Wait, so what are Canadians taught about WWII?

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

I think you meant to say the Russians and the British.

You do know who bailed the British out of Egypt right?

I'm sorry, but the British army was pretty much decimated after constant losses in North Africa and Northern Europe. While they defended their mainland from air assault, they wouldn't have been so lucky against a ground invasion that didn't happen because America got involved with the war and started heavily supplying the the British.

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"][QUOTE="lordreaven"] Eh? You'd be right if Rommel actually recieved his reserves (and the commander of the Tiger Battalion didn't constantly make up excuses as to why Rommel wasn't able to use them) and if the British hadn't crushed him at El alamein. Lets be frank, except for the Pacific theatre, the Americans were not really needed (they could have just sat down and sold tanks and guns and the war would have still been won).lordreaven

If they Americans wouldn't have entered things wouldn't have gone like how you think. All of the reasons I said above. It was a war won by manufacturing and numbers. After the Americans entered, it was over for the Axis.

Also as stated before in this thread. America was the only country in the world that could have handled the island hopping against the Japanese. They also supported that while invading Europe and supplying the world.

It was a complete joint effort. Without every country's involvement, things would have gone far differently.

what is it with the western world and their "without us germany would have taken over the world!"

While i havent heared that from many russians, even if their country did the most.

Maybe they simply arent as nationalistic as the western world. Seems like germany wasent the only one with the nationalism problem.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"]

It seems you severely underestimate the axis powers.Capitan_Kid

If they Americans wouldn't have entered things wouldn't have gone like how you think. All of the reasons I said above. It was a war won by manufacturing and numbers. After the Americans entered, it was over for the Axis.

Also as stated before in this thread. America was the only country in the world that could have handled the island hopping against the Japanese. They also supported that while invading Europe and supplying the world.

It was a complete joint effort. Without every country's involvement, things would have gone far differently.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You do know who bailed the British out of Egypt right?

I'm sorry, but the British army was pretty much decimated after constant losses in North Africa and Northern Europe. While they defended their mainland from air assault, they wouldn't have been so lucky against a ground invasion that didn't happen because America got involved with the war and started heavily supplying the the British.

surrealnumber5

eh, im not sure about that. The vast majority of fighting had been agaist the russians, who were in theory ready to fall all the way back to siberia and let moscow burn if they had to. They recieved American aid, but due to political reasons it was limited to non-combat items. They emerged from the war the largest fighting force in human history, with a massive industry. They even invaded manchuria with a force of over 1.5 million men after the war with Germany.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"]

It seems you severely underestimate the axis powers.Capitan_Kid

If they Americans wouldn't have entered things wouldn't have gone like how you think. All of the reasons I said above. It was a war won by manufacturing and numbers. After the Americans entered, it was over for the Axis.

Also as stated before in this thread. America was the only country in the world that could have handled the island hopping against the Japanese. They also supported that while invading Europe and supplying the world.

It was a complete joint effort. Without every country's involvement, things would have gone far differently.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="lordreaven"] Eh? You'd be right if Rommel actually recieved his reserves (and the commander of the Tiger Battalion didn't constantly make up excuses as to why Rommel wasn't able to use them) and if the British hadn't crushed him at El alamein. Lets be frank, except for the Pacific theatre, the Americans were not really needed (they could have just sat down and sold tanks and guns and the war would have still been won).cobrax55

eh, im not sure about that. The vast majority of fighting had been agaist the russians, who were in theory ready to fall all the way back to siberia and let moscow burn if they had to. They recieved American aid, but due to political reasons it was limited to non-combat items. They emerged from the war the largest fighting force in human history, with a massive industry. They even invaded manchuria with a force of over 1.5 million men after the war with Germany.

I never understood why people think that the Allies would be able to win WW2 if the U.S. didn't join, as I'm pretty sure that the Russians and British wouldn't be able to defeat both Germany and Japan. And even if the Soviets did win, it would only mean that Stalin would've had exercise great rule on the world.Lonelynight

WW2 was Germany agaist the Russians, in terms of Combat, what the Americans did was effectively negligable in Europe when compared to the conflict as a whole in Europe.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i do not think we needed Australian, French(non-resistance), and Canadians :PLonelynight

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] even if what you are saying was correct, the US still would have been a pivital factor, we supplied a hell of a lot and even if that was all we did victory would not have come around without those materials. even IF and it is a BIG IF, the allies would have won without direct support, they would not have without the indirect support. surrealnumber5

eh, im not sure about that. The vast majority of fighting had been agaist the russians, who were in theory ready to fall all the way back to siberia and let moscow burn if they had to. They recieved American aid, but due to political reasons it was limited to non-combat items. They emerged from the war the largest fighting force in human history, with a massive industry. They even invaded manchuria with a force of over 1.5 million men after the war with Germany.

Germany didnt have the Navy to invade britton. I think the issue is that you are focusing on the West, when the real war was being thought in the East.

WW2 was Germany agaist the Russians, in terms of Combat, what the Americans did was effectively negligable in Europe when compared to the conflict as a whole in Europe.cobrax55

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="cobrax55"]

eh, im not sure about that. The vast majority of fighting had been agaist the russians, who were in theory ready to fall all the way back to siberia and let moscow burn if they had to. They recieved American aid, but due to political reasons it was limited to non-combat items. They emerged from the war the largest fighting force in human history, with a massive industry. They even invaded manchuria with a force of over 1.5 million men after the war with Germany.

Germany didnt have the Navy to invade britton. I think the issue is that you are focusing on the West, when the real war was being thought in the East.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] Whats to underestimate? The moment German, Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian troops crossed the soviet border, the axis lost the war. The axis could not have won the war, period.

lordreaven

If they Americans wouldn't have entered things wouldn't have gone like how you think. All of the reasons I said above. It was a war won by manufacturing and numbers. After the Americans entered, it was over for the Axis.

Also as stated before in this thread. America was the only country in the world that could have handled the island hopping against the Japanese. They also supported that while invading Europe and supplying the world.

It was a complete joint effort. Without every country's involvement, things would have gone far differently.

Actually the Soviets built their own tanks and weapons. It really came down to Germany's forces being split and not allowed into the Middle East. The Soviets couldn't keep playing the war of attrition they were.

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

Four things won WW2:

1) The UK holding north Africa as long as they did before the US entered the war.

2) The United States.

3) The USSR bullet spunging Hitler away from Western Europe.

4) The USMC/USN in particular against the Japanese.

---

Had it not been for 1, the US probably wouldn't have entered the European war and Hitler would have went right through Egypt into the Middle East seizing all the Oil he needed forever.

Had it not been for 2, it is obvious the war would have been lost... Russia can only send so many millions of conscripted soldiers to die before they would have run out... And the apart from the over 9,000,000 Americans that served in the war from 41-44, before and after that the US basically provided almost all goods and services allied nations needed to survive (apart from Russia, who declined post-war aid)... And then the US basically rebuilt Europe after the war (Marshall plan; so at least US money rebuilt Europe)...

Had it not been for 3, Hitler would have won, plain and simple (also related to number 1, in that with the Middle East oil fields, Hitler probably wouldn't have invaded Russia when he did)... But after Barbarosa, Hitler had 3 massive armies coming from all sides (Russians on the East, Americans/Brits/French from the West, and Americans and Brits up through Italy from the South)...

Self explanitory... USMC was one of the few forces in the world capable and trained to deply rapidly from sea... And the entire Pacific campaign was nothing but large scale naval engagements and "island hopping"... The USN was massive by the start of WW2 and only grew as the war went on... Not to mention the US use of unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan more or less crippled their industry which was unable to keep up... Which is why when the US lost a battleship or an aircraft carrier... It was no big deal, we would have another one out in a month... When Japan lost an aircraft carrier, their fleet was crippled... As they only had 6 (or something like that) and were unable to build anymore... Which is why Midway is considered to be the turning point in the Pacific war... Japan's fleet was more or less destroyed for the rest of the war as they lost 4 carriers in a single battle...

cobrax55

Really? Because thats not what actually happened in real life.

Not only were 80% of German casualties on the eastern front (and thats where their most advanced equipment and troops were), but but the time of D-Day the Battle of Stalingrad had already happened and the momentum had changed in the east, clearly the russians werent going to stop at that point, and after Stalingrad they had been winning every single engagement.

At that point what happened in the west may as well have been insignificant, given the far larger scale of the eastern conflict.

1) I mentioned the Russians being a deciding factor...

2) It isn't hard for 80% of the casualties to be on the Eastern Front when there literally was no Western front until 1944 while there was an Eastern Front from 1941 onward...

3) The Russians lost quite literally 20,000,000+ (some say 25,000,000+) military and civilian dead to kill those ~3 million Germans who died on the Eastern Front... Like I said... They could only sustain those numbers for so long...

4) Also, like I said... Had Germany defeated the UK in North Africa and captured the oil rich Middle East... Germany probably wouldn't have invaded the USSR when they did... They invaded and pushed on Ukraine and the Balkans hard at first because they NEEDED the resources... Literally... Germany could not continue the war without oil...

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]WW2 was Germany agaist the Russians, in terms of Combat, what the Americans did was effectively negligable in Europe when compared to the conflict as a whole in Europe.Lonelynight

Funny, guess who the Japenese were surrendering to in Manchuria?

Funny, cause guess who less fought in WW2?

Its almost comical how so many Americans downplay Russian/Chinese involvement in the war, as though its absurd that a Communist country could have been so involved. Nobody in America even knows about the Chinese involvement.

I lol'd. Clearly the TC is American. In Canada, we learn real history, not 'Mericuh-centric history. If not for the Canadians, British and Russians, we would have lost the war. We might not have been as prolific as the Russians, British and Americans... but we were a part of all the key battles and liberated the Nederlands.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="cobrax55"]WW2 was Germany agaist the Russians, in terms of Combat, what the Americans did was effectively negligable in Europe when compared to the conflict as a whole in Europe.cobrax55

Funny, guess who the Japenese were surrendering to in Manchuria?

Funny, cause guess who less fought in WW2?

Its almost comical how so many Americans downplay Russian/Chinese involvement in the war, as though its absurd that a Communist country could have been so involved. Nobody in America even knows about the Chinese involvement.

Funny, guess who the Japenese were surrendering to in Manchuria?

Funny, cause guess who less fought in WW2?

Its almost comical how so many Americans downplay Russian/Chinese involvement in the war, as though its absurd that a Communist country could have been so involved. Nobody in America even knows about the Chinese involvement.

cobrax55

History doesn't allow people to make assumptions about what COULD have happened and consider them correct. There is no "If country X hadn't participated in the war, we would surely have lost.". Making such affirmations is stupid and can yield no result.

with no us envolvement at all, nothing would have stopped the invation of britton, and if the germans did not want to do that they could have just starved the UK since it would not have to worry about american shipping. then germany would have had a one front war. you are taking endwar production and pasting it onto the start of the war.surrealnumber5

Germany didnt have the Navy to invade britton. I think the issue is that you are focusing on the West, when the real war was being thought in the East.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="cobrax55"]

Germany didnt have the Navy to invade britton. I think the issue is that you are focusing on the West, when the real war was being thought in the East.

00-Riddick-00

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i am not focusing anywhere, germany would have won a one front conflict.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

Four things won WW2:

1) The UK holding north Africa as long as they did before the US entered the war.

2) The United States.

3) The USSR bullet spunging Hitler away from Western Europe.

4) The USMC/USN in particular against the Japanese.

---

Had it not been for 1, the US probably wouldn't have entered the European war and Hitler would have went right through Egypt into the Middle East seizing all the Oil he needed forever.

Had it not been for 2, it is obvious the war would have been lost... Russia can only send so many millions of conscripted soldiers to die before they would have run out... And the apart from the over 9,000,000 Americans that served in the war from 41-44, before and after that the US basically provided almost all goods and services allied nations needed to survive (apart from Russia, who declined post-war aid)... And then the US basically rebuilt Europe after the war (Marshall plan; so at least US money rebuilt Europe)...

Had it not been for 3, Hitler would have won, plain and simple (also related to number 1, in that with the Middle East oil fields, Hitler probably wouldn't have invaded Russia when he did)... But after Barbarosa, Hitler had 3 massive armies coming from all sides (Russians on the East, Americans/Brits/French from the West, and Americans and Brits up through Italy from the South)...

Self explanitory... USMC was one of the few forces in the world capable and trained to deply rapidly from sea... And the entire Pacific campaign was nothing but large scale naval engagements and "island hopping"... The USN was massive by the start of WW2 and only grew as the war went on... Not to mention the US use of unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan more or less crippled their industry which was unable to keep up... Which is why when the US lost a battleship or an aircraft carrier... It was no big deal, we would have another one out in a month... When Japan lost an aircraft carrier, their fleet was crippled... As they only had 6 (or something like that) and were unable to build anymore... Which is why Midway is considered to be the turning point in the Pacific war... Japan's fleet was more or less destroyed for the rest of the war as they lost 4 carriers in a single battle...

Buttons1990

Really? Because thats not what actually happened in real life.

Not only were 80% of German casualties on the eastern front (and thats where their most advanced equipment and troops were), but but the time of D-Day the Battle of Stalingrad had already happened and the momentum had changed in the east, clearly the russians werent going to stop at that point, and after Stalingrad they had been winning every single engagement.

At that point what happened in the west may as well have been insignificant, given the far larger scale of the eastern conflict.

1) I mentioned the Russians being a deciding factor...

2) It isn't hard for 80% of the casualties to be on the Eastern Front when there literally was no Western front until 1944 while there was an Eastern Front from 1941 onward...

3) The Russians lost quite literally 20,000,000+ (some say 25,000,000+) military and civilian dead to kill those ~3 million Germans who died on the Eastern Front... Like I said... They could only sustain those numbers for so long...

4) Also, like I said... Had Germany defeated the UK in North Africa and captured the oil rich Middle East... Germany probably wouldn't have invaded the USSR when they did... They invaded and pushed on Ukraine and the Balkans hard at first because they NEEDED the resources... Literally... Germany could not continue the war without oil...

1. No, you seemed to have thought it was America, you even mentioned the soviets as being "bullet sponges"

2. Which is exacly my point, The war in Europe was between the Russians and the Germans, everything else was meaningless. By the time America entered the war Stalingrad had been won and it was clear Russia would win. Its been widely speculated that America ultimatly entered in the West in order to avoid the soviets steamrolling through the entirety of Europe.

3. Which brings me to my next point. Agaist all odds, the Soviets had emerged the largest army in human history, with a massive industry to back it up (they effectively industrialized the country during the war) The Russians were by no means out of troops (your comparsion doesnt make sense either, given the nature of the war). The Russians in total had fielded 34 million soldiers, and by the end of the war were still ready to go. So much so, that they sent 1.5 million soldiers to fight agaist Japan.

4. The soviets were invaded for ideological reasons, not only did they consider them lesser beings like Jews, but the Nazi's were terrified of communism. In germany they went after the communists long before they went after the jews.

Its almost comical how so many Americans downplay Russian/Chinese involvement in the war, as though its absurd that a Communist country could have been so involved. Nobody in America even knows about the Chinese involvement.cobrax55

Silly Canada. Everyone knows Brad Pitt won the war pretty much single-handedly.jimmyjammer69

Dude, I'm Chinese. While the PRC and ROC troops were able to hold of the Japanese from taking all of China, they were in no shape to ever defeast the Japanese army. And the Soviets invaded Manchuria only after Germany surrendered.Lonelynight

Well, Britain would have fallen without the mass supplies Canada sent. I don't know if that would have cost the allies the war, but it would have removed any possibility of a western front.

No, no no no they could not have. They focused way to much on the quality of weapons and tanks instead of mass producing them, not only that by 1943 (before America was in the war) the Germans were already running low on fuel.00-Riddick-00

Attrition defeated the Japanese.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]Funny, guess who the Japenese were surrendering to in Manchuria? Funny, cause guess who less fought in WW2? Its almost comical how so many Americans downplay Russian/Chinese involvement in the war, as though its absurd that a Communist country could have been so involved. Nobody in America even knows about the Chinese involvement.Lonelynight

Their is a reason the Americans never set foot in mainland china...while there is absolutly no way the chinese could have defeated the Japense without outside support, their involvement was crucial. Japan had a huge force in Manchuria, and given the difficulties involved in fighting in mainland china for a foreign force from the east, the war in Japan would have dragged on a considerable length of time longer.

Regarding soviets invasion of Manchuria, yes it happened after the defeat of German, but given that the Russians had taken on nearly the entirety of the german force pretty much single handidly., you cant really blame them for it. In fact today it is believed that it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that convinced Japan to surnder.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I never understood why people think that the Allies would be able to win WW2 if the U.S. didn't join, as I'm pretty sure that the Russians and British wouldn't be able to defeat both Germany and Japan. And even if the Soviets did win, it would only mean that Stalin would've had exercise great rule on the world.cobrax55

WW2 was Germany agaist the Russians, in terms of Combat, what the Americans did was effectively negligable in Europe when compared to the conflict as a whole in Europe.

discussing WW2 in a gaming forum;

Obvious answer; It wasn't a war between 2 countries, it was a war between many countries, so its obvious that they all played an important part in it.

Patriotic answer; Without my country we would all be speaking german

Grateful answer; I live in X country, we got saved by the X country, so they obviously did the most in WW2

Hateful answer; I hate X country, so they were pretty much worthless in the conflict

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I never understood why people think that the Allies would be able to win WW2 if the U.S. didn't join, as I'm pretty sure that the Russians and British wouldn't be able to defeat both Germany and Japan. And even if the Soviets did win, it would only mean that Stalin would've had exercise great rule on the world.sonicare

WW2 was Germany agaist the Russians, in terms of Combat, what the Americans did was effectively negligable in Europe when compared to the conflict as a whole in Europe.

Just look at the distrobution of forces for the Axis, it was clear where their priorities lay. D-Day took place after Stalingrad, which was the turning point of the war in the east.

Im going to make this plain and simple, My friend was chatting on IM with one of his Canadians friends and some how they got on the topic of WWII.

And then she goes on and on about how the Canadians made a huge difference and how the war would have been all but lost without them. So I guess my point is. "Are Canadian history books full of lies?"

discussing WW2 in a gaming forum;

Obvious answer; It wasn't a war between 2 countries, it was a war between many countries, so its obvious that they all played an important part in it.

Patriotic answer; Without my country we would all be speaking german

Grateful answer; I live in X country, we got saved by the X country, so they obviously did the most in WW2

Hateful answer; I hate X country, so they were pretty much worthless in the conflict

Half-Way

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]In the wonderfully stupid debate that is WWII you only need one form for an argument. "If it wasn't for 'X' we'd all be speaking German!"00-Riddick-00

I'd have to disagree with that, if the U.S. hadn't joined, Germany would not have been concerned about the Western Front much, as Britain certainly couldn't have invaded Normandy (or France) effectively. The Atlantic Wall was enough to keep Britain and Canada from attacking successfully. The U.S. was key in destroying large industrial plants that could crank out weaponry like Me-262's and Tiger tanks thus limiting their manufacturing thus helping the Russians quite a bit. By concentrating their attack solely on the Eastern Front and being able to mass larger #'s of superior planes and tanks, the Germans would have won on the Eastern Front. Britain, however valiant, would have capitulated as well, especially without American supply lines. Another big problem was Hitler's blunder at invading Russia over winter, but we all know that.

So basically, with many more troops, tanks, and planes thrust against the Russians (with no U.S.), Germany would have won, though it still wouldn't have been easy.

Then there's the Pacific side....lets just say Australia and New Zealand would have been successfully invaded by the Japanese if U.S. Marines had not stopped them at Guadalcanal and preserved Henderson Field.

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]In the wonderfully stupid debate that is WWII you only need one form for an argument. "If it wasn't for 'X' we'd all be speaking German!"AFBrat77

I'd have to disagree with that, if the U.S. hadn't joined, Germany would not have been concerned about the Western Front much, as Britain certainly couldn't have invaded Normandy (or France) effectively. The U.S. was key in destroying large industrial plants that could crank out weaponry like Me-262's and Tiger tanks thus limiting their manufacturing thus helping the Russians quite a bit. By concentrating their attack solely on the Eastern Front and being able to mass larger #'s of superior planes and tanks, the Germans would have won on the Eastern Front. Britain, however valiant, would have capitulated as well, especially without American supply lines. Another big problem was Hitler's blunder at invading Russia over winter, but we all know that.

Then there's the Pacific side....lets just say Australia and New Zealand would have been successfully invaded by the Japanese if U.S. Marines had not stopped them at Guadalcanal.

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"] Well In my honest Opinion the U.S. never needed to go to war against Germany (or Japan for that matter), sure it would have taken a couple years longer but the british and Russian military would have gotten the job done, So no we would not all be speaking german.harashawn

I'd have to disagree with that, if the U.S. hadn't joined, Germany would not have been concerned about the Western Front much, as Britain certainly couldn't have invaded Normandy (or France) effectively. The U.S. was key in destroying large industrial plants that could crank out weaponry like Me-262's and Tiger tanks thus limiting their manufacturing thus helping the Russians quite a bit. By concentrating their attack solely on the Eastern Front and being able to mass larger #'s of superior planes and tanks, the Germans would have won on the Eastern Front. Britain, however valiant, would have capitulated as well, especially without American supply lines. Another big problem was Hitler's blunder at invading Russia over winter, but we all know that.

Then there's the Pacific side....lets just say Australia and New Zealand would have been successfully invaded by the Japanese if U.S. Marines had not stopped them at Guadalcanal.

Britain and Canada mostly, wouldn't have made a difference.

Without Patton's 3rd Army and others, the Western Front would not have successfully defeated the Germans. Keep in mind, even BEFORE the U.S. entered the war, the U.S. was still supplying Britain AND Russia via the Lend-Lease program.

The Lend-Lease program should not be trivialized, the U.S. sent an abundance of war materials to Britain even before the U.S. had entered the war. The program was key in helping strengthen Britain. Hitler did not want to start a war with the U.S. by any means, but he knew the U.S. was playing favorites. As soon as the U.S. joined the war his U-boats immediately went after U.S. supply ships bound for Britain.

By the way, Russia received much of their rations and clothing from Americans via Lend-Lease, not to mention thousands of trucks for logistical support to the troops. Once again, often forgotten (or not known) by people on this board.

If you take all these things that the U.S. provided for the war.....you will understand that yes, these countries would have been speaking German. This is not to trivialize any other country's efforts in the war.....

...its simply to help some of you understand the scope of U.S. involvement in WW2, because it seems some of you aren't aware of it. While the U.S. was neutral in theory prior to Dec. 1941, it was secretly assisting both Britain and Russia in practice.

Explain please.Lonelynight

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]Explain please.foxhound_fox

Had the U.S. not dwindled the Japanese numbers and taken out their navy (with some help from Allies), Japan could still successfully invade Australia and New Zealand. And without U.S. help against Germany, Britain would not have been able to contribute much to the Pacific.

The Canadians did help, but they weren't the deciding factor.

It was really the Russians and the Americans who were the deciding factors.

Wasdie

The Canadians did help, but they weren't the deciding factor.

It was really the Russians and the Americans who were the deciding factors.

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

I'd have to disagree with that, if the U.S. hadn't joined, Germany would not have been concerned about the Western Front much, as Britain certainly couldn't have invaded Normandy (or France) effectively. The U.S. was key in destroying large industrial plants that could crank out weaponry like Me-262's and Tiger tanks thus limiting their manufacturing thus helping the Russians quite a bit. By concentrating their attack solely on the Eastern Front and being able to mass larger #'s of superior planes and tanks, the Germans would have won on the Eastern Front. Britain, however valiant, would have capitulated as well, especially without American supply lines. Another big problem was Hitler's blunder at invading Russia over winter, but we all know that.

Then there's the Pacific side....lets just say Australia and New Zealand would have been successfully invaded by the Japanese if U.S. Marines had not stopped them at Guadalcanal.

Britain and Canada mostly, wouldn't have made a difference.

Without Patton's 3rd Army and others, the Western Front would not have successfully defeated the Germans. Keep in mind, even BEFORE the U.S. entered the war, the U.S. was still supplying Britain AND Russia via the Lend-Lease program.

The Lend-Lease program should not be trivialized, the U.S. sent an abundance of war materials to Britain even before the U.S. had entered the war. The program was key in helping strengthen Britain. Hitler did not want to start a war with the U.S. by any means, but he knew the U.S. was playing favorites. As soon as the U.S. joined the war his U-boats immediately went after U.S. supply ships bound for Britain.

By the way, Russia received much of their rations and clothing from Americans via Lend-Lease, not to mention thousands of trucks for logistical support to the troops. Once again, often forgotten (or not known) by people on this board.

If you take all these things that the U.S. provided for the war.....you will understand that yes, these countries would have been speaking German. This is not to trivialize any other country's efforts in the war.....

...its simply to help some of you understand the scope of U.S. involvement in WW2, because it seems some of you aren't aware of it. While the U.S. was neutral in theory prior to Dec. 1941, it was secretly assisting both Britain and Russia in practice.

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

If you take all these things that the U.S. provided for the war.....you will understand that yes, these countries would have been speaking German. This is not to trivialize any other country's efforts in the war.....

...its simply to help some of you understand the scope of U.S. involvement in WW2, because it seems some of you aren't aware of it. While the U.S. was neutral in theory prior to Dec. 1941, it was secretly assisting both Britain and Russia in practice.

blue_hazy_basic

That is a fair question, once again I'm not trivializing the British war effort either. Also, I give the British mad props for uncovering the German "Enigma" code.

I'm not sure the German's would have world domination, but yes, majority of Europe would have been German. The U.S. mainland would be extremely difficult to invade, and the U.S. can mass produce ships and planes with the best of them.

May have been interesting if the Germans and Japanese decided to face-off against one another, the Japanese are ferocious fighters and should not be underestimated.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

Britain and Canada mostly, wouldn't have made a difference.

Without Patton's 3rd Army and others, the Western Front would not have successfully defeated the Germans. Keep in mind, even BEFORE the U.S. entered the war, the U.S. was still supplying Britain AND Russia via the Lend-Lease program.

The Lend-Lease program should not be trivialized, the U.S. sent an abundance of war materials to Britain even before the U.S. had entered the war. The program was key in helping strengthen Britain. Hitler did not want to start a war with the U.S. by any means, but he knew the U.S. was playing favorites. As soon as the U.S. joined the war his U-boats immediately went after U.S. supply ships bound for Britain.

By the way, Russia received much of their rations and clothing from Americans via Lend-Lease, not to mention thousands of trucks for logistical support to the troops. Once again, often forgotten (or not known) by people on this board.

If you take all these things that the U.S. provided for the war.....you will understand that yes, these countries would have been speaking German. This is not to trivialize any other country's efforts in the war.....

...its simply to help some of you understand the scope of U.S. involvement in WW2, because it seems some of you aren't aware of it. While the U.S. was neutral in theory prior to Dec. 1941, it was secretly assisting both Britain and Russia in practice.

That is a fair question, once again I'm not trivializing the British war effort either. Also, I give the British mad props for uncovering the German "Enigma" code.

I'm not sure the German's would have world domination, but yes, majority of Europe would have been German. The U.S. mainland would be extremely difficult to invade, and the U.S. can mass produce ships and planes with the best of them.

May have been interesting if the Germans and Japanese decided to face-off against one another, the Japanese are ferocious fighters and should not be underestimated.

Canadian's helped a lot with 2 simple words.... Vimy Ridge