@BigSuzyB
I can’t imagine why I would give this up just because you tell me to.

Keep in mind that the combined military force of the EU could not take down the Serbian regime so how could the Uk alone exert it’s influence to any significant degree. Perhaps you don't remember Blair almost demanding US boots on the ground during that engagement. Serbia was not a significant military power.

So several of my questions remain unanswered. If a nation which is superpower can be obliterated by another nation how can that second nation also not be called a superpower?

If Nazi Germany was holding back half of its forces and was facing an existential threat why would it not use the remaining half. The Nazis could certainly have used them on Stalingrad for example or during the battle of the bulge or after the Americans crossed the Siegfried line.

I’m hardly squirming but rather asking for answers that are not forthcoming.

 

https://www.worldstrendingtopmost.c...itary-countries-world-strongest-army-ranking/

And you may wish to read this

Even France and India score higher

 

The debate isn't about strength. It's about deployability.

 

Would you agree that a publication entitled ukdefense journal might be a bit biased? But I do understand that everybody loves their country and wants it to be the best. So it’s a common instinct.

So if deployability means naval strength which is really the only way to extend military power globally then here is that list.

https://listamaze.com/top-10-most-powerful-navies-in-the-world/

 

I would agree if they weren't factually reporting the rating of an independant agency. With supporting expert quotes.

We tend to be a little bit less partisan over here.

 

Other sources disagree and I think everyone has an agenda so one has to look at many sources. I don’t think partisanship is an issue that begins within US territorial waters.

 

The acquisition of new land and soil for the settling of the superfluous population has no end of advantages...

If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done at Russia's expense...

For such a policy, however, there is only one single ally in Europe: England...

To gain England's favor, no sacrifice should have been too great. Then one would have had to renounce colonies and sea power, but to spare British industry our competition.

- Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter IV

----------

Great Britain and the United States could have easily avoided World War II. I am glad we did not.

During the Second World War the Soviet Union lost an estimated twenty-eight million dead, and one third of its industrial and farm plant. That was with the assistance of Great Britain and the United States. If Great Britain and France had not declared war against Germany when Germany invaded Poland, Hitler would have conquered all of Poland, and gone on to invade the Soviet Union. I do not see how the Soviet Army could have stopped the Germans before they reached the Ural Mountains. By conquering the European part of the Soviet Union, the Germans would have gained access to Russian oil fields.

 

After the Pearl Harbor attack, it was said that the US military was so weak that had the Japanese chosen to invade the continental United States, its army could have made it to as far as Chicago before a serious challenge could have been constructed. So surprise attacks are very effective but nations can adapt very quickly if they have enough land to recover into.

I too am happy that we entered the war not because I Think Hitler would have prevailed but because almost all of Europe would be knocked almost completely outside of US influence (and their own) and into the Soviet sphere. Eventually the GIUK link would be broached and The US would be left trying to defend the North Atlantic. Our entry also likely saved countless allied and even Axis lives. Keep in mind that German civilians and military personnel were also victims of Hitler. Also the execrable behavior of Red Army troops n Poland and Germany would likely have continued farther west.

Of course Hitler could have been stopped long before this had the allies been firm with him earlier on, instead of giving away territory that was not theirs to give. Peace in our time came worsely from Chamberlain but also from such liberal notables in the US as Joseph Kennedy senior.

Germany had every right to declare war on the United States as its navy had been in several skirmishes with German ships and we were clearly claiming neutrality when also arming and supplying its enemies. We were a belligerent and probably in violation of international law. By March 1941 we were deeply involved in lend lease which made us look completely hypocritical to the world because we were. Hitlers speech supporting the declaration of war against the United States in the Reichstag had some real merit I’m sorry to say.

(Makes me wonder if Roosevelt was baiting the Nazis as an end run around very strong American isolationist thinking.)

However from a military standpoint declaring war on the United States in its fullest meaning was quite foolish. The Nazis were already struggling in Russia and the Russian winter was coming.

Hitler underestimated the productive capacity of the US feeling that American women could not broach the gap in factories left by American men who were now conscripted.

But as I have said several times, had the US not entered the First World War it would likely have been fought to a stalemate and the outrageous armistice would likely have been more favorable to the Germans and the Nazi Party would likely never have arisen.

And without the Nazi Party world war 2 would likely not have been fought in Europe..

 

When Germany attacked Czech in 1938, Russia wanted to interven, but Poland didn t give Russia permission to cross the border

 

What of US interven in WW1 , it was simply a metter of money cause allies took credit from US and if they lost the war. USA would have lost 8 billion.

 

Here I found for ya folks....

 

Roosevelt was certainly baiting the Germans and the Japanese. He wanted the United States to enter the Second World War. He knew that the best way to involve the United States was to provoke the Germans or the Japanese into hitting us first.

 

He was definitely saying things that were provocative and Hitler was definitely taking notice.

Then there’s the question of whether he knew in advance about the Pearl Harbor attack. That’s less believable but one has to wonder why no carriers were in port that day.

If it could ever be proven that Roosevelt knew about the Pearl Harbor attack and did nothing he should have been impeached and jailed because that’s just murder.

However I do not think he did know. Most historians agree.

 

Could the Russians have defeated Germany by themselves?
An article in The Times newspaper over the weekend reported that a majority of Russians think that their country could have defeated Germany in World War 2 without any help from the Western Allies.

Could they, I wonder?

Hitler’s invasion of Russia
In June 1941 the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa: the invasion of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was taken completely by surprise by the attack, and was entirely unprepared for it. Vast numbers of its troops were captured in the first months of the war. It took the Soviets until the end of the following year to stop the German onslaught and turn the tables on the invaders.



The Battle for Stalingrad, 1942: RIA Novosti archive, image #44732 / Zelma / CC-BY-SA 3.0

All through 1943 and half of 1944 they steadily pushed the Germans back. In June 1944 the American and British Allies at last launched a major invasion of German-held France, and started advancing on Germany from the West. By May 1945 the Germans had been squeezed back to a few streets in Berlin, and one or two other isolated pockets, and were forced to surrender.

The War Hitler wanted
What if the British and Americans (and the French) had never entered the Second World War, and the Russians had had to face the Nazi forces alone? This is what Hitler had wanted before the war. If he had had his way, could he have succeeded?

On the face of it, it seems likely that he would have done. Firstly, of course, is the fact that the Germans would have been able to throw all their forces into the invasion, rather than keep hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in western Europe to face a possible invasion from the Americans and British. The Soviets would not have had anything like the same numerical advantage that they did in fact enjoy.

Air Power
This would not only have been for ground troops, but for air power as well. The Allied bomber campaign would never have materialised, and the Germans would not therefore have had to keep the bulk of their fighter force at home. The Russians would therefore probably not have achieved the command of the air that they did, and this would have enabled the Luftwaffe to cover the German land forces much more effectively. This would have been an important factor: in the Italian campaign the Americans and British were able to push superior numbers of German troops back due to Allied superiority in the air.





American bombers over Germany: NARA FILE #: 208-YE-7

Supplies and Resources
Secondly, the Russians would not have benefitted from the stream of supplies coming in by sea from Britain and America which was turned on just a couple of months after the initial German attack. It is true that the Russians themselves produced such battle-winning weaponry as the T34 tank, better than anything the Germans had, but what the Allies were able to supply in abundance (amongst many other things) were jeeps and lorries. These allowed the Red Army to keep its troops well equipped and supplied, and gave it a much greater degree of mobility than would otherwise have been the case.

Thirdly, in the real world a huge drag on the German war effort was the shortage of raw materials, above all oil. With western countries standing on the sidelines, trade with them would presumably have continued as before the war. This would have relieved the Germans of such resource constraints.

No doubt there were other factors that can be listed, but even these three, taken together, may well have tipped the balance in Germany’s favour. However…you never quite know with wars. They have an uncanny knack of throwing up surprises!

By Peter Britton

 

The truth is that we can never know for certain but I believe they could have done it alone but with staggering casualties on both sides. So we did a good thing and helped save innumerable lives.

I further reiterate that if it were not for the entry of the US in world war 1, Germany and the allies would have fought to a stalemate and the harsh terms would not have been implemented and the Nazi Party would not have come into power but these arguments have already been made.

And this argument is becoming tedious.

 

@shootersa
One has to wonder why Roosevelt would have sacrificed the battleships and protected his unproven air craft carriers.

I don’t believe that he knew about the Pearl Invasion and was probably trying to lure Germany into an offensive action that would change American isolationist politics. The war department may have not been watching as carefully as it should. The US was already moving it’s navy more steadily to the Atlantic. Japan likely surprised him and one can’t help but notice that the war in Europe got first priority much to the consternation of many Americans.

I’m not sure if the carriers could be said to be unproven as they were already used in World war 1 just not as extensively or as modernly.

 

@Distant Lover
Are you saying that you think Roosevelt intentionally allowed the Pearl attack knowing it could have been stopped or mitigated in order to change public opinion? Almost 2500 people died that day!

 

In reading over this thread it struck me... Clearly, this is simply an attempt to re-write history.... I Mean honestly, who in their right mind, could even entertain the idea that Stalin was anything other then a mass murderer the likes of which this world has ever known. Who could argue with a straight face that Ol Vald is doing what's best for the people of the Russian Republic and not simply exercising his power like a 1950's mob boss....

 

Roosevelt wanted to provoke Germany or Japan into hitting us first. Sending weapons to the Soviet Union and helping the British Navy sink German U boats were acts of war. Hitler remembered how the United States entered World War I, and ordered his U boat commanders not to sink American destroyers even if they needed to to save their U boats.

Roosevelt also turned his attention to Japan. Back then the United States was an oil exporting country. The United States was selling Japan petroleum and scrap metal. Roosevelt stopped the United States from doing that and froze Japanese assets in the United States. He told the Japanese this would continue until Japan withdrew from China.

The Japanese attempted to negotiate with us a settlement that would enable them to remain in China and to once again get oil shipments. Without American oil the Japanese would need to conquer the Dutch East Indies - now called Indonesia - to get oil there. They thought that if they invaded the Dutch East Indies we would attack them.

Japanese diplomats in Washington, DC were ordered to present the United States with two proposals, the second milder than the first. Japanese diplomats in Washington, DC were told that if we rejected the second proposal "Things were going to start happening."

We knew all this because we had deciphered the code the Japanese were using. When we rejected the second proposal we knew the Japanese were going to hit us, but we did not know where. Some people thought they would attack the Panama Canal or the Philippines, but the Naval base at Pearl Harbor was a natural target.

I do not object to Roosevelt's efforts to get the United States into World War II. I do think he should have warned U.S. military detachments at the Philippines the Panama Canal, and Pearl Harbor.

I think that was an oversight on Roosevelt's part. He wanted the Japanese to hit us. He did not want the hit to be as devastating as it was.

 

Stalin was evil. Nevertheless, he successfully led the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. It is not clear to me that any other many who might have been leader of Russia at the time would have been able to do that.