Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu May 19, 2011 12:40 pm

Alex:

I think the matter of |superflous involvement of the US| is rather silly. Without the US, the USSR would have lost quickly and definitively the war.
They were supported by huge amounts of raw materials, equipment and even caned food by the US...


Without the US both, USSR and GB would have lost or would have to negotiate a settlement with Hitler. And without the USSR and GB the US would have never been able to even engage Germany. Can you imagine hitting the beaches at Normandy and the Germans being all over France with the whole complement of Waffen SS divisions, the GrossDeutschland, the 11th Panzer and the infrantry that was deployed by then at Russia? Ike would have submitted that letter of his by mid morning, June 6th.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby alecsandros » Thu May 19, 2011 1:36 pm

I just wanted to underline that there is a short and easy answer to the question in the title of the thread: "NO"

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby Bgile » Thu May 19, 2011 5:21 pm

neil hilton wrote:Good Lord! Sorry for causing such an uproar (it is a good argument though isn't it)?

The quote from the US infantry training manual I made was from a TV documentary about infantry weapons and tatcics from ww2, can't remember what it was called but it was part of a series. I remember the program showing pages of the manual, it was a junior officer training manual from 1944 (for the invasion of France and including lessons learned in North Africa and Scicily and Italy). It described how German infantry and armour were organised into 'battlegroups' and how they attacked and defended positions etc. And how the US infantry should act or react according to the situation.
The manual stated that US infantry should never attack German infantry unless they had clear numerical superiority and tactically advantageous terrain.


It isn't a good idea to attack anyone without those advantages.

From what I've read the USMC island hoping campaign in the Pacific, I can't think of an instance where they didn't go in without Superior Firepower Doctrine in mind, except during the middle part of the Guadalcanal operation (which was the only time as far as I know where the Japanese ever outnumbered the US, which they promptly blew by doing a ww1 style frontal assault into MGs). In all the other island invasions of the Pacific the US massively outnumbered the defending Japanese and always had 16" naval gun support and large numbers of naval aviation support.
If somebody can find an example where this wasn't the case I like to hear it.


I can't quote entire books as an example. It isn't practical. The naval gunfire preparation had little effect on the Japanese. They dug in and didn't come out again until the Marines came ashore. They suffered very few casualties from the naval bombardment. Read about Iwo Jima, or Peliliu. Once they came ashore the nature of the terrain was such that naval gunfire couldn't be used ... the Marines were too close to the Japanese and/or the Japanese were in defilade positions. On Okinawa, there were too many beaches to defend effectively so the Japanese set up their defenses inland and the naval prep fires hit nothing but empty land. After Okinawa the 1st Marine Division was no longer combat effective. Most of the men were casualties or suffering combat fatigue .... pyscologically unfit for duty. Fighting an enemy who absolutely will not surrender and fights to the death every single time can wear you down.

On another note: Dauntless vs Barracuda (1943) weren't the USN still using Dauntlesses in '43? When did the Helldiver replace it?

PS: Where did I say 'fanatical troops are better'?


What you said, after describing how wonderful German troops were and how they would fight to the death (as though that was somehow an advantage) was that Soviet troops became fanatical while US troops cared about survival as though the latter is somehow a disadvantage. The clear implication through the paragraph is that fanatical is good.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Fri May 20, 2011 12:55 am

Alex:

I just wanted to underline that there is a short and easy answer to the question in the title of the thread: "NO"


You are correct.

I am just pointing out that the argument goes both ways. You know that I don't like the commies a bit neither... and those that help them...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Fri May 20, 2011 3:41 am

Byron:

Dupuy's conclusions on the superior battlefield effectiveness of German soldiers against their opponents in the field paralleled those of van Creveld.

Considering that Dupuy was the only analyst to more or less accurately predict the outcome, duration, and respective casualty rates of Desert Storm, his analysis must be considered to hold some value.


Yes, according to this United States Colonel (ret) that wrote some 50 works on warfare and US military history the Germans troops were about 20 to 30% more efficient than the US ones. Curious that US officers that study military history as Glantz, Willbeck or Dupuy all came to certain conclusions that put "common wisdom" at stakes and destroy myths. It's a shame that none of them ever studied battleships with Friedman or Raven. I can imagine the books they could have written...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby alecsandros » Fri May 20, 2011 7:13 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote: You know that I don't like the commies a bit neither... and those that help them...

INdeed... they were one of humanities biggest plagues...

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby dunmunro » Fri May 20, 2011 7:46 am

My father, who was quite far to the right in his political leanings and who was also in the infantry in WW2, used to thank God for the Red Army every day, because he and most of his buddies knew that most of the German Army was elsewhere, namely on the eastern front getting their buts kicked.

The USSR was the Commonwealth's and the USA's ally during WW2.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby alecsandros » Fri May 20, 2011 9:46 am

... And that's quite understandable in the given circumstances.
However, had your father been a Ukrainian , he would have said thank God for the Germans...

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3096
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby dunmunro » Fri May 20, 2011 10:38 am

alecsandros wrote:... And that's quite understandable in the given circumstances.
However, had your father been a Ukrainian , he would have said thank God for the Germans...


I think you are getting very close to trying to justify Nazism, and I want you to know that many people find that kind of talk to be extremely offensive and in some countries it is potentially illegal. The Nazis murdered millions of Ukrainians and considered all Ukrainians to be subhuman slavs, fit only to be slaves in the Nazi new order.

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pa ... kraine.htm

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby Byron Angel » Fri May 20, 2011 12:47 pm

dunmunro wrote:
alecsandros wrote:... And that's quite understandable in the given circumstances.
However, had your father been a Ukrainian , he would have said thank God for the Germans...


I think you are getting very close to trying to justify Nazism, and I want you to know that many people find that kind of talk to be extremely offensive and in some countries it is potentially illegal. The Nazis murdered millions of Ukrainians and considered all Ukrainians to be subhuman slavs, fit only to be slaves in the Nazi new order.

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pa ... kraine.htm



..... With all due respect, I disagree with your reaction to Alecsandros. The gratitude of an individual who unintentionally benefits from some action by another party of odious nature does not equate to an endorsement of the odious agent. Stalin did not direct the Red Army to fight the Germans in order to make your father's burden lighter, yet it produced that effect indirectly; your father's gratitude for that did not constitute an endorsement of Communism and the gulags. The gratitude of the Ukrainians, no matter how short-lived, that the invading German army had thrown off the Communist yoke under which the Ukraine had cruelly suffered likewise did not equate to an endorsement of Nazism and death camps. In both cases, gratitude was directed toward the beneficial consequences of the acts; in neither case can the expressed gratitude be interpreted in any way as an embrace of the agents thereof.

B

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Fri May 20, 2011 1:07 pm

Let's remember that it has been Stalin (and Mao) and not Hitler the greatest war criminals and genocides of the XX Century and Humankind. And it is not a ilegal or criminal to speak in their favor in the same countries of Europe where it is ilegal to do so on the Germans or deny Holocaust (which I find rather amazing, being a true event why to deny it be a crime?, the only thing achieved is fuel up the deniers in the first place).

In many historical accounts whole eastern populations withdraw with the Germans in order to avoid Soviet occupation. And as I said, many countries like Romania that were not occupied by the nazis ended up occupied by the soviets with a "go ahead" from FDR and the seriously morally flawed western allies (Winston Churchill never liked the idea but it was Democrat FDR and Eleanor those that had the money and the weapons). So, there it is: the USA ended up building the empire of it's own enemy and helping ensalve tens of millions under Stalin's grip.

Being Poland the greatest example: the war started to defend them and at the end they were left at the mercy of an animal, which is why the US flooded the libraries and TVs with "Why we fight stuff" avoiding that particular and most significant chapter of shame and hipocrecy. Where and how those brave Polish airborne soldiers that fought alongside the US and GB spent their old days and died? In Warsaw? Nope: General Stanilav Sosawosky, the same guy that save the day for Monty's incredibly flawed plan at Arnhem and those British paratroopers, died in Britain working as a factory worker because his country was occupied by the commies. But the call was to defeat the Nazis and free Poland. Ask about that to Pope John Paul II who finaly liberated them with the help of the only US President the knew what he was doing: Ronald Reagan.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby RF » Fri May 20, 2011 6:08 pm

Exactly - before the US even got into the war officially.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby alecsandros » Fri May 20, 2011 7:43 pm

dunmunro wrote:I think you are getting very close to trying to justify Nazism...


I'm sorry you think that way; this is not what I meant. Just that opinions about the historical super-powers are very relative... For instance, the Ukrainians received the Germans as liberators in 1941...

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby lwd » Fri May 20, 2011 7:50 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I know you like to makie yours Bgile's arguments and mistakes when he is under flak, but in this particular case you should leave him alone. He made an incredible unaccurate statement that you curiously choose to ignore and instead started your misleading tactics against my points.

I wasn't supporting him I was pointing out that your counter argments were flawed.
As for the points done, they stand and they are quite explicit and clear.

That may be but it doesn't mean that they are correct.
Historical facts show something you don't want to see becuase will destroy yoour hollywoodian world and that's it.

Even if you have all the facts right if you use flawed logic your conclusions are likely flawed. When the problem is the logic (and this includes interpretation of facts) then there is no point in reposting the facts.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Was US participation in WWII superfluous?

Postby alecsandros » Fri May 20, 2011 7:52 pm

And another thing, Duncan: by the very type of judgment you made above, you are very close to justifying Communism, which is very offensive and illegal in several countries, including my own. Communism was officialy condemned here in 2006 and its torturers and executioners (the ones that are still alive at least) are slowly but surely put on trial.

This being said, I hope we can resume discussing about the main idea of the thrread...


Return to “World War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest