few questions about ww2

[Amp34]

Cant be forcing you to fight all there battles that much

You lot never went to Vietnam. Did you even go to korea?

We had thousands in Korea, for example the best known battle was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Imjin_River

The bit that always struck me about this was that on their retreat the british tanks were literally hosing each other down with machine gun spray to get the chinese off them, when they got back there were apparently body parts/blood/flesh all over the tanks and tracks. Probably one of the bloodiest battles in history.

Also there were one or two British soldiers in Vietnam... (Although they weren't practically in the British army at the time...)

The point was when we declared war on the germans there was a time gap before we did anything.
Poland was gaining economic strength is east asia, they were starting to dominate much of the trade in that part of the world. which the US and british didnt like.

Never heard of Poand being that powerful a country before the war, however I may have a look see at that.

The debt that britain owed america from ww2 was immense, but if it hadnt been for americas industrial might ww2 would have been very different, america was able to put machinery and men into the war on a scale that no european country could match, i remember reading stephen ambrose's book citizen soldiers, were a german soldier taking part in the battle of the bulge remarked about the ability of the americans to supply their units in the field, he said that they captured an area were artillery shells were lined up on the road for 3km on both sides, and in his oral testimony, he said that his father fought in ww1, things were good till the americans came in, same in ww2, the minute america became involved in the war they could bring unprecidented firepower.

I disagree, it wasn't the industrial might of the Americans, it was (like the Russians, who literally packed up their factories and moved them east) the fact that they could manufacture with impunity (no bombs). The Nazi reich probably had a large manufacturing capacity during at least the start of the war (Probably only at the end of 1944 did they really have manufacturing problems).

One of the other downfalls of of the Germans was they were too technologically advanced in some ways, whereas the Americans pumped out cheap easily built (and TBH not particularly good) Shermans, the Germans were dribbling out Tigers, Panzers and King Tigers, which were far better tanks (4:1 was the ratio generally considered accurate, ie. 4 Shermans to take out a Tiger). German land equipment was generally better than the allied versions (eg the dreaded 88mm gun, which could take out almost any allied tank almost a km away, and was also very good as an anti personel weapon, as well as planes (it was originally designed as an antiaircraft weapon)), but more complicated, so when it broke down it was harder to fix and replace, which really became a problem in the latter days of the war, when air superiority and declining manufacturing output (due to the bombing) meant replacements and spares were almost impossible to come across.

Also remember that by the time the Americans troops and bulk of their material arrived in Europe the tide had started to turn. In North Africa the Germans were pushed right back and all but defeated just as the first Americans arrived (they helped mop up the remnants), and in Russia at about the same time the Battle of Stalingrad finished off the offensive capacities of the Germans in the East. The invasion of Britain had also been put off permenantly .Only in the invasion of Sicily did the Americans first see any real fighting.

All that is not to say they didn't pay an important part, they provided a lot of equipment to us, as their factories could work with impunity, and their manpower almost certainly ended the war earlier than it would have before. However we need to remember, even during the D-Day landings of 1944 British and commonwealth forces still outnumbered American troops (not that you ever seem to hear about non American involvement in the D-Day landings) and most of the equipment used was manufactured or originally from Britain.

IMO the war in europe actually became lost for the Germans the day they set foot on Russian soil. Their manpower and manufacturing might was a decisive factor in the winning the war in Europe.

If we talk about the war in the Far east however things change, the American industrial might and manpower was a decisive factor in winning that war. Britain had to transport things thousands of miles through hostile seas before being able to fight the Japanese and couldn't transfer that much because we had to defend the UK from invasion and fight in North Africa. Australia and the other eastern commonwealth nations fought bravely but didn't have the manpower of capacity to defeate the Japanese on their own, and equaly important, the Americans didn't have to transport all their equipment aound the world.

As for WW1, it's a simila story to WW2, the American armies arived after the decisive turning points and helped end the war quicker, partly due to the influx of fresh men and partly due to the influx of extra materials.

 

[mattheman]

The poles actually stopped the nazis from advancing, however later on they were attacked by the russians.

 

[SixTwoSix]

I just want to say that assuming the bulk of information in this thread is correct...thankyou. I've learnt a lot I didn't know upon reading through the last 10 minutes.

 

[mattheman]

We had thousands in Korea, for example the best known battle was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Imjin_River



Never heard of Poand being that powerful a country before the war, however I may have a look see at that.



.

After the 1st war poland started to pick itself up its economy was growing at an amazing rate, it was dealing it textiles with east asia and other tech. From what i can remember if given 40 years more they would have over taken the germans in industry. Plus one fact poland saved europe from islam.

 

[atpbx]

The fact that he chose to fight on two fronts, one of which was massively over extended, with poor supply lines and ill prepared equipment led to the German collapse.
Invading the UK was not as simple as chucking a load of troops on boats and invading, they didnt have sufficient sea assets having already sustained heavy loses, they couldn't gain air superiority so it was simply impossible to do.

Which is why they resorted to trying to starve us out with the wolf packs attacking the supply routes.

 

[Nix]

They did a lot of damage, the poles had a few squadrons all of them doing better that the british. What was sad about the invasion of poland by the germans was the russians invaded on the other side so really there wasnt any hope for the poles fighting back. If poland wasnt invaded they would have been a great country economically, and industrially.
Russia invaded poland because they felt humiliated when the poles invaded russia can't remember the full facts but poland was the only nation to ever invade russia talking control of all its western cities.
Anyway theres anther school of thought that the US and British wanted germany to invade poland and pushed them to do it, what they say is if ie britain said they would declare war on germany if they invaded poland how come they didnt say the same to russia?

Just to point out incase some are unaware: at the start of the war, Russia and Germany were allies having signed a secret non-aggression pact (NAP) prior to the invasion of Poland. This NAP - known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - is what effectively gave Hitler to go ahead to attack Poland; despite what Britain and France had to say on the matter, Hitler didn't really believe that the Allies would follow through with their ultimatum and Hitler also had Russia on his side. Of course, this relationship between Moscow and Berlin did eventually break-down roughly around the time Hitler decided to attack Russia too.

There is also an school of thought that partly blames Poland for starting the war in the first place as they refused to hand over part of their territory to Germany - probably as part of the lebensraum policy.

Of course, it very important for anyone who is unaware of their history to realise that the Germanic reaction and motivation for war was an almost inevitable consequence of the ridiculously unfair conditions set upon them after the Treaty of Versaille.

 

[ikillbears]

I read this the other day

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

quite interesting. This probably helped us win the most.

One question. I've always wandered how a germany would have been able to control such a huge amount of land, and people, had they successfully done in russia and us. French resistance did a jolly good job. Can't imagine that the Russians, and hell even us, wouldn't have just rolled over

 

[cheets64]

I still have this lot to read, published in 92/93 my Grandad kept it in mint condition, mosy of ti was never touched, keeping it in the family, I for one wont be sellling it.

Eeek