|
Posts:
2
From:
Murrieta, Ca
Registered:
10/28/09
|
|
(1 of 71)
How close we were to losing WWII?
Oct 28, 2009 12:45 PM
|
There was a book published in the 70's on how close we were to losing WWII. This book was brought to my attention by my mother and had some very interesting facts on exactly that.
Can anyone help me in at least knowing who the author was or even the book would be greatly appreciated thank you in advance.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,829
From:
Melbourne, Australia.
Registered:
10/3/02
|
|
(2 of 71)
Re: How close we were to losing WWII?
Oct 28, 2009 2:30 PM
|
Not within a bull's roar of it, not EVER!
Germany and Japan were DOOMED the day they started it.
Thanks to Rosie and her mates.
John
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(3 of 71)
Oct 28, 2009 2:41 PM
|
... after the attack on Pearl Navy and War dept ops were formulated on the presumption the Allies would ultimately be victorious; the trick was to do it in the least amount of time
I'm sure there are some posters here who will provide evidence of the Allies' missteps -- SSD
|
|
|
Posts:
2,104
From:
Oklahoma City
Registered:
4/9/03
|
|
(4 of 71)
Re: How close we were to losing WWII?
Oct 28, 2009 3:33 PM
|
|
I think that we were far from losing WWII provided the Russian stayed in the European Theater of the war. However we would have won in Europe quickly after the Pacific War ended with or without the Russian.
|
|
|
Posts:
425
Registered:
11/15/08
|
|
(5 of 71)
Re: How close we were to losing WWII?
Oct 28, 2009 5:03 PM
|
However we would have won in Europe quickly after the Pacific War ended with or without the Russian.
Really? You have some arguments or do we just have to take your word on it?
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Murrieta, Ca
Registered:
10/28/09
|
|
(6 of 71)
Re: How close we were to losing WWII?
Oct 28, 2009 6:13 PM
|
So it be said in history as it happened. But in all fairness we were to the brink of losing the war. Many factors, Mistakes could have cost us the war. Though we did prevail but there was a book that pointed out key factors that would have faulted our victory to the war.
WW2 was won but in any case there are key points to victory and fortunately we took the right paths to fortify it. I though am interested in knowing of this book and encourage others to take a read of it to see the validity on how it would have been possible. It is true though it would have taken a slight edge on any part of the war to have reversed the outcome. Was just curious to see what factors were to take into consideration of it.
Again I am trying as hard as I can to find this information out and would be generous of that person who may know of the book to help out. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,147
From:
U S
Registered:
1/26/02
|
|
(7 of 71)
Oct 28, 2009 7:21 PM
|
Who is "we"? The United Nations (USSR, Britain, U. S., etc. Any individual member or group of members of the United Nations?
Which members of the Axis were the potential winners? All or some?
Tom
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(8 of 71)
history is the argument...
Oct 29, 2009 4:53 AM
|
... admittedly the Sovs carried the load against the Nazis and perhaps the poster meant the Allies would've prevailed quickly against the Tojoists once the Nazis had surrendered; however re the Pacific war you must check me if I'm wrong here:
1.the Sovs assisted the Air Corps by detaining some of COL Doolittle's Tokyo-raid crews for the duration, billing State room & board while receiving Lend-Lease aid
2.if memory serves the Sovs didn't declare war on Japan until ~May 1945; was there some declaration of support by the presidium we don't know about?
SSD
|
|
|
Posts:
6,344
Registered:
2/27/03
|
|
(9 of 71)
Re: history is the argument...
Oct 29, 2009 5:49 AM
|
1.the Sovs assisted the Air Corps by detaining some of COL Doolittle's Tokyo-raid crews for the duration, billing State room & board while receiving Lend-Lease aid
One five-man crew landed at/near Vladivostok. Strictly speaking the Soviets were doing their duty under international law as a neutral nation with regard to the US-Japan war.
One very good reason for strictly observing neutrality was that Japan did the same thing in allowing Lend-Lease shipments - which everyone knew were for use against her "ally" Germany - pass through her waters. This comprised almost half of all LL to the Soviets. While we call it "aid", keeping the Soviets in the war was a good deal for us too - every "coffin for seven brothers" we sent them was one seven of our brothers didn't have to man.
The USSR declared war on Japan August 8 and immediately launched a well-prepared offensive which quicklly overran Manchuria. This was three months after the defeat of Germany, as agreed at Yalta; at that point we thought we would need Soviet help to defeat Japan.
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(10 of 71)
Oct 29, 2009 6:17 AM
|
|
thanks for the clarification -- SSD
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(11 of 71)
I too would be interested...
Oct 29, 2009 6:55 AM
|
... to read about those specific circumstances that put the Allies at the brink of defeat
I've adopted the mindset of evaluating (in my admittedly rudimentary fashion) Allied missteps as to how they prolonged ops, not v-a-v bringing about defeat
imo the Allies could only have been finally defeated by gross and continued mismanagement -- SSD
|
|
|
Posts:
5,015
From:
Seattle Area
Registered:
5/6/03
|
|
(12 of 71)
Re: I too would be interested...
Oct 29, 2009 7:29 AM
|
I haven't read the book alluded to in the original post, and without knowing the name of the book or the author it's hard to speculate on it's contents.
But everything else I've read shows that the Allies had an overwhelming advantage in terms of material resources, manpower, and industrial capacity. This ultimately doomed the axis. On a purely military basis they could have fended off the Alllies at one point or another, but the first significant failure would result in a cascading or domino effect, as it brought down other factors.
In particular, both Japan and Germany relied heavily on oil from far outside it's borders to fuel their military machines, and that was a crucial vulnerability which would have been obvious to even the most obtuse Allied commander. Once that oil supply is interrupted, everything else starts to fall apart - replacement pilots can't train, fleet operations are curtailed, logistics shipments (food, armamants, medicine, troops) become increasingly difficult, and domestic production of war goods begins to fall. It creates a cascading effect on every other aspect of the war.
It reminds me a bit of the American Civil War. Robert E. Lee of the Confederacy was almost always outnumbered and outgunned in his battles, but won victory after victory due to basic good generalship, one of the finest and most highly motivated "light infantry" of the era, and a willingness to take risks which would have caused others to pale. But he knew that the longer the war lasted, the more the odds were stacked against him - the Confederacy couldn't prevail against the larger population and much larger industrial capacity of the northern states. Even great victories, such as the one at Chancellorsville, caused Gen. Longstreet to remark that the Confederacy couldn't survive many more victories, won at so great a cost. The "deadly math" (as Lincoln coined the term) required Lee to take even bigger risks - such as at Gettysburg. After Gettysburg, the days of the Confederacy were clearly numbered, it was just a question of how long it would take to die. Even after achieving a draw at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor, Lee couldn't keep the noose from tightening around his neck.
The situation of the Germans and Japanese were similar to that of the Confederacy. They could still exact fearful costs upon the Allies in bitter defensive battles, but they were irrevokably on the long downward slope. The longer the war lasted, the worse their situation became. Militarily, the war could not be won by the Axis.
The only hope for the Axis was in the diplomatic arena, being able to reduce the overwhelming industrial capacity and manpower advantage of the Allies by breaking them apart from one another. Hitler tried that repeatedly in his propoganda campaigns, hoping for a break between the Soviets and the western Allies, or between the Americans and the British. It was a vain hope, because all the differences between the Allies combined paled in comparison to their determination to defeat their common foe.
The Allies could lose battle after battle, and then come back again and again. The Germans and the Japanese had to win EVERY battle, in order to keep from losing the war.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,104
From:
Oklahoma City
Registered:
4/9/03
|
|
(13 of 71)
Re: How close we were to losing WWII?
Oct 29, 2009 11:07 AM
|
Soviet Justice wrote: However we would have won in Europe quickly after the Pacific War ended with or without the Russian. Really? You have some arguments or do we just have to take your word on it?
Remey's reply:
Argument No. Don't need one, I know my history of WWII! At the end of WWII's Pacific Theater, The U.S. had an incredible USAAF stationed in the Pacific and the A-Bomb to boot. If we needed more we had a large number of naval air groups and ships. More importantly at that time our manufacturing capacity was full bore and untouched by enemy bombers. Germany was aware of Hiroshima. Germany's war industry and transportation had been bombed by by our USAAF and the British for so long that they couldn't move material and weapons around in their own country. Two months of around the clock bombing of Germany in late 1945 would be sufficient for them to throw in the towel IMO.
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(14 of 71)
Germany was aware of Hiroshima...
Oct 29, 2009 11:19 AM
|
... since by August 1945 the Allies had occupied Germany for the past three months
in MASTERS & COMMANDERS the author writes that after it was clear the Nazis were defeated Britain began to lobby for an increased naval role in the Pacific; the position of both the CNO and CINCPAC were that integrating another force would actually slow the advance to Japan -- interesting to contemplate that if it came to pass the Sovs actually were ready to operate against Japan they may have been rebuffed from a strictly strategic pov
SSD
|
|
|
Posts:
171
Registered:
5/6/09
|
|
(15 of 71)
Re: How close we were to losing WWII?
Oct 29, 2009 12:10 PM
|
I don't see any way "we" could have lost the war. If you look at the splitting of the U.S. military might and think in terms of consolidating it "if " something started going really wrong in one arena..,I don't see how we could have lost.
Suppose..,that after Pearl ( and Germany declaring war on us ), we just ignore Germany ( like they don't already have their hands full ) and concentrate everything on Japan. I think Japan is done in less than a year. From there, everything gets utilized against Germany. With all of the U.S. forces and the Brit allies on one side and Russia on the other.., Germany pops like a ripe pimple.
|
|
|
|
|
