Why bash America for coming late to WW2?

They probably didn't do much.They were strangely only at war with Germany, not with Japan.
In fact every american country was at war with Germany, Argentina being the last to join.
In 1945, the countries not at war with Germany could be counted on one hand....

 

Ahhhhh in 1945 when final victory was in no doubt. I'd love to see the statistics as to which countries actually gave a shit in 1940, 1941 and 1942 when it looked like Germany would win! :roll:

 

Americas late entry

America came in after Hitler declared war after Pearl Harbour fair enough but Russia was supplying germany with food oil and other raw materials until they were attacked.Also remember the Molotov-Von ribbentrop signed treaty that gave Germany the green light to start WW2.I think there is enough mud to be throown about to suit everyone's taste

 

That doesn't change the fact that SU joined WW2 at September 1939.

Btw, Baltic countries either had anything nice to say about SU in 1939 and 1940.

BTW, if I remember right, SU joined war against Japan in 1945.

 

Yes, and they made mincemeat out of the Japanese Kwantung army in Manchuria in August 1945 showing how outdated and behind the times the convential Japanese army really was. It was a walkover for the Soviets who had been used to fighting the Germans.

 

Yup - the Manchurian campaign was arguably the 'best' campaign of the war.

 

I shouldn't imagine the Japanese were feeling too appreciative. The soviets seemed to do well against the Japanese. Gave them such a crack in 1939 the Japanese decided to look elsewhere.

 

The dam busters are based on fact. Althought they slowed production down for 2 weeks, they also moved several (I think 2 or 3) from France to protect the dams in future.

 

Oh I know the Dambuster raids were real. All I meant was that in the grand scheme of things they were hardly as important as portrayed and how the legend has become. Germany even reached peak production after most of the really heavy industrial raids took place in 1943.

 

Spain wasn't (oficially) in the war because we had finished a civil war in 39, and because Franco and Hitler didn't really get along.
But that didn't avoid that "volunteers" went to fight against comunism in the eastern front (División Azul, blue division), or the British Army Spanish company at Normandy, or the first "french" ( :lol: ) tanks entering Paris.

But Spain didn't enter WWII.

 

The most success in the dam busters was propaganda and moral. From that point of view it was, however, as Roel would say the original plan was a total failure.

 

Not the Nine O clock News

Reminds me of the Not the Nine O'Clock sketch in the UK in the early 80's at the height of the Cruise/Pershing fuss.

Apparently leading academics had analysed American foreign policy and had come to the conclusion that since they were late for last two world wars they wanted to make sure they were really promt for the next one.

 

Total failure is I believe a bit strong. Its true that the raid failed to breach and indeed was incapable of breeching the most important dam. However it did probably cause more damage for the loss of less planes that any other heavy bomber raid. It also allowed Churchill to attend one of the big war conferences with a victory behind him.

Back on the original subject I have another thought.

For Britain the effect of going the full distance was economically crippling and it was always clear that we were going to be massively diminished. In effect although on the winning side we were effectively one of the loosers. America by contrast had made a killing in both world war by arriving late and its position coming out was stronger than when it went in.

 

And forgetteth ye not that they gained a load of territorial rights in the Carribean area in exchange for 50 outdated but much needed destroyers!
I don't blame America for that - I'm sure we (and any other nation) would have done the same.

 

That was a little for Roel who claimed market garden was a complete failure because all bridges weren't taken. Also thinks if your don't achieve ll objectives then an operation is a complete failure.

 

Well, on one side you have a seasoned and well equipped and well led modern army that just annihilated the previously invincible Wehmacht. On the other hand you have an idled Kwontong army whose only actions has been border patrols, killing, torturing or experimenting with Chinese civilians and allied prisoners. Frankly, I am so glad that the Soviets whipped the Japanese ass, if the Americans didn't drop those nukes, the soviets probably could have overrun Japan and sacked Tokyo like they did to Berlin.

 

Hmmmm,I would say the Werhmacht annihilated more Soviets than vice versa. Just numbers told in the end. Nothing else. The Soviets didn't anninihilate the Germans anywhere.

 

Well I would say that even if the soviets had much more casualties in the end they did annihilate the german army and Germany herself.
(Together with the western allies of course).

 

True, the Soviets may have won through weight of numbers, but that does not make it any less of a victory.

 

But when I think of the word annihilate I think of it as in 'rout' and in no way did the Soviets ever actually rout the Germans. Only when the Germans were more or less bled white did this occur and by that time the Soviets didn't really have too much to beat. The Soviets only ever really won when outnumbering the Germans by two or three times. Even this wasn't guaranteed though.