CalcuoCuchicheo said:
I have never heard of anyone who denied that America sold - that would be SOLD - materials to the Allies in order to make money. If money had nothing to do with it, why didn't the Allies receive the weapons free of charge? Or at least at a charge which gave no profit?
The United States broke its own Neutrality Act to help the Allies. I don't know if the aid sent to the Allies involved interest but the goods were sent with the implicit understanding that the United States would not have to be paid back for the debts. Otherwise, the Allies would have paid their debts back at some point in the last 60 years.
Excuse me, when did 'goods' equaly 'military equipment'? And like I said, oil.
Like I said, we didn't send oil to Germany. And the goods we were sending to the Allies were obviously of military value.
Also, there's no point adding bits of information like 'conscription' & the 'Treaty of Versailles' to fill out your posts.
The discussion of the ToV explained the fact that we were not sending military equipment or oil to Germany. The reason Germany even invaded USSR in 1941 was that it needed Russia's oil.
I'm not going to try to belittle you because you clearly have a grasp of the basics of the war, at least from the standpoint of military history.
As for the ToV, since when has a piece of paper stopped America doing what she wants? And with lucrative monies involved, the capitalist machine goes into overdrive.
Are you trying to imply that the United States was sending military equipment to Hitler's Germany in the 1930s?
'Reconstruction all of Europe'? LOL!!
I suppose you include Russia in that? Ha! That was a snide offer & everyone knows it.
You obviously know Russia was offered aid and turned it down, perhaps for the reason you stated.
However, the Marshall Plan went primarily to the reconstruction of Germany, who last I checked wasn't exactly our ally.
Regardless, that 'aid' came with conditions. You do know that America dictated what countries spent that money on don't you?
Yeah, it couldn't be spent on rebuilding the military infrastructure of the reconstructed countries and initiating another war.
The US didn't want a repeat of Nazi Germany. What a novel idea!
Air bases of no use? What, were they non-existant? There is no such thing as a useless functional air base. And if they were of no use why did they take them?
Try to explain to me what value a British air base had in Canada. Were they going to bomb Quebec?
'Supported'? Yes. 'Raped' could also be applied in a long term assessment of the situation.
I'm sure the USSR and Britain were more than glad to take our billions through the Lend Lease of 1941. And seeing as how these debts weren't repaid or intended to be repaid, I'm not exactly sure how we raped them.
I can't remember saying that America were not prepared for war. I guess that nullifies this whole section.
That's a pretty nice try at avoiding the harsh reality of the situation. America's volunteer army in 1939 was the
18th largest army in the world.
I will say though, that the war had been going on for a while then &, keeping an eye on the situation, obviously America will have made preparations. Add to this the fact that - as you have indicated with your points about American pilots aiding the RAF - America's population was aware of the situation & you have people all set to join up. I mean, the soldiers who wanted to go, will have just been waiting for the word. Civilians who wanted to go, will have jsut been waiting for the word. America had a ready army & when coupled with US propaganda, the Americans will've signed up swiftly.
You are correct. However, training them, arming them and shipping them to Britain or the Pacific is obviously a lengthy process. As I explained and I'm sure you agree, we couldn't simply land these troops on the European continent in 1941.
I'd rather talk about 20 million dead Russians. They had suffered a lot, were weakened, weary & ill-equipped. Plus, the Russians were wary of taking more losses as they felt the Allies
The point is that every army involved in the war fought by the same basic military strategies. These generals knew from the wars of the previous 80 years that simple infantry "charges of death" didn't work.
Normally I would agree but unfortunately the Russians didn't have the luxury of such weapons & were faced with a merciless enemy. Sitting back, would mean defeat. In this war of attrition, numbers & heart was all the Russians really had. They consciously slowed down the Nazi advance with their blood & that is 'heroic'.
I'm not arguing or dismissing Russian heroism, or their obscene casualty count. But you do realize that the Russians had the best tanks in the war, right?
By 1944 the Red Army was the strongest fighting force on the planet.
American businesses did trade with Germany.
Henry Ford. Not American Government, but aided the Nazis. Prescott Bush is another.
Good point.
If I'm not mistaken America joined the war in December 1941?
All that happened in December 1941 was that we officially declared war and had public backing for a concerted war effort. We had been openly on the side of the Allies by 1940.
American pilots were sent to Britain to protect Allied convoys? Elaborate.
American ships monitored the Atlantic because the Brits had their hands full in the Atlantic closer to Europe. American ships protected Allied convoys of goods across the Atlantic. As you would expect, German subs fired on these convoys and as you would expect, American ships fired back. By 1940, there was undeclared naval warfare going on between the US and Germany.
Tell me which of these fronts Britain wasn't fighting on?
The Brits were too busy in Europe to fight in the Pacific. And I'm not sure about Sicily and Italy but I definitely don't know for sure. All I know is that 11 Nazi divisions stalled the Italian front against 15 Allied divisions. I do know a majority of those 15 divisions were American, but I don't know if they all were.
D-Day? And there I was thiking it was an Allied effort....Britain & Canada didn't help? If they did, as we know, then America ddn't exactly overcome a 'huge obstacle'....they had a helping hand.
Iwo Jima? Fair enough, America were up against a sturdy enemy with a good position but America sent in over 50,000 marines - some say nearing 70,000 - & the Japs had about 22,000. Of these 22,000, about 200 were taken prisoner indicating the Japs were fighting to the death as per usual. While this can be seen as a plus for American effectiveness - & I agree, to an extent - you can also see how the American soldier pales in comparison to the Japanese with around 25,000 American casualties & around 7,000 dead.
The Japanese suffered less casualties because the defense inherently has advantages in battle.
As for D-Day, the American forces comprised a majority of the amphibious invasion. The Americans were put in charge of the logistics and Operation Overlord. Regardless of who helped, Operation Overlord was the most difficult military operation in the history of man.
The fact that it was successful means that the Allies overcame a huge obstacle there. Before June 6, Eisenhower had already written a letter apologizing for the failure of the invasion. D-Day was not just a cakewalk, its success was far from assured.
