Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 25th, 2017, 10:36 AM   #31
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,381

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendennis View Post
Also, although 'Saving Private Ryan' is one of favourite war movies it too took a huge liberty with history because the harrowing opening scenes on Omaha wrongly had US Navy/Coast Guard personnel steering the landing craft when it fact it was the Royal Navy who manned the landing craft depositing the US troops on Omaha beach. on June 6 1944
Not true. DDay was the Coast Guardís largest single operation during WWw2:
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2014/0...d-at-normandy/
royal744 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 25th, 2017, 10:45 AM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,381

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post
Hitler was an idiot.

In terms of territory, US interests lay in the pacific, not Europe.

No problem.
Commercially, US interests lay in Europe not the Pacific. Just look at where the Marshall Plan was spent.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 25th, 2017, 11:02 AM   #33
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,381

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTG View Post
"The New Dealers' War: FDR And The War Within World War II" by Thomas Fleming
is a book that has an intriguing take on this topic.

While I disagree with a lot of it, it mentioned that the contingency
US War Plan for fighting Germany was leaked to the Chicago Tribune
on IIRC, ~ Dec. 4, 1941 - before Pearl Harbor.

The Chicago Tribune was bitterly anti-FDR and isolationist. I am
sure they spun it as - FDR is plotting to get us into War!!!

As mentioned, I take the book with a huge grain of salt, but
Fleming's contention is that Hitler took this newspaper story
as gospel proof that the US was planning to get into the
war, so declared war.


Ironic, if true - an isolationist newspaper trying desperately to
keep the US out of WWII, leading to the opposite.
Robert McCormick, owner of the Chicago Tribune, was a rabid hater of FDR and the New Deal. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was an America Firster, a reactionary, businessman, lawyer and all around FDR hater. He may have committed an act of treason when he disclosed that the US had partially broken Japanese codes in advance of thee Battle of Midway. Not cool.

Last edited by royal744; December 25th, 2017 at 11:12 AM.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 25th, 2017, 12:40 PM   #34
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Agraphur
Posts: 697

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
Hitler already believed the US was effectively at war with him, and assumed that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would cause the US to priortise the war on Japan.
Hitler knew that he needed to defeat the Soviets by late 1942 or 1943 or lose the war, even without US involvement. The declaration of war which he had promised Japan if they attacked the US and Britain was an effort to buy time before serious US involvement in the European war could have an effect.
The gamble failed and made his situation worse because his forces were unable to defeat the Soviets in the time frame Hitler needed.
This, but also at dec 41 the fall of the Soviet union seemed imminent. Had Japan asked about Germany:s stance on a war with the USA say summer 1942, Hitler likely wouldn't have encouraged Japan by offering to join a war against the USA with them.
Germany realized that US support, capital and the hope of US military intervention kept Britain in the war and that they could not force Britain to peace without US involvement.
The US occupation of Island in particular cemented US as a hostile participant in the war. Admiral Raeder considered it an outright act of war and was livid when Hitler reluctantly refused to respond military since he was committing everything to Barbarossa.
The Germany Navy wanted the war since they saw the U-boats as intolerable hamstrung by the directive to confirm that the shipping weren't american. Simply being able to attack anything on sight was a incredible tactical advantage.
And it was for a while, unluckily for the German's, advances in anti-submarine warfare quickly ate up that advantage and then a lot more.
Yezdigerd is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 08:16 AM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,381

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giraffe View Post
One of the turning points of WW2, in my opinion, was when the USSR found out that Japan was NOT going to attack them on the Manchurian Front. (Pearl Harbour, and their spy in Japan confirmed it) This allowed them to switch a lot of troops to the Moscow front for the counter-attack in Dec 1941, and to use the Siberian troops freely in the following years.

If Hitler had NOT declared war on the USA, the US might have had some problems declaring war on Germany, as there was no real support for joining the European war before that. Japan united the USA in condemnation of Pearl Harbour, but Hitler made a huge mistake by uniting the USA against him as well.
I agree with this. It was a titanic blunder.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 01:35 PM   #36

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,855

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
Not true. DDay was the Coast Guard’s largest single operation during WWw2:
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2014/0...d-at-normandy/
Of the 4,126 landing craft involved in the Normandy landings 805 were American and 3,261 were British.

Last edited by redcoat; December 28th, 2017 at 01:43 PM.
redcoat is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 07:42 AM   #37
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,381

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
Of the 4,126 landing craft involved in the Normandy landings 805 were American and 3,261 were British.
Iím sure thatís true, but it doesnít change the point.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 01:24 PM   #38

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,855

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
Iím sure thatís true, but it doesnít change the point.
Wasn't my intention. While the facts I presented show that a large majority of the landing craft were RN manned, they also show a sizeable number were US manned, proving your point.
redcoat is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:28 PM   #39

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,056

Even the most war shy, or isolationist, of Americans knew that some kind of conflict between Germany and the USA was inevitable. Hitler despised democracy, and the ideals that the USA stood for. And if Britain was defeated, and the USSR in turn, then it was only really Germany and the USA which were dominant in the world. It's that tPehe isolationists thought they should bide their time, and Hitler would need a lot to build a large enough navy and troop complement to invade the US.

Hitler wasn't stupid, and knew this too. He did do a lot of stupid ****, but knew he had to be pragmatic in his strategy. I guess he thought he could hasten an inevitable conflict, since at the least, had Germany beaten Britain and the USSR, there may have been a Cold War between the US and Germany.

As for the theatres, the USA led in the Pacific due to Pearl Harbor, and it having the easiest reach to Japan. Britain and the USSR as European countries had more resources in Europe, though the British did have many troops in the Far East too (and Africa and the Middle East). It was more due to areas of strategic and historical importance to each Ally. The UK had the most troops of the Allies in Burma, along with China. It makes sense, due to Burma bordering China and India. The USSR had no colonies, and had no navy to send around the Arctic to help in the Far East. Japan couldn't have invaded Siberia, and China was an Ally, so it had no other immediate enemies. the UK controlled Suez, so it had to have the brunt of the North Africa Campaign.

Most joint campaigns, like Overlord and Sicily/Italy, were done to bring the war to as quick an end as possible, but this would only when victory of some sort was inevitable (from 1943 onwards).
notgivenaway is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 09:00 AM   #40
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,381

Duplicate

Last edited by royal744; December 31st, 2017 at 09:02 AM.
royal744 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
experts, war, ww2



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question for Napoleon experts - identifying people in a painting Josefa Art and Cultural History 8 November 10th, 2017 09:12 PM
Foreign experts on Country X & Country X's domestic experts Fenestella General History 22 October 2nd, 2016 06:08 PM
A Question to Chinese/Experts on Chinese History Ozgun Golcu Asian History 11 April 14th, 2016 05:29 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.