Worst moment in US history?

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

i think we couldnt of won without USSR maybe without the US but russia definitely NOT!. america enterred after we started the attack. UK would've of gave russia weapons the problem with the UK was lack of pilots not equipment

 

[amrtin77]

you think britain could have taken france back alone? if im not mistaken americans were half the invasion force.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Originally posted by amrtin77
you think britain could have taken france back alone? if im not mistaken americans were half the invasion force.

with the russians help... i dont think we would take france like that without america. i think we would've bombed the **** out of it first or waited longer and i dont think u can say america was exatly HALF of the invasion

 

[amrtin77]

i love the brittish pilots for holding out so long, if they had fallen there would BE no invasion.

we were half the invasion force... http://militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/overlord.aspx



and i did another quick search
http://www.p38lessonplan.com/dday.htm

"Six divisions were to land on the first day: three U.S., two British, and one Canadian. Two more British and one U.S. division were to follow up after the assault division had cleared the way through the beach defenses."

 

[bamthedoc]

If the US hadn't entered, Hitler would have taken his time invading the USSR. The Nazi supply lines would not have been stretched, and more countries in Europe and Africa would have been conquered adding more fighters to the Nazi army. There would also be a pincer attack against the USSR involving the Japanese, and Italy would have likely added to its fighting force and moved up from the south of the USSR.

I'd love to have seen the poorly trained, armed, and supplied USSR army survive that. Stalin killed so many farmers that the USSR food supply would have run out long before Hitler's desired time to invade Stalingrad and other major cities. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor caused Hitler to believe he needed to hurry up, despite tactical advice from his military advisors that it would not be a good idea as it would do what it did -- stretch supply lines.

 

[Kuzmich]

Yeah, and what would happen to US if Russia fell? US and other allies would have been over run by german tanks. We can make if then statements all we want but history remains the same. We had the biggest affect on war, we killed most Germans, and we took Berlin. And you were taking your time in Africa, then Red Army was holding against Hitler alone for 2 years. You say winter helped as i say you right but it also did ill to us, our people who were worse equiped then Germans were freezingat the same rate, our oil was just as freezeble. I am not saying that Russia could have won the war alone, i am just saying that against Germans we did most of the work.

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

Listen Otto, if USA was neutral and did not trade to either allies or axis, then the allied nations would have been screwed. Why? who supplied the Russians with technology, tanks, and guns? USA. Who helped feed the British when all their forms of economy were nearly destroyed? the USA. Britain held out because the Germans did not believe they could beat Britian by an Amphibious Assault. so they just wanted the British to surrender after continuous bombardments and starvation. a "seige." if britain had surrendered then and their, the whole entire west AND african front would have attacked Russia. and not just through poland, now with the British navy out of the war, the Germans would have been free to land ANYWHERE on russian borders along waterways. The Germans in africa would have attacked from southern Russia. So Virtually, Russia would be fighting about a 4 front war. Dont forget Japan would have been on the east and south east borders of russia. So if Britain fell, the battle for europe would be over, and all of Europe, Russia, Asia(most of it at least) and parts of africa would be speaking German/Japanese. Japan and Germany would have possibly duked it out, but I really doubt it because both nations would be far too busy trying to keep their newly conquered regions German or Japanese. And thats all if the British didnt survive the German onslaught. The United States would have never entered Europe had they not have a Foothold to stand on in europe. thats what Britain was.

Also, otto, i give the russians much kudos for their spyrings. without those spyrings throughout europe, you would have been screwed.

 

[Kuzmich]

Originally posted by LawrenceOfArabia
Listen Otto, if USA was neutral and did not trade to either allies or axis, then the allied nations would have been screwed. Why? who supplied the Russians with technology, tanks, and guns? USA. Who helped feed the British when all their forms of economy were nearly destroyed? the USA. Britain held out because the Germans did not believe they could beat Britian by an Amphibious Assault. so they just wanted the British to surrender after continuous bombardments and starvation. a "seige." if britain had surrendered then and their, the whole entire west AND african front would have attacked Russia. and not just through poland, now with the British navy out of the war, the Germans would have been free to land ANYWHERE on russian borders along waterways. The Germans in africa would have attacked from southern Russia. So Virtually, Russia would be fighting about a 4 front war. Dont forget Japan would have been on the east and south east borders of russia. So if Britain fell, the battle for europe would be over, and all of Europe, Russia, Asia(most of it at least) and parts of africa would be speaking German/Japanese. Japan and Germany would have possibly duked it out, but I really doubt it because both nations would be far too busy trying to keep their newly conquered regions German or Japanese. And thats all if the British didnt survive the German onslaught. The United States would have never entered Europe had they not have a Foothold to stand on in europe. thats what Britain was.

You are wrong you have not supplied as with tanks or guns, we would not share our technology you did however supply us with provisions but we made our own stuff too. Again you say if then satements, we talking about history, it is what already happened you can't change it. Do you truly think that if Russia was defeated then other allies would survive? Do you think that Hitler would not have invaded US, dont forget that at a time US didnt have the most powerful army, Germans did. Think about it. US and UK did have major effect on the war, there is no argument about it, its just we did most of the actual killing and fighting and dying.

 

[bamthedoc]

Originally posted by Otmorosok
Yeah, and what would happen to US if Russia fell? US and other allies would have been over run by german tanks. We can make if then statements all we want but history remains the same. We had the biggest affect on war, we killed most Germans, and we took Berlin. And you were taking your time in Africa, then Red Army was holding against Hitler alone for 2 years. You say winter helped as i say you right but it also did ill to us, our people who were worse equiped then Germans were freezingat the same rate, our oil was just as freezeble. I am not saying that Russia could have won the war alone, i am just saying that against Germans we did most of the work.

I can't disagree that the US would have lost if the USSR was crushed as the Axis Powers would have had a beeline into the US. That, however, is only true if the US had remained neutral.

As for "most of the work"... No. You have to take into consideration who made the arms. The US made the arms killing the Nazis, and the USSR service men wielded them. Stalin's mad rage would have doomed the Red Army had he not had fits of sanity -- requesting US aid and such.

The US did most of the work in WWII. The US conquered Western Europe, Northern Africa, and the Pacific. The Pacific Theater was done alone, too. It's true that the Red army was able to infiltrate Berlin less than a day quicker, but it was due to a concerted effort, not a lone one.

 

[BluddLuSt4Life]

Yes, and also the red army was going balls to the wall for Berlin with no regard to casualties or losses. Stalins mad rage showing itself again, though I agree with most of your statement Otmo. Also, the US and Britian did alot of the work crushing the luftwaffe, Hitler kept sending planes against our bombers even when it was obvious that they couldnt be stopped, and took heavy losses in doing so. That helped alot, once the Red Army had air superiority on the eastern front they were unstoppable. It was definitly a team effort.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

why does everyone say that stalin was insane?? The US didnt do most the work i completely disagree with that statement and the pacific wasnt alone the british DID help with that too.. US didnt really help russia THAT much with arnaments ect. For inexplicable reasons, the U.S. did not arm the ships, nor provide escorts or air cover, nor organize convoys along the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts or in the Caribbean. Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King was responsible for this inaction. The U.S. Government did not order a blackout of seacoast cities until June 1942, leaving ships silhouetted against the shoreline. Allied ships were "sitting ducks" for the well-armed U-Boats lurking in U.S. coastal waters. U.S. beaches soon became littered with bodies and burned-out ships.

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
The U.S. Government did not order a blackout of seacoast cities until June 1942, leaving ships silhouetted against the shoreline. Allied ships were "sitting ducks" for the well-armed U-Boats lurking in U.S. coastal waters. U.S. beaches soon became littered with bodies and burned-out ships.

You are referring to Operation Drumbeat? Yes? During those attacks, it didnt matter if a black-out was mandated. For it could not be completely enforced. Even when it was enforced, it could not be completely done, they could still see the lights from miles off. They had us bad, we were completely at the Germans mercy at that point. It was a very smart move on the Germans part.

But what does this have to do with the US helping out the USSR? For you could just as easily say that the USSR didnt help out the US...

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

All i meant was that most of the supplies that were sent didnt exactly arrive.. its just a lot of americans say that USSR couldnt of won without the supplies that the americans sent..

 

[Lights]

Honestly, the USSR may have won without American supplies, but not without our "physical" help. THink about it. Russia is smack-dab in the middle of Germany and Japan. Had we not been a part, Japan would not have been pre-ocupied with us in the Pacific, thus focusing on their western front. The German could have also put more force on thier eastern front. As it was, the USSR only survived by the the skin of their teeth, think about how much worse it would have been....

Then again, I dont know if America could have survived the full force of the both powers, even with an ocean between us.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Agreed nothing wrong with anything you said.. but they went exactly in the middle of them

 

[bamthedoc]

I keep saying Stalin was insane because, well, he was. Like Hitler, Linon, and many other dictators I can name. You don't think that killing millions of his own citizens just to threaten his people into fighting isn't insane? He killed farmers and civilians during a time they would have been absoluetly neccessary.

As for US arms getting to the USSR, FDR definatly did his best to ensure that, at least, guns got to them. The USSR's part in the war is most remembered for its ground combat. They didn't have air or naval power, even to the scale of the UK. As per US naval versus Nazi U-Boat, the US was starting to take advantage of new radar that was developed, and U-Boats were really starting to take a beating. Then a joint US and UK effort captured a decoder, and that saved not only US and UK boats. It also saved the sorely outnumbered USSR naval boats -- which were in very short supply as boats were not part of the US agreement with the USSR.

One of the major reasons the USSR was able to even invade Nazi Germany was an airplane that was called something to the effect of the "god of the sky" by the USSR Red Army. The Super Fortress, as it was known in the US, was the biggest worker in WWII. The bombs it dropped allowed ground forces to move faster and farther, and that included the Red Army.

 

[Mark4]

US was f***** from the start. It is my point of view you can tackle me just go ahead but remember that I am blaming the history of your nation the part of which you are not really related to at all.


My argument is simple.

United States of America was established by merciless slaughter of the native indians which is until now to be almost completely disregarded. The whole start, the whole damn unilateral approach brought on by Columbus and the settlements marked by their "pioneer" spirit was worst for it triggered all the other dismal moments in U.S history.
I am not saying that there is nothing the U.S has done that is to be praised.

 

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Quest
All is Fair in love and war... just ask the UN. Did Japan give China a "chance". I think what we did to Japan was for the best. kill alot of people in 2 nuke strikes, or sweep though japan and cause massive casualites on both sides. http://www.ratatak.com/modules/news....php?storyid=52
this is what japan did to china

OMG!!!
they made Chinese people draw disturbing anime amputee porn... those bastards

that link shouldn't be there... i think i'll pm someone

 

[Kuzmich]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
I can't disagree that the US would have lost if the USSR was crushed as the Axis Powers would have had a beeline into the US. That, however, is only true if the US had remained neutral.

As for "most of the work"... No. You have to take into consideration who made the arms. The US made the arms killing the Nazis, and the USSR service men wielded them. Stalin's mad rage would have doomed the Red Army had he not had fits of sanity -- requesting US aid and such.

The US did most of the work in WWII. The US conquered Western Europe, Northern Africa, and the Pacific. The Pacific Theater was done alone, too. It's true that the Red army was able to infiltrate Berlin less than a day quicker, but it was due to a concerted effort, not a lone one.

Once again you didnt supply as with guns or tanks, you supplied as with transportation, and food. And we did do most work, we killed most Germans we actually invaded China and relieved some of the presure in your war with Japan. We killed most Germans if we didnt do that then those troops would go to western front and that means bye bye free world, all hail Hitler

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Originally posted by amrtin77
i love the brittish pilots for holding out so long, if they had fallen there would BE no invasion.

we were half the invasion force... http://militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/overlord.aspx



and i did another quick search
http://www.p38lessonplan.com/dday.htm

"Six divisions were to land on the first day: three U.S., two British, and one Canadian. Two more British and one U.S. division were to follow up after the assault division had cleared the way through the beach defenses."

Sorry who i quoted something that was posted a long time ago... If canada was owned by britain then british forces would of been the majourity of the attack. lol @ using inflatable tanks to fool the germans . I found something out the other day my great grandad was shot in the 1st world war, he was a bugleneer (dont know how to spell it..) you know the guy with the horn to sound a attack.. a bullet bounced off the bugle and hit my great grandfather in the shoulder (luckily he didnt die).