Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:51 amwoof woof ! wrote:Judge wrote:bavlondon wrote:They didnt join in to just bail us out but they bailed everyone out.
bav. america joined with us as they had been hit by japan at pearl harbor.
i reckon the americans would never had joined the war effort in europe if it werent for the japanese.
secondly, we'd been fighting germany for 2 years before they came along (they always turn up late for wars). Seriuosly though, we'd have still beaten the germans albeit over a longer term by ourselves.
Goering was asked what he needed to win air supremacy over the brits. His reply was ''give me several squadrons of SPITFIRES''.
Rommel also said of our lads - the fighting grit is one to be respected
Sorry Judge, I have to disagree.
The best we could have hoped for in the long term, fighting Nazi Germany alone would have been a truce followed by a diplomatic settlement. No way could we have beaten Nazi Germany without the aid (food and munitions) provided by the Americans.
The American government wanted to join the war far earlier than they did but the general populace was against it. After WWI America adpoted an isonaionlist policy , ie let the Europeans sort out their own sh'it why should we bleed for them. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour swung public opinion and the US at last entered the war. To their credit the Americans then gave priority to the war in Europe over the war against Japan.
Lets not forget however the 20 million plus Russians who died fighting in WW2. If anything won the war it was American material coupled with Russian blood.
Do any of you guys actually study history or do you just go with the movies you've seen ? .
obviously those guys teaching me and my colleagues military history are wrong then woof. or perhaps the brits had an inflated view of what they can achieve at that time!!
i do agree we were supplied by the US, but in fighting terms they were hauled into the war by the japanese