USA won World War Two and saved England ?

Yes there'd be clouds, fog, weather problems in general. Same with night bombing. But on any given day those same conditions would effect night bombing as well. Daylight bombing was many times more effective than night bombing. In war there will always be weather problems affecting operations. Sometimes in day bombing you'd have weather problems that would impede vision. But in night bombing you'd always have sight impedement. It was dark! and if the weather was bad forget about even going. The city would blackout when they heard you coming and all you'd see is the tacers coming up at you. So they'd drop their bombs and head home. The had to simply guess if they were over their target and then "bombs away".

In daylight they had bomb sights and could wait till their target was in the cross hairs and then drop their bombs. The bombs would cover the whole area that your target was in. But they didn't just randomly carpet bomb. They carpet bombed in a specific area, where their target was. They would study areial recon pictures of their targets in briefing and learn to recognize them.

Sure there are always problems, no method was perfect. But it is cold, hard fact that daylight bombing in WWII was many time more effective than night bombing. You'd drop bombs and essientailly "carpet" the area. But it would be the right area your taqrget would be in the "carpeting" zone. In night bombing you might carpet the wrong city or some farm miles away from the intended area. Any expert will agree and there is records in history; statistics, assesments, reports, etc. to show, that daylight bombing was way more effective than night bombing. It is a fact.

 

I can't believe my eyes

In case you haven't noticed that warning or similar is put into every single work in that series ( Combined Arm Center - Research Libray ), so the US Gov is not exactly washing his hands from that fellow. David Glantz is definitely not "after all a Col.", he is one of the most important Eastern fronts historians of the "post overture" school.

Books published by David Glantz , should you care to look up.

As an alternative, may I recommend a course on navel gazing and knowing all the answers? Or maybe you don't need it after all, you seem to be well qualified enough.

Ali, why I am inclined to agreeing with you?

 

Obviously, the 'experts' haven't studied the history of Pathfinder marking....

Other 'experts' have written, as a random instance, from the 381st BG history which I'm reading just now ; -

'In November 1943 H2X was introduced to combat ever worsening weather conditions. This blind-bombing device at least allowed a large area, such as a city, to be pin-pointed, but bombing accuracy suffered, and many de-briefing statements of 'bombing results believed good' were really euphemisms for what could only be termed 'area precision bombardment'. ( Ridgewell's Flying Fortresses', p62 ).

 

Just a note- the British Merchant Navy operated a coastal convoy system for shipping, one route down the east coast and the other down the west. I think i'm right in saying this started before war was declared, but I don't have the book to hand.

 

I never doubted the Col. knowledge on the E. front. And I am well aware that for legal reasons the governement makes sure to put that whole "warning the views expressed in this..." in almost all of their articles, essays, etc. But the essay which was very interesting, and though I agree with many points the Col. makes. They are largely his views. Not to say he is incorrect, as I said before, who I am I to say he isn't. But they are still personal views.

 

Ted,

You know the Russian people have never downplayed the role of the U.S. and their involement in the war. To my knowledge everyone in Russia knows about the price U.S. paid for being a part of the victorious coalition. If you were a student in a Soviet Union's middle school you would know that U.S lost about 365,000 lives and every single one deserves to be recognized. Why is it that the U.S. always downplays Russian involvement and it's achievements? I say this because I went to school in the U.S. and have gotten involved in quite a few debates with my professors in which according to them, the U.S. one the war. And unless you were familiar with history, you would have never even imagined that other countries were ever involved in this conflict. So I dont really blame your ignorance, afterall chances have it that the same professors that tried to teach me most likely tought you

Oh and your comment on Soviet women fighing in the war. During the patriotic war Ted, everyone wanted to fight. Anyone who could do anything for the war effort did it, and not just because they were ordered to but because they wanted to, it was their country that had been invaded. 28 million Russians died not because they were stupid but because the war was fought in Russia.


Germany had a little over 13 million soldiers, off which a little over 10 million perished on the Eastern Front thats 80 percent! Just curious are you going to down play this fact too?


Oh and by the way U-boats in the Gulf of Mexico and islands like Guam and Wake hardly qualify as war in the U.S. I think we all know why.

The U.S. had in fact been truly invaded twice in its history and by the same country, England. In which the U.S. had lost once( the war of 1812 )and sued for peace. If im not mistken I belive the only reason England agreed is because they had a little problem in Europe where a greedy, chubby little French man who decided to conquer Europe and England was a little preoccupied.


But like Za said we truly dont blame you after all you are only 16 and have much to learn as do all off us here. However you being 16 puts you at a disadvantage because we got a head start on you acquiring the correct information which we will be more then happy to share with you. ( after all we are all here for a reason )

 

So I'm led to understand that every history book written only represents the author's personal views, and is therefore to be taken at a discount. This is an interesting concept.

In this case,

"David M. Glantz is an American military historian and the editor of The Journal of Slavic Military Studies.

Glantz received degrees in history from the Virginia Military Institute and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill then entered active service with the US Army in 1963. His military career included membership in the history faculty of the United States Military Academy from 1969 through 1973. In 1987, he founded The Journal of Soviet Military Studies.

In 1993, Glantz retired from the US Army with the rank of Colonel and converted his journal into The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, including the states of Central and Eastern Europe as well as the former Soviet Union.

Glantz is regarded by many as one of the best military historians of the Soviet role in World War II. He is perhaps most associated with the thesis that World War II Soviet military history has been prejudiced in the West by its over-reliance on German oral and printed sources, without being balanced by a similar examination of Soviet source material. A more complete version of this thesis can be found in his paper “The Failures of Historiography: Forgotten Battles of the German-Soviet War (1941-1945)”.

[edit] Books
Soviet Military Deception in the Second World War (1989) ISBN 0-7146-3347-X
From the Don to the Dnepr: Soviet Offensive Operations, December 1942-August 1943 (1991) ISBN 0-7146-3350-X
The Military Strategy of the Soviet Union: A History (1992) ISBN 0-7146-3435-2
The History of Soviet Airborne Forces (1994) ISBN 0-7146-3483-2
When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (1995) ISBN 0-7006-0717-X
Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (1998) ISBN 0-7006-0879-6
Kharkov 1942: Anatomy of a Military Disaster (1998) ISBN 1-885119-54-2
Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942" (1999) ISBN 0-7006-0944-X
The Battle of Kursk (1999) ISBN 0-7006-0978-4
Barbarossa: Hitler's Invasion of Russia 1941 (2001) ISBN 0-7524-1979-X
The Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944: 900 Days of Terror (2001) ISBN 0-7603-0941-8
The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944 (2002) ISBN 0-7006-1208-4
The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945: August Storm (2003) ISBN 0-7146-5279-2
Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943 (2005) ISBN 0-7006-1353-6
Companion to Colossus Reborn: Key Documents and Statistics (2005) ISBN 0-7006-1359-5

But there are other historians too, Fugate, Clark, Erickson, Seaton, Ziemke, etc, etc. Oh, I forgot, they are just story-tellers

 

Man this thread has to be something if we got UN in here

 

No one is downplaying the Russian's contribution to the war. Russia lost around 20 million people. The exact number isn't even known.

Most of germany's reasources and forces were committed to the E. front and subsequentially thats where the majority of their losses took place. The E. front was a battle of epic proportions. I never ever undermined Russia's involvement in the war, ever. I hope I didn't come across that way. If I did I apologize. The war left a much larger negative impact on the USSR than on us (numerically). More people died and most of the country was destroyed. About a quarter of all Soviets were either killed or wounded as a result.

Don't think that even for a second I was undermining or ignorant of Russia's contribution and sacrifice. Russia was a juggernaut in WWII. Thats why hilter sent most of his forces to fight them.

As I said before WWII would have never been won if it were not for Russia, or the other major Allies.

 

The war was won by all the participants. The U.S. probably saved England from eventual defeat and also prevented the Germans from being able to concentrate on the Eastern front. conclusive, no, but the ramping up the U.S. production of weapons were a major contribution to the war effort. The lack of knowledge in the U.S. concerning other countries effort is a media thing. Hollywood catered to the public pride in American troops. Even so, many movies had stories that showed the efforts by other nations, particularly the French resistance. It was more romantic to the writers.

One factor that reflect the problem with Russia, was the thrust into the cold war immediately after WWII. Russia quickly became the enemy, especially with their involvement with the Korean conflict. Add the fact that Joe Stalin was a mass murderer with more deaths committed in his name than even the Nazis are credited with.

It is my humble opinion that without U.S. involvement, the probablity would have been high that the British Isles would eventually fall. Either to the Germans, or to the Russians after they took what Germany had captured.

Of course, the world of "What if" is rife with possibilities. What if Germany had not attacked Russia until after they took Britain, or at all, etc.

 

When I said "downplaying" I was talking in general, speaking of my experiences in U.S. public school system and not necessarily referring to you.

Russia lost about 30 million of which at least 19 were civilian

Ted no apologies needed. I did not take offense, you just have to be prepared for an open debate afterall this is a forum

Till next time!!!

 

Seadog,

Stalin killed many yes. But he did not kill more Russians then Hitler did. That is simply not true.

 

Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The U.S. probably saved England from eventual defeat
_____________________________________________________________________________________

No, I think it was the R.A.F. and Royal navy that saved Britain, and would continue to do so.


Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________

and also prevented the Germans from being able to concentrate on the Eastern front.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

How so?


Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________

It is my humble opinion that without U.S. involvement, the probablity would have been high that the British Isles would eventually fall. Either to the Germans, or to the Russians after they took what Germany had captured.
______________________________________________________________________________________


Germany could never invade Britain, ditto for the Soviet Union.

 

Nothing conclusive, but I feel that without supplies and support from the U.S., Germany would eventually have the ability to attack Britain. And I have no doubts that Russia had as strong desire as Germany to take over Europe. As long as the British Isles are capable of providing a platform that can attack the mainland, it would be hard to hold it. That makes Britain an important target.

The odds are high that Russia would have beaten Germany eventually, but without a second front, who knows. Theories are are interesting, but does not affect what actually happened.

 

The best estimates are that Stalin killed about 20 million of his own people. Some estimates have been as high as 60 million. This does not include some of the genocides in future satellite nations after the defeat of the Germans. We will never know the exact number, and the question often is whether or not to include the millions killed in the great famine caused by Stalin's policies. I think it is safe to say that Stalin and Hitler were not nice people. Of course, how many Chinese died under the Japanese or Chairman Mao.

 

Quote by Seadog
_________________________________________________

Nothing conclusive, but I feel that without supplies and support from the U.S., Germany would eventually have the ability to attack Britain.
_________________________________________________

But Germany did attack Britain, when the Brits were at there lowest ebb after being defeated at Dunkirk and kicked off the European mainland and the Germans were in complete control.

The attack failed.

Because the Luftwaffe couldn't defeat the R.A.F and didn't have the capacity to mount an attack across the English channel.

Because of the R.A.F., Royal navy, and the English Channel no European mainland country could invade Britain.

 

Nobody will ever know the correct number of deaths resulting from Stalin's policies, but it would run into many millions.

From what ive read, Russia under Stalin must have been the most frightening place on Earth to live, with Beria's NKVD turning the Soviet Union into a house of terror.

Do any Russians on this board have parents or grandparents who remember those days?

 

One can only be thankful that Hitler declared war on the USA......

 

Probably he meant Ukrainians

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/famine.html