat of a trend, people here the accent, call anyone British a British ***. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but an awful lot of people do.

Maybe he was from Texas and thought it was a French accent?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So its a trend in video game culture?

He must have said it for a reason; something provoked him. If he was gonna call anyone that, he should've left off the added "British".

Nah, honestly it happens to pretty much every British friend I have on live. It usually doesn't happen to the Scottish or Irish lot, admittedly.

What sparks it is usually when we're trying to use tactics in a first person shooter (as sad as it sounds).

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Nah, honestly it happens to pretty much every British friend I have on live. It usually doesn't happen to the Scottish or Irish lot, admittedly.

What sparks it is usually when we're trying to use tactics in a first person shooter (as sad as it sounds).

Is it Rainbow 6? Because the Southern Americans tend to go nuts if you beat them, they take that game a bit seriously.

Difficult to say what might have eventually happened with Japan. However Hitler and Mussolni would be long gone by now if they had lived out their natural spans and things would have altered in Europe.

Hitlers foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was a superb negotiator ,but it was Churchill who got the ear of F D R .

Originally posted by superr
Hitlers foreign minister Von Ribbentrop

...was a joke

Originally posted by Robtard
Is it Rainbow 6? Because the Southern Americans tend to go nuts if you beat them, they take that game a bit seriously.

Halo 3 used to be the worst for it, haven't played that in a while though. COD4 can be pretty bad for it, I haven't actually got Rainbow 6, though everyone keeps telling me that I ought to buy it.

Hell, it wouldn't have mattered that much. Germany was heading towards imminent doom anyway and Japan was slowly becoming more bogged down in China before the war really started. Germany would have been overstretched and lacking in raw materials while Japan would've had the same problem France and America had in Vietnam with China.