The Gooner Forum

stg wrote:Sorry back to WW2. Just think how many lives ect the USA could of saved if they had acted on British and Chinese Intelligence about Japan?

The issue of British intelligence is intriguing. I have heard claims that both the U.S. chose not act on the warnings of foreign intelligence surces and that in fact foreign intelligence sources had withheld ciritcal information about Japanese intentions in the Pacific. Either way it is easy to see the motive in either scenario was a highly cynical and frankly cold-blooded calculation to give justification for the U.S. to enter the war as quickly as possible by that time. Whichever version one wishes to believ no one involved can be proud of that set of actions even if one can argue the old "ends justify the means" chestnut applies again.

stg wrote:Yes true the UK would probably of not lasted much longer without the intervention of the U.S milatry and they helped us keep our freedom from the Germans but at a high cost and one that the U.S have used to there advantage over the years. The U.S lend/lease terms were scrapped in 1945(after promising not to do so in 1943) and the UK had to buy any equipment/food ect the U.S had loaned the UK(it was at a reduced rate) this loan was eventually paid off in 2006. The UK had to defer some payments over the years during times of financial hardship. The so called special friendship was mainly a one way friendship with the U.S goverment leaning on the debt owed by the UK

Unfiortunately most "special friendships" are that way when money gets involved. The U.S. like England has many moments of purported pride that when you scratch the surface are hardly anything to be proud of, including some of the deeper realties beneath our "special relationship" with England. We may insist that all men are created equal but only a fool deny would deny that a certain group of Americans are born a tiny bit more equal than the rest, and they tend to be behind the real history we don't like to talk about as much beneath the history we are proud to embrace.

stg wrote:The U.S manufacturing output increased from 30% to 50% of the worlds output after 1945 with Europe being it's main buyer which helped the U.S become the super power it became. Many experts belive the U.S goverment of the 1940's delibratly held back from joining the war in Europe. They were talks held in the U.S to try and broker a deal with Hitler if they thought that a European allied victory would not happen.

Hitler declared war on the U.S in 1941 as he had already made a pact with Japan, Germany could not produce many items needed for it's war machine(mainly rubber) and had made a trade pact with Japan who took control of many rubber plantations ect after invading the Dutch east indies and other countries in the Pacific.

There was great desire not to fight in Europe here - although there was also great desire to do so as the war in Europe moved forward. But you head groups like the German-American Bund as well as political leaders like Joseph Kennedy Sr who clearly wanted to stay out of war with Germany at all costs.. Still I think the talks you refer to are more or less a trial balloon than an actual undertaking once the war was underway. I think their motive was actually fear and suspicion of Soviet Russia even as the Soviets became our Allies.

Well one thing is for sure US martin doesnt know his history.

If the USA had not come into the war the difference wouldnt be that great. As has been said if it was not for the Russians the war would have been lost, in fact almost 80% of all nazis killed were by the russians. As for the english speaking german, you could not be more wrong.

The fact is that hitler was willing to move out of western europe in a deal that would see the release of Rudlolf Hess from scotland, and the west not oppose a german invasion of russia......Churchill told hitler to fuck himself.

You seem to forget that the us not only invested in hitlers germany but sold them arms too.

But quite frankly the fact this thread got on to the war in only beievable in the era of us martin......you may know a lot of figures from our club, but you clearly dont know history.

The Russians saved the war not the USA.

On the whole liverpool situation, which is what the thread is about. Im amazed and love the irony of all day yesterday our screens were filled constantly by that banner that said.

Built by shanks

Broke by yanks

and then they're all standing outside anfeild saying yeah the new owner is good news......yet he is a yank.

Built by Shanks

Broke by Yanks

Happy with the New Yanks.

What is actually the problem??????

In summary... Scousers caused the 2nd World War and say it was all Hitlers fault

flash gunner wrote:In summary... Scousers caused the 2nd World War and say it was all Hitlers fault

Nearly right-Taken from STG's hidden world history available in no good bookshops anywhere

In Early 1914 Liverpool were on a tour of Serbia, here they were ment to play a couple of matches verses a Russian side managed by Tzar Nicholas, a team from Austria managed by Franz Ferdinand and a Serbian nationalist side managed by Gavrilo Princip. During the Liverpool v Austria game there was some crowd trouble with fans entering the stadium by pushing through the gates and missiles being thrown inside the stadium. The Liverpool supporters blamed a section of Serbain supporters even though they were 100 miles away watching the Russia v Serbia game.

Serbia complained to to Liverpool about the accusations but they said it was the Austrian's fault for having to many forged tickets on sale. The Serbian manager stormed into Ferdinands office to demand an answer. When he slamed the door shut Ferdinands shotgun which was hanging above the door fell to the ground firing one shot which killed Ferdinand dead. Which in turn lead to the first world war....

On December the 25th 1914 all fighting stopped on the western fount and a game of football broke out. A little known Austrian by the name of Adolf Hitler who had just transferd from the 1st Austrian brigade to the Royal Liverpool artillary wanted to play he was put on the bench by the Liverpool manager Lord Haig, he was promised 5 mins at the end of the game but he did not get on as a young French player was picked to go on instead, young DeGaul missed a sitter in injury time and the allied team lost 5-4 on pens. Hitler vowed that he would never play for Liverpool again and joined the German team. And we all know where that landed up

northbankbren wrote:Well one thing is for sure US martin doesnt know his history.

If the USA had not come into the war the difference wouldnt be that great. As has been said if it was not for the Russians the war would have been lost, in fact almost 80% of all nazis killed were by the russians. As for the english speaking german, you could not be more wrong.

The fact is that hitler was willing to move out of western europe in a deal that would see the release of Rudlolf Hess from scotland, and the west not oppose a german invasion of russia......Churchill told hitler to fuck himself.

You seem to forget that the us not only invested in hitlers germany but sold them arms too.

But quite frankly the fact this thread got on to the war in only beievable in the era of us martin......you may know a lot of figures from our club, but you clearly dont know history.

The Russians saved the war not the USA.

Fecking leftie and communist-loving bastard!!!

flash gunner wrote:In summary... Scousers caused the 2nd World War and say it was all Hitlers fault

Brilliant!!!

The US was definately a big part in enabling the invasion and total defeat of Germany in 1945. But the fact remains that Hitler had turned his attention east even before the spectics got involved, if he could've diverted the armies who were occupied fighting the yanks and the Brits in the west eastward he may have been able to halt the soviet advance and prolong the war. Its theoretical and we'll never know for sure.

But the fact remains that the US not getting involved in the war in Europe probably wouldn't have led directly to absolute German victory, at least not in the short term, the Russian winter had seen to that.

I'm sorry but there are some people on here that haven't got a scooby about history beyond what some conspiracy sites and some politically motivated books have told them!

Apart from STG. You have covered most of the points correctly.

Bren you are miles off the mark, mate. There is absolutely no proof that Russians killed 80% of Nazis. Most Germans that died on the Eastern Front died of cold, starvation and disease, not gunfire.

The following quote smacks wildly of the "Britain saved the world and no one helped us" brigade that also seem to include so many of your secondary school teachers unfortunately!

LyusN1 wrote: Actually, you were good for surprisingly little. By the time the US decided to enter the war and actually help us, Hitler had already turned his attention to the Eastern front and Russia. We had already weathered the Blitz and the best that the German war machine could throw at us and really only had Doodlebugs left to look forward to - if we are being overly simplistic.

Indeed some Americans DID help us when we actually needed it, i.e. the Battle of Britain, but they did so regardless of the fact that the US Government threatened to revoke their citizenship. Decent people they were to fly in the face of their government and nation and help us. Even then there were probably only about 20 or so.

The US only entered the war when it suited them, when we had stood alone when the rest of Europe had fallen, and still contributed very little man power - a fair amount of whom were actually were trained over here by the British Army and not in the camps like Band of Brothers.

Where to start with this one! Yes, Britain did stand almost alone - but let's not forget the French/Chzeck/Polish/Dutch/GERMAN etc Resistance, huh? Or the fact that much of the food/ammo/materiel etc that kept Britain going was shipped to Britain by the USA.

It is true the USA delayed entering the war but that was as much to do with raising their industrial production and war fighting capability to a workable level of effectiveness as it was to do with political pressure from the quite powerful German-American lobby. To say they then contributed little man power is incorrect. Their army, navy and airforce contributed far more personnel to the fight in Europe after 1942 than Britain did. Britain simply was not in a position post-1941 to defeat the Axis powers in Europe singlehandedly. She didn't have the manpower or the materiel. But Britain played a vital roll in delaying the German Army (and the ensuing indecision of her Generals) and in defeating the Luftwaffe. That role cannot be underestimated. Of course she also contributed soldiers to the fight in Europe post-D Day.

As far as you training "a fair ammount" of Americans, that cuts both ways. They also trained thousands of British & Commonwealth soldiers in the use of new American weapons and technology etc.

LyusN1 wrote:Japan was kinda your war, not ours.

...and let's not forget the Russians reached Berlin first. Hitler had already got bored with attacking us and given up.

The Russians would have probably won it anyway if you hadn't turned up at all in all honesty so yeah we may well have done it sans US involvement.

Also, I tried not to be sarcastic in my reply so I would have hoped that you weren't either. I wasn't trying to turn it into an argument - just stating facts I have learnt.

The Pacific was very much Britain's war until they were so heavily defeated by the Japanese in Singapore and Burma! Again without American manpower and materiel Japan would have occupied the entire Pacific region with relative ease and impunity.

The Russians reaching Berlin first is a silly point. There are several theories about this. Most historians agree that the American Army paused outside Berlin as a gesture to the Russians, firstly to apease them somewhat, and secondly to acknowledge that they were the country that had suffered the most grevious losses at the hands of the Germans. Also there is a school of thought that points towards the American military anticipating that the most bitter fighting would probably be on the streets of the German capital and thus decided to let the Russians take the brunt of it.

The Russians would not have won the war without American help. Firstly the Americans also supplied the Russians with superior intelligence, weapons, ammo and fuel as they got closer to Berlin and their supply lines became stretched. Secondly, one of the main reasons that Russia was so successful in the East was because Hitler had to fight on two fronts, thus the American-led invasion in the West and South (Italy) split the German forces.

Also someone pointed out that America didn't take note of Chinese and British intel regarding Japan. This is also a myth. The American intel services themselves had intel regarding Japan's short term and long term intentions. Thus they moved the carriers out of Pearl Harbour before Japan's "surprise" attack.

To sum up; No, the British and/or the Russians would not have defeated Germany, and certainly not Japan, without America. Whether you like that or not, it is fact. And no, America didn't win the war singlehandedly. Every nation that fought against the Axis powers contributed much and lost millions of young men in the process. To denigrate any one nation's contribution is wrong.

I'm not having a pop at you LyusN1 and I note you somewhat qualified your remarks later in the thread but as a lifelong student of history (particularly WWI and WWII) I couldn't let it go!!

DB10, the fact remains that although American involvement ensured total defeat for Germany, non-involvement would by no means have necessitated German victory either. So therefore the "you'd all be speaking German" bit couldn't be further from the truth.

If anything, Hitler rushed his invasion of Russia because he knew the German industrial machine was not entirely suited to a prolonged war and would most likely buckle under the strain. Even poor little Britain would eventually catch up from the 5 year head start Germany had in rearming prior to the war.

So, while we all appreciate that it was good that the war ended when it did, it is highly debateable whether the septics had anything more then a accelarator effect.

Why the fuck are we discussing this anyway?

LDB wrote:DB10, the fact remains that although American involvement ensured total defeat for Germany, non-involvement would by no means have necessitated German victory either. So therefore the "you'd all be speaking German" bit couldn't be further from the truth.

If anything, Hitler rushed his invasion of Russia because he knew the German industrial machine was not entirely suited to a prolonged war and would most likely buckle under the strain. Even poor little Britain would eventually catch up from the 5 year head start Germany had in rearming prior to the war.

So, while we all appreciate that it was good that the war ended when it did, it is highly debateable whether the septics had anything more then a accelarator effect.

Why the fuck are we discussing this anyway?

Because it's interesting!!

I agree that American non-involvement wouldn't have neccesarily meant a German victory. Most likely the war on both fronts would have ground to a stalemate without American involvement. Indeed many of Hitler's Generals were pushing secretly for a negotiated ceasefire from 1942 onwards. No historian worth his salt accepts that Hitler would have been still in command much longer than mid 1945. He was the target of dozens of assassination plots and attempts by his own staff. It was only a matter of time before a coup or assassination (or his own quickly degenerating health) removed him.

Of course we cannot predict exactly what would have happened either way but it is only a minority of historical revisionists that can't bring themselves to accept that the biggest single deciding factor in the defeat of Germany was the influx of American manpower and material. American factories provided material for both British and Russian armies. It must be also remembered that contrary to Russian propoganda the Red Army was nearing breaking point both in terms of moral (due to increasing death rates) and supplying the front line troops. They simply could not have defeated the entire German Army on one front. Thus Stalin's continuous calls for the Allie's Second Front.

The accelerator comment is interesting. If the Americans hadn't entered the war and the war in Europe had been fought to stalemate on both fronts, it would have been the Germans that rose quickest to re-pursue the fight if anyone. They had far advanced technology and expertise in comparison to the British and Russians. It was the American (and British) bombing of the Rhur valley that destroyed that technology. One of the things that has become apparent after the fall of communism is that the much feared Russian war machine was (from 1940 - 1989) a creaking, delapitaded, incompetant and ineffectual old dinosaur.

Oi DB10 - you forgot the Italian and Sicilian Resistance!!!

Albeit it was about as sturdy as the current Arsenal back Four and goal-keepers!!

I Hate Hleb wrote:Oi DB10 - you forgot the Italian and Sicilian Resistance!!!

Albeit it was about as sturdy as the current Arsenal back Four and goal-keepers!!

Apologies to my Italian and Sicilian friends for failing to mention their sterling work against the Nazis in WWII.

DB10 I may have been wrong on 80%, but the fact is that the nazi lives lost on the Western fron far outweighs those on the eastern. Have to agree with you mate it is a very intersting topic, but i think us martin was way ott bringing it up.

And the whole "you'd speak german if it wasnt for us" is so wrong its off the chart........

and im fekin irish

Great alternative history from STG!

Have to say that my view on WW11 is very much in line with DB10Gooner, that all Allied countries contributed to defeating the Nazis.

It must be remembered that whilst Germany itself was under Allied control at by the end of war in Europe, the Nazis in May 1945 still had 200,000 men armed and ready to fight and there is belief amongst some historians they would have been able to do so, using Norway and the Antartic as bases for a still substantial U-Boat fleet.

Whilst the Russian troops must be commended for the bravery and fierce fighting, they were savage too. No doubt they thwarted German advances into Russia, but the Italian can take the blame here for the Axis loss.
They failed to secure the Balkans summer of 1941, (fierce Serbian resistance a large part of that) and so key German SS divisions were diverted from the proposed Eastern Front to help out the Italians, and delayed and weakened the German attack on Russia.

The Sicilians though perhaps played their part? I had a fierce debate about this at University with a tutor who refused to believe the Mafia had any apart in fighting Mussolini, but there are stories of them helping American troops who landed in Sicily to fight the fascists, and there is significant anecdotal "evidence" that Mafia connections were used in American dockyards to work against German sabotage plans on American shipping.

A major factor in the defeat of Germany was the lack of fuel and supplies, down in large part to British and American efforts.

American bombing raids on the industrial regions of Germany were absolutely vital for ending the war, as DB10Gooner has pointed out. The American Super Fortress bombers inflicted considerable damage.

The Germans were successfully counter-attacking in the Battle of the Bulge Winter of 1944 - 45 and their 90 ton Tiger tanks were destroying Allied tanks, but the Germans ran out of fuel.

This shows the respect that must be govern to the British forces in North Africa for halting German advances on the Middle East oil fields. The Axis powers managed to produce just 2% of their fuel by artificial means (largely IG Farben factory in Austria).