The Day that will live in Infamy...

[Nurvingiel]

Western Europe is democratic. The East is easily forgotton sometimes.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Western Europe is democratic. The East is easily forgotton sometimes.

Who forgets about Eastern Europe? We don't and we didn't for the 50 years they lived under communism. It was the United States that implemented the food drop when the Soviet Union tried to cut off Berlin from the outside world...

The Berlin Airlift
In the early hours of 24 June 1948 by order of Joseph Stalin, Russia halted all traffic into and out of the Russian sector of Berlin at Marienborn, which was the Russian checkpoint located nearly one hundred miles from the city of Berlin. Stalin also cut off all electricity to the city of Berlin claiming ‘technical difficulties’. General Clay, who was the Military Governor of Germany at the time, contacted General Curtis LeMay who was the Commander of the United States Air Forces in Europe and asked him if they could start flying food supplies into Berlin. General LeMay agreed and the airlift started on the afternoon of 24 June 1948.

At the beginning of the airlift there were three supplying airfields: Rhein Main and Wiesbaden in the American zone, and Weinstorf in the British zone. However, by the end of the Airlift there would be nine airfields. All nine would be located in the British zone to cut down the length of time for flying supplies into Berlin.

It was also President Kennedy who said "I am a Berliner" and it was President reagan who said "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". We have hardly ever forgot about Eastern Europe, nor do we forget about them now.

By the way Wayfarer - do you mean "depocratic" as in depoliticized?

[Draken]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Wow - then I guess the loss of 400,000+ Americans was sort of a waste. I disagree that the Soviet Union could have withstood Germany very long. Britain would have been destroyed one way or the other. But maybe Europe wouldn't have cared if the Soviet Union won. If they did, I seriously doubt Europe would be democracies right now.

Well nobody said that, so I'm sorry if you feel that way!

If you want to see it in terms of numbers, the figures I've seen put US combat deaths at around 300,000, very similar to those of the UK. But in either case they pale into insignificance compared to 6 million Soviet combat deaths. Also about 90% of German combat deaths occured on the Eastern front. Whichever way you look at it, the Eastern Front was THE decisive front in the war in Europe. And to say that the western allies made a crucial difference to who won on the Eastern front is optimistic at best: if anything the resistance movements (especially the Yugoslavs) had more of an effect in drawing German troops out of that theatre.

That's not saying that the outcome would have been good for Europe - like I say, the Iron Curtain would have been a fair way west of where it ended up. And Britain destroyed either way? I'm sure you'd like to think that...but Rule Two of world domination: sailing for Dover is usually as fruitless as marching on Moscow!

[Hemel]

Does anyone happen to know what UK, US, Soviet, German populations were during WWII?

[Bilbo]

To Hemel's question, they were probably declining (death and so forth).
What was so important about Pearl Harbour EXCEPT for the fact that GRandpa Simpson was asleep on watch duty at the time?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Hemel
Does anyone happen to know what UK, US, Soviet, German populations were during WWII?

Not exactly, but I could maybe make some guesses. One thing I HAD heard once though, was that the USSR lost one eighth of its population in WWII... one reason I think they were so intractable in the Cold War years. They DIDN'T want it to happen again. (note: not all those losses were soldiers in combat - I believe civilian losses were very high - maybe some from starvation, etc - after things had been wiped out all around them)

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Wow - then I guess the loss of 400,000+ Americans was sort of a waste. I disagree that the Soviet Union could have withstood Germany very long. Britain would have been destroyed one way or the other. But maybe Europe wouldn't have cared if the Soviet Union won. If they did, I seriously doubt Europe would be democracies right now.

Ummmmm... No?

The Soviet Union had already withstood the worst that the Third Reich could throw against it (Stalingrad), and was beating it back in 1942.

How would Britain have been destroyed? "One way or another" doesn't seem to be much of a battle plan.

The loss of American lives was was emphatically not a waste- as well as shortening the War and saving millions of lives, it saved Western Europe from the horrors that Stalin imposed on Eastern Europe.

Sorry, but WWII in Europe was not won by Tom Hanks or the Band of Brothers- it was a great struggle fought by very different Allies ; however , the facts are reasonably clear- American intervention certainly aided the defeat of Hitler and maintained the freedom of Western Europe; unlike the Pacific Theatre , it was by no means decisive.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Valandil
One thing I HAD heard once though, was that the USSR lost one eighth of its population in WWII... one reason I think they were so intractable in the Cold War years.

Yes, over 20m people, mostly non-combatants.

This also explains why, when they started to lose, the Germans preferred to surrender to the Western enemies...

Russians call it the Great Patriotic War (I think).

Apologies for the gratuitous picture, but the Red Flag on the Reichstag is one of the defining images of the 20th century.

[Draken]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
American intervention certainly aided the defeat of Hitler and maintained the freedom of Western Europe; unlike the Pacific Theatre , it was by no means decisive.

Agreed. Not wishing to make little of the Australian campaign in Papua New Guinea, or the British & Commonwealth campaign in Burma, or the often-overlooked, almost separate Sino-Japanese War, it was definitely American naval power that turned the tide in that theatre. So we come back to how crucial it was that the carriers escaped at Pearl Harbour.

[Bacchus]

The fact is, however, that no one really understood the implications of the carriers on 12/7/41. Battleships were considered king of the seas by the conventional military wisdom of the time, and were the main target of the attack. I suspect that the evisceration of the battleship component of the fleet contributed heavily to a change in American naval doctrine that emphasized carriers.

A more unforgivable strategic error on the part of the Japanese, IMO, was their failure to seize Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack. Doing so would have crippled the ability of the carriers to regroup in the central and eastern Pacific.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Bilbo
What was so important about Pearl Harbour EXCEPT for the fact that GRandpa Simpson was asleep on watch duty at the time?

Sarcasm or not, grow the F&#* up! That is a horrible thing to say...It's fine to make jokes about things or people, but never joke about people dying...

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Apologies for the gratuitous picture, but the Red Flag on the Reichstag is one of the defining images of the 20th century.

Too bad this photograph was staged 2 days after the Russians took it...It's been made out over history like the Russians marched on the Reichstag running the flag to the top of it, but in actuality the famous photos of the Russian soldiers on the Reichstag and the flag was merely a photo op.

Not to take anything away from them taking it, I just wanted to point out that tidbit of History

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Ummmmm... No?

The Soviet Union had already withstood the worst that the Third Reich could throw against it (Stalingrad), and was beating it back in 1942.

Beating it back only because germany was fighting on two fronts and three if you include the Mediterranean Sea and Midde East/Africa. If Germany was able to beat the British and America did not enter the war, and was able to put all their strength against the Soviet Union - I do not think the Soviet Union would have survived. Epecially if Germany successfully developed things like the automic bombs or rockets that they were heavily experimenting with.

How would Britain have been destroyed? "One way or another" doesn't seem to be much of a battle plan.

hmmm - I didn't know I had to give a battle plan. Britain would have been destroyed if America didn't get involved, as much as you would like to believe otherwise.

The loss of American lives was was emphatically not a waste- as well as shortening the War and saving millions of lives, it saved Western Europe from the horrors that Stalin imposed on Eastern Europe.

Glad you finally have said something that the US did right.

Sorry, but WWII in Europe was not won by Tom Hanks or the Band of Brothers- it was a great struggle fought by very different Allies ;

Funny - I don't recall ever saying it was won by america alone.

however , the facts are reasonably clear- American intervention certainly aided the defeat of Hitler and maintained the freedom of Western Europe; unlike the Pacific Theatre , it was by no means decisive.

I'm going take this as an acknowledgement that you feel that America saved Britain. Without us - Britain would not have survived and all of Europe would either be facist or communist.

By the way - a lot of this thread has just been... more of "damned if we do, damned if we don't". Repeatedly in threads Europeans complain that the US didn't get into World War II right away. Now those same people are saying that we weren't even needed and that Britain would have survived.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Bacchus
The fact is, however, that no one really understood the implications of the carriers on 12/7/41. Battleships were considered king of the seas by the conventional military wisdom of the time, and were the main target of the attack. I suspect that the evisceration of the battleship component of the fleet contributed heavily to a change in American naval doctrine that emphasized carriers.

A more unforgivable strategic error on the part of the Japanese, IMO, was their failure to seize Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack. Doing so would have crippled the ability of the carriers to regroup in the central and eastern Pacific.

Actually, the carriers were a prime target for the Japanese - and their intelligence had the carriers in Pearl Harbor. The US Navy was also quite aware of how important the carriers would be to the war in the Pacific. That's why they were not there. There's a good bit of evidence that FDR knew the attack on Pearl was coming. He was President of a country that didn't want to go to war, but he felt we needed to be in that war. So... let the attack happen, America would rally to fight Japan, if Berlin keeps their treaty with Tokyo, they pull us into the conflict in Europe... done! Just make sure to keep the carriers out of harm's way.

I don't think it was in the realm of possibility for the Japanese to take Pearl Harbor. Making an airstrike is one thing, taking possession is another. Hawaii was far from their sphere of power - and VERY distant from their power base. Plus, they already had most of their ground troops commited in places like Philipines, China, Korea, Burma, etc, etc.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - a lot of this thread has just been... more of "damned if we do, damned if we don't". Repeatedly in threads Europeans complain that the US didn't get into World War II right away. Now those same people are saying that we weren't even needed and that Britain would have survived.

No-one is saying that, except in your imagination.

America certainly saved Britain, not least by keeping us supplied throughout. Without US involvement, there's no way the British could have invaded Italy or Normandy, and the Japanese would probably have taken Australia.

At the same time, if Britain had surrendered in 1940, there would have been no North African victory, and therefore no invasion of Italy; no Normandy landings and no second/third front for Hitler to fight. Then it would've been a straight fight between Hitler and Stalin for control of Europe, and then what?

So, if you believe that all that stood between Germany and victory in Russia was a second front in Europe (though Italy wasn't invaded until after Stalingrad), you could argue that the Battle of Britain was decisive in the outcome of the war. You could even argue that Chamberlain's much-maligned "appeasement" saved us all (even if it was inadvertent).

Originally posted by Draken

And good point about the extra year or so buying the RAF some time, though I don't think he could claim to have been playing for that!.

Thanks. I didn't think so either, but looked it up on a couple of web sites and it seems that some (subsequently declassified) secret UK government documents show that our assessment at the time was that our air force would be mashed by the Luftwaffe and Chamberlain had no alternative.

Originally posted by Dúnedain

Too bad this photograph was staged 2 days after the Russians took it...It's been made out over history like the Russians marched on the Reichstag running the flag to the top of it, but in actuality the famous photos of the Russian soldiers on the Reichstag and the flag was merely a photo op.

He he. Yet again, history is written by the victors!