Why bash America for coming late to WW2?

''Instead of people criticising America for reacting too late in WW2 why don't people criticise other countries who didn't react at all?''

Because the S was abut the only ''superpower'' that could turn the roles of the war? :roll:

The Americans came late, but better late than never

 

The US did not become a superpower untill after WW II.
IMO the US entered the war at exactly the right time..i.e. when she had no other choice. The people of the US had no desire to become embroiled in another European war only 2 decades after the wholesale slaughter of the last great war. The US didn't suffer many casualties in the first WW it is true, compared to the other combatants however one could ask why they should have been involved at all?

Don't get me wrong. As it turned out US involvement in WW II was the correct course. That opinion is one realized with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight however.

 

The Americans became involved in WW1 because the Germans, especially with their unlimited submarine warfare, violated several basic American ideological principles. Also, the US had billions of dollar's worth of loans with the Allies and couldn't afford to see them lose.

 

''The US did not become a superpower untill after WW II.''

Lets just say it had a very powerfull army.

 

No it didn't, not in 1939...
Especially when you look at its equipment

I had the potential to be a bloody powerful nation, certainly.

 

Ricky is correct. The potential was certainly there, however in 1939 the US military was inadequate and unprepared for war.

 

As were all countries, exept Germany perhaps....

 

There is a fundamental flaw in this whole thread, "why bash America for coming late".

It assumes that the European powers were trying to get America into the war. The powers of Europe were not exactly anxious to have the US involved in the war. There was a greater demand to have US industry at their disposal, or in the case of the Axis, deny it to their opponents. As late as 1940 (prior to May) it was felt by many Europeans that the Americans should stay on their side of the pond, a feeling reciprocated by most Americans.
Why not bash the French and British for selling out the Czechs, or the Soviets for supporting the Nazis, and grabbing what they could, until Hitler turned on them?

 

We should do (and I think we have a topic on this somewhere) - we certainly were taught in school that we sold the Czechs down the river...

The reason for this topic is the whole attitude in Europe that "the Yanks always show up for the last 5 minutes and claim all the glory afterwards". This topic began as a 'well, that's not entirely fair' statement.

 

Could we have saved the Czechs though? Its at least arguable we were even more unprepared for war in 1938 than 1939, certainly the British govenment felt it essential that we did not go to war until at least the back end of 1940 at the earliest. Hitler should have been stopped over either the Rhineland or the Anshlus, but it is at least arguable that it was to late by the time he turned on the Czechs

Its an understandable gut reaction to the "we saved your arses and you must be eternaly grateful" attutude of some Americans - both opinions are unreasonable.

 

Well, we could well have. Remember, at this stage the German army & air force were still relatively small and a bit rubbish . During the Anschluss, 50% of the German tanks that rumbled into Austria broke down... Plus most of the German tanks in the 1939/1940 Blitzkriegs were captured Skodas.

The combination of Britain & France could have sorted her out, especially as any attack by the German Army on the Sudetenland would have met with very stiff resistance (remembering that the Sudetenland was heavily fortified, and that the Skoda armament works were producing some of the best AT guns & tanks in the world at the time). Then factor in that the CCCP had publicly committed itself to defend the Czechs (if Britain & France did)... Germany would have a 3-front war, a year before she was ready to launch a 1-front war.

However, we were basically blinded by the German propaganda, which boasted of German strength & armed might. Our own armed forces were still limbering up, as you say, and our leaders were too scared to risk it.

 

Propaganda was certainly important and I was forgetting the Soviet dimension, but had we fought in 38 we'd could we done anything to help the Czech's - the army would have been even smaller than it was even in 39, never mind 1940 when the attack fell, and the RAF would have been taking on Me109's with biplanes, in the extra time we had Britain produced considerbly more war materiel than Germany. If Stalin had been bluffing and Hitler had called him we'd have been in even more trouble than a year later

 

Yes, especially given the fact that the soviets could not have done much(if they had entered the war).
Between the USSR and Germany there was Poland, with absolutely no chance that the poles led the soviets cross their territory to fight the germans.

The czechs in 38 would have been beaten like the poles in 39.
However a big advantage for the allies could have been the fact that USSR would probably not supply Germany with raw materials(like they actually did in 39-41).
Without this supplies, Germany could never have launched it's offensive in the west.

 

But with what tanks would Germany invade? Remember Blitzkrieg is built upon armoured formations.

Ok, I do realise that the Czechs would not hold out indefinately, but while Germany is occupied in attacking the Czechs, Anglo-French forces could have attacked Germany from the West. Like we didn't do for Poland either...

 

The germans would have used mainly infantry and air superiority to break trough thr czech defence lines, and their armour later to exploit the breaktrough.
I think their losses would have been higher than they were in Poland in 39, but the campaign would not have lasted more than 4-6 weeks.

Britain and France would most probably not have done much than they effectively did in 39-40.
But their blockade could really have been effective, without soviet supplies for Germany.
I once read somewhere that when the war started, Germany had reserves in strategic raw materials for only about 3 months.

As Germany did not have powerfull armoured formations in 1938, one could imagine that, had they attacked in the west, they would have used more conventional tactics and so the french/british could have stopped them.

 

On the positive side (for the allies) I think the Czechs would have held out rather longer than the Poles, they had a more easily defendable frontier, probably a better equipped army and would have been up against less formidable Wermacht than Poland faced, plus no Soviet supplies for the Germans.
On the negative side would the western allies have been able to mount an effective offensive with virtualy no British participation on the ground or in the air combined with a French army wedded to the defensive - look what happened to the French 'offensive' while Hitler was busy in Poland! Germany would have had pretty much total air supremacy and even on the ground while they were much less formidable than in 1939 or 1940 they were probably in a better comparative position verses Britain and France

 

As far as I know there was an agreement between Germany and Hungary.
Had Germany invaded Czekoslovakia, the hungarian army would attack the czechs in the south.(In Czekoslovakia there was a large hungarian minority, which the hungarians wanted to annex).
Attacked from both sides, the czechs would not hold out very long.

 

[/quote]

Agreed.
The only positive note for the allies in 1938 would have been the fact that Germany could not rely upon soviet supplies.
And maybe also that the germans would not have been able to launch a blitzkrieg a la 1940, but a rather more conventional attack, which the allies, tough even weaker than in 1940, could possibly stop.

 

While engaged heavily in the attacking of the Czech borders I highly doubt the Germans would have been able to subdue the Belgian army supported by the huge if largely ineffective French army and the BEF, of whatever size. And they would have to go through Belgium if they wanted to avoid having to assault the Maginot line.

Remember, for all countries those last two years made all the difference.

 

Canadians bash the americans for joining the war late because the americans bash us "canadians" for not going to Iraq .