Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

by Guest Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:21 am

First topic message reminder :

Fifty years on from Winston Churchill’s death, Chris Wrigley surveys the literature available, highlighting key works and lesser-known titles

On January 24th, 1965, Sir Winston Churchill died. Much of the nation watched television six days later, when his state funeral was held in St Paul’s Cathedral. Just over 112 years earlier, in November 1852, a state funeral had been held there for another Conservative prime minister and soldier, the Duke of Wellington. Wellington was buried in a tomb beside Lord Nelson in St Paul’s, but Churchill was buried beside his parents and his brother at St Martin’s Church, Bladon, Oxfordshire. His funeral seemed to mark the end of an era, almost the last wheeze of Empire.

Churchill was a soldier in the late Victorian British Empire. His experiences fighting on the North-West Frontier of India coloured his understanding of India thereafter. He displayed great bravery when fighting in India, with Kitchener’s forces at Omdurman in 1898 and as a war correspondent in South Africa in 1899-1900. The importance of his military career has been discussed often, not least in the official biography by Randolph Churchill and Martin Gilbert. This career is surveyed well by Douglas S. Russell in Winston Churchill – Soldier: Life of a Gentleman at War (2008).

http://www.historytoday.com/chris-wrigley/churchill-words-and-deeds

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:55 am

Original Quill wrote:To be honest, it wasn't a foregone conclusion that Britain would need to defend itself. Hitler's ambition lay to the east. He only went west because he anticipated military and political opposition, which he felt he needed to take care of first.

It was Churchill who motivated Britain to oppose Hitler. Then he took to the task of motivating the US for the same. All that time he was treading water on the war.

Churchill made a big difference.

Pfft
so we would have beat the Japanese first Rolling Eyes

And if Hitler aimed East, Nazi probably would have ended the same even if England had never got involved
...Frozen dead in a Russian winter.
I mean it is not like the UK or the USA actually beat the Nazis, Much like Napoleon they were Militarily crippled after failed Russian invasion.... If the USA/UK hadn't been involved they may have managed a coordinated retreat and being able to stop the Russian counter advance somewhere in Poland..
either way Japanese were the real threat of the War. If the USA didn't stop them there was no one else to.... they could have taken all of the East and then set themselves on Europe.

by Original Quill Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:21 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Original Quill wrote:To be honest, it wasn't a foregone conclusion that Britain would need to defend itself. Hitler's ambition lay to the east. He only went west because he anticipated military and political opposition, which he felt he needed to take care of first.

It was Churchill who motivated Britain to oppose Hitler. Then he took to the task of motivating the US for the same. All that time he was treading water on the war.

Churchill made a big difference.

Pfft
so we would have beat the Japanese first

And if Hitler aimed East, Nazi probably would have ended the same even if England had never got involved
...Frozen dead in a Russian winter.
I mean it is not like the UK or the USA actually beat the Nazis, Much like Napoleon they were Militarily crippled after failed Russian invasion.... If the USA/UK hadn't been involved they may have managed a coordinated retreat and being able to stop the Russian counter advance somewhere in Poland..
either way Japanese were the real threat of the War. If the USA didn't stop them there was no one else to.... they could have taken all of the East and then set themselves on Europe.

The Japanese--despite the time it took to defeat them--were not the worry. Japan was, in American football terms, a trick play. In order to get the US into the war, America needed to break into the tripartite pact...Japan was available.

Believe it or not, back in the thirties there was a lot of debate as to whether Hitler was a good guy or a bad guy. The whole issue of the holocaust came later.

Churchill realized long before everyone else that Hitler was baaaaad news. Oh sure, after Poland and the declaration of war, all of Britain was all in for the cause. But in the early days Churchill's major mission was to convince the UK; so it's safe to say Churchill was convinced long before Britain.

But the allied cause needed more, Churchill realized before anyone else. So his next major mission was to get the US involved. From the Lend Lease to the declaration of war by Germany on December 11th 1941, Winston was visiting the White House to convince and strategize with FDR.

Winston needed to get his ducks in a row, and he spent much of the early war months doing just that. So, my only point is, first came Winston, then came Britain...then came America in a baby carriage.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:32 am

Hitler would have still hit the wall of Russia, He hadn't even pacified France yet.
and the Japanese would have been defeated quicker removing the threat in the pacific allowing the now Veteran forces to concentrate in Europe.

Of course the US could have started fighting Japan in as early as July 7, 1937 instead you waited until...

President Franklin Roosevelt in April 1941 authorized the creation of a clandestine "Special Air Unit"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Volunteer_Group

But Pearl harbor occurred before their first fight

The group first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days after Pearl Harbor (local time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers

If USA Saves Australia then Aussies Say USA saved Australia... See if the Brits will do the same

And by the Way the USA Officially Backs my version of the start of the War Not this Eurocentric Nonsense some other posters go on with Wink

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007306

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:02 am

Dear me poor history going on again here, where people are not looking at the logistical problems and whaty was the more pressing need in who was to be priority in taking the fight to out of Japan and Germany.

For a start it would have been impossible to make the japanese the priority from the start due to the fact American navy capabilities had not been built up and it would take until 1943 for that to be possible where they had vastly more numerical superiority. In 1941 expansion by japan was being stretched and while they had the ascendancy, Japn's limitations were already beeing made by the fact they were not advancing technologically with the western allies. They failed to upgrade their fighters, and their warships had outdated radar systems, the most impotanty deficiency they had was radar control fire systems for their warships, placing them at a greater disadvantage.

As seen at this point with America joining the conflict, Russia was on the brink of defeat. Whilst they may have held out which had more to do with Japanese attention wrongly attacking America and not Russia, they did so only by the skin of their teeth. If Russia had not pulled their eastern Siberian divisions from the defence against any possible Japanese attack, it is doubtful, they would have stemmed the German advance in Autum 1941. Japanese went off German success but wrongly choose to attack America instead of Russia, which if they had Russia would have fallen to the Nazi Jackboot. Even more pressing was 1942 for the Russians, who were on the defensive for most of the year, where if any year they were closest to defeat was this year.

Thus the most pressing matter out of the two situations was the German theater of conflict, where if Russia had fallen the task of defeating Germany could have taken well over a decade if not longer. Germany would have had the vital resources in needed espcially in oil, let alone freeing up millions of battle hardened troops to the west which would have made an invasion in France of extreme difficulty, if not impossible. Germany would have had all its fighter resources to take also on the Al.lied bombers no doubt with horrific consequences.

So out of the two choices it is easy to see what was the most pressing matter, as if Russia was knocked out of the conflict, the job of defeating Germany may have taken decades, whos teachnological advantage over the allies would have become more telling as the war went along. This is why so much emphasis was placed on supplying Russia with all the necessary resources it needed, when it was under extreme pressure. Even up until 1943 and the Battle of Kursk, who battalians of Russian armour was made up of allied tanks. Let alone the most telling supply other than vital materials was the 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks. Without the jeeps and trucks of which the Russians only produced around 150,000 would have denied them the flexability of the massive counter attacks and encirclement battles they would not have able to pull off with such resources. This is why all nations played such a vital part in this conflict but as seen the most pressing need was to keep Russia in the conflict, hence why japan could wait.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:52 am

If they Didn't have Roosevelt and had a say a 'Bush' they would have been increasing capacity since 1937 thus by 41 could have already contained Japan

Like you said they built numerical superiority in 2 years from 41 to 43
by 1939 they could have had it. And they took from 43 to 45 to defeat Japan and that was While going to save you guys in the meantime....

D-Day could have still occurred the same time since it is not till 1944

And No One but the Mongols have taken Russia and Hitler would have been mincemeat Against Genghis Khan. Hitler probably wouldn't even match Napoleon in the same era and Napoleon Still found 'Armies die in Russia', Only the Mongols have the combination of incredible logistics that come come from being nomads and The Capacity to cope with Russian Winter Being from Fricken Mongolia! One of the few places as inhospitably cold as Russia.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:57 am

veya_victaous wrote:If they Didn't have Roosevelt and had a say a 'Bush' they would have been increasing capacity since 1937 thus by 41 could have already contained Japan

Like you said they built numerical superiority in 2 years from 41 to 43
by 1939 they could have had it. And they took from 43 to 45 to defeat Japan and that was While going to save you guys in the meantime....

D-Day could have still occurred the same time since it is not till 1944

And No One but the Mongols have taken Russia and Hitler would have been mincemeat Against Genghis Khan. Hitler probably wouldn't even match Napoleon in the same era and Napoleon Still found 'Armies die in Russia', Only the Mongols have the combination of incredible logistics that come come from being nomads and The Capacity to cope with Russian Winter Being from Fricken Mongolia! One of the few places as inhospitably cold as Russia.

Utter babble
Please research some real history veya, I am not going to yet again have to keep educating you on this.
Read what I have posted and counter the points.
I could not give a shit about Genghis Khan which has no utter relevance to this point on which was the primary nation to take on first in WW2

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:13 am

Well HE's the only one that has Taken Russia So he is the ONLY historical Comparison by which we can gauge the Magnitude of the Task Hitler would have had taking Russia.. And there is plenty of evidence Both Stalin and Hitler were planning to back-stab each other at some point.. So the invasion or the attack of Russia was inevitable.

So We Still end at the same point Hitler Crushing his armies against Russia Or Getting invaded by Russia Which May not have ended the same way as history actually did but would still have prevented full scale military investment in Western Europe... IF anything it would have made it more likely that USA/UK would have Actually Defeated the Nazis instead of Berlin falling to Russia.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:19 am

Churchill saved the UK no one else.. Nazi would still be defeated
I think the UK could have held out the 2 years required to Allow the USA to come to it's Aide after defeating Japan.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:28 am

veya_victaous wrote:Well HE's the only one that has Taken Russia So he is the ONLY historical Comparison by which we can gauge the Magnitude of the Task Hitler would have had taking Russia.. And there is plenty of evidence Both Stalin and Hitler were planning to back-stab each other at some point.. So the invasion or the attack of Russia was inevitable.

So We Still end at the same point Hitler Crushing his armies against Russia Or Getting invaded by Russia Which May not have ended the same way as history actually did but would still have prevented full scale military investment in Western Europe... IF anything it would have made it more likely that USA/UK would have Actually Defeated the Nazis instead of Berlin falling to Russia.

For goodness sake, there is far more to the conflict in Russia than you are even beginning to understand, where the bloodshed paid by Russia was instrumental in helping win the war. The fact is in 1941 and 1942, the most pressing concern was the Soviet Union which was on its knees, which japan played a part in helping them by instead attacking Pearl harbour and not joining with the Germans in attacking the Soviet Union. If they had, there is no doubt in Autum 1941, the Soviet Union would have been too stretched. It took also the Soviet Union time to move their factories and ramp up production, where as seen they needed vital allied resources, which many Allied merchantmen paid the price in helping keep the Soviet Union alive.

People do not realise how much of a close run thing it was in 1941 and 1942 in the conflict in Russia, where it is likely if Moscow had fallen, Stalin would have been overthrown and peace overtures would have been made towards to the Germans.
Time and logistics was the key as to when the Germans attacked in June 22nd was late in the day to attack. At least a month earlier and they would have succeeded. The biggest failing the Germans made, was also their over confidence, to the point they never took a realistic look at the difficulties they would face. One big prolem was the winter of course in Russia, but even this is over played, because german winters could be as harsh and where Germany failed here was in developing weaponary that could operate in extreme cold weather. They had to light fires under tanks, to just thaw out the perol. They had to keep constant fires going to keep tanks operational. The oil in the machine guns and rifles froze, making them ineffective, to even worse many troops were not supplied with winter clothing. It is quite astounding the Germans held firm after the Russian counter offensive, which shows and proves how limited the Russian capabilities were at the time of stemming the German advance.

The facts are Japan was not the bigger threat and again it took time to build up the necessary naval requirements needed to take on the Japanese fleets.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:34 am

veya_victaous wrote:Churchill saved the UK no one else.. Nazi would still be defeated
I think the UK could have held out the 2 years required to Allow the USA to come to it's Aide after defeating Japan.

Wrong, he also helped save Russia, as without the vital resources with the artic conveys, the Soviet Union would not have survived.
You fail to factor in many points, so again without the resolve of Churchill and the support given to the Soviets, the war could have turned at very different and Great Britain could have then been facing the full might of the German armed forces. The only thing that could have prevented an invasion was the vastly superior British navy at the time. This though could have been lost if in a few years Germany built up their own Navy.
So on all levels you are woefully wrong about Churchill.
Plus you forget something even more important, the breaking of the enigma code, all made possible by Churchill.

In the actual course of events, it took the Allied armies a year to fight their way from the French coast to Berlin; but in a scenario in which the invasion was delayed, giving Hitler more time to prepare his defences, the struggle to reach Berlin might have taken twice as long.

At a conservative estimate, each year of the fighting in Europe brought on average about seven million deaths, so the significance of Turing's contribution can be roughly quantified in terms of the number of additional lives that might have been lost if he had not achieved what he did.
If U-boat Enigma had not been broken, and the war had continued for another two to three years, a further 14 to 21 million people might have been killed.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:42 am

So you don't think the British navy could have controlled the north sea from 41 to 43 with other European allies with out the help of the USA?
As long as Churchill wasn't personally commanding Naval operations I think they could have Cool

So Still could have Sent Conveys to Russia Wink

Curtin was also calling for an allied resolve against Japan and the Nazis. He Just wanted Japan First tongue

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:45 am

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:Churchill saved the UK no one else.. Nazi would still be defeated
I think the UK could have held out the 2 years required to Allow the USA to come to it's Aide after defeating Japan.

Wrong, he also helped save Russia, as without the vital resources with the artic conveys, the Soviet Union would not have survived.
You fail to factor in many points, so again without the resolve of Churchill and the support given to the Soviets, the war could have turned at very different and Great Britain could have then been facing the full might of the German armed forces. The only thing that could have prevented an invasion was the vastly superior British navy at the time. This though could have been lost if in a few years Germany built up their own Navy.
So on all levels you are woefully wrong about Churchill.
Plus you forget something even more important, the breaking of the enigma code, all made possible by Churchill. See You could have done it by yourself no need to be so negative about British Naval Capacities

In the actual course of events, it took the Allied armies a year to fight their way from the French coast to Berlin; but in a scenario in which the invasion was delayed, giving Hitler more time to prepare his defences, the struggle to reach Berlin might have taken twice as long. Not once Russia had taken it

At a conservative estimate, each year of the fighting in Europe brought on average about seven million deaths, so the significance of Turing's contribution can be roughly quantified in terms of the number of additional lives that might have been lost if he had not achieved what he did.
If U-boat Enigma had not been broken, and the war had continued for another two to three years, a further 14 to 21 million people might have been killed.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:47 am

veya_victaous wrote:So you don't think the British navy could have controlled the north sea from 41 to 43 with other European allies with out the help of the USA?
As long as Churchill wasn't personally commanding Naval operations I think they could have

So Still could have Sent Conveys to Russia

Curtin was also calling for an allied resolve against Japan and the Nazis. He Just wanted Japan First

The British navy did control the North sea, as no German survace ships could venture out into it, only their U-boats.
So stop wasting my time with somethiong you know very little about Veya.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:48 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Wrong, he also helped save Russia, as without the vital resources with the artic conveys, the Soviet Union would not have survived.
You fail to factor in many points, so again without the resolve of Churchill and the support given to the Soviets, the war could have turned at very different and Great Britain could have then been facing the full might of the German armed forces. The only thing that could have prevented an invasion was the vastly superior British navy at the time. This though could have been lost if in a few years Germany built up their own Navy.
So on all levels you are woefully wrong about Churchill.
Plus you forget something even more important, the breaking of the enigma code, all made possible by Churchill. See You could have done it by yourself no need to be so negative about British Naval Capacities

In the actual course of events, it took the Allied armies a year to fight their way from the French coast to Berlin; but in a scenario in which the invasion was delayed, giving Hitler more time to prepare his defences, the struggle to reach Berlin might have taken twice as long. Not once Russia had taken it

At a conservative estimate, each year of the fighting in Europe brought on average about seven million deaths, so the significance of Turing's contribution can be roughly quantified in terms of the number of additional lives that might have been lost if he had not achieved what he did.
If U-boat Enigma had not been broken, and the war had continued for another two to three years, a further 14 to 21 million people might have been killed.

For fuck sake, you are just ignoring all the evidence, so read again:

Dear me poor history going on again here, where people are not looking at the logistical problems and whaty was the more pressing need in who was to be priority in taking the fight to out of Japan and Germany.

For a start it would have been impossible to make the japanese the priority from the start due to the fact American navy capabilities had not been built up and it would take until 1943 for that to be possible where they had vastly more numerical superiority. In 1941 expansion by japan was being stretched and while they had the ascendancy, Japn's limitations were already beeing made by the fact they were not advancing technologically with the western allies. They failed to upgrade their fighters, and their warships had outdated radar systems, the most impotanty deficiency they had was radar control fire systems for their warships, placing them at a greater disadvantage.

As seen at this point with America joining the conflict, Russia was on the brink of defeat. Whilst they may have held out which had more to do with Japanese attention wrongly attacking America and not Russia, they did so only by the skin of their teeth. If Russia had not pulled their eastern Siberian divisions from the defence against any possible Japanese attack, it is doubtful, they would have stemmed the German advance in Autum 1941. Japanese went off German success but wrongly choose to attack America instead of Russia, which if they had Russia would have fallen to the Nazi Jackboot. Even more pressing was 1942 for the Russians, who were on the defensive for most of the year, where if any year they were closest to defeat was this year.

Thus the most pressing matter out of the two situations was the German theater of conflict, where if Russia had fallen the task of defeating Germany could have taken well over a decade if not longer. Germany would have had the vital resources in needed espcially in oil, let alone freeing up millions of battle hardened troops to the west which would have made an invasion in France of extreme difficulty, if not impossible. Germany would have had all its fighter resources to take also on the Al.lied bombers no doubt with horrific consequences.

So out of the two choices it is easy to see what was the most pressing matter, as if Russia was knocked out of the conflict, the job of defeating Germany may have taken decades, whos teachnological advantage over the allies would have become more telling as the war went along. This is why so much emphasis was placed on supplying Russia with all the necessary resources it needed, when it was under extreme pressure. Even up until 1943 and the Battle of Kursk, who battalians of Russian armour was made up of allied tanks. Let alone the most telling supply other than vital materials was the 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks. Without the jeeps and trucks of which the Russians only produced around 150,000 would have denied them the flexability of the massive counter attacks and encirclement battles they would not have able to pull off with such resources. This is why all nations played such a vital part in this conflict but as seen the most pressing need was to keep Russia in the conflict, hence why japan could wait.

For goodness sake, there is far more to the conflict in Russia than you are even beginning to understand, where the bloodshed paid by Russia was instrumental in helping win the war. The fact is in 1941 and 1942, the most pressing concern was the Soviet Union which was on its knees, which japan played a part in helping them by instead attacking Pearl harbour and not joining with the Germans in attacking the Soviet Union. If they had, there is no doubt in Autum 1941, the Soviet Union would have been too stretched. It took also the Soviet Union time to move their factories and ramp up production, where as seen they needed vital allied resources, which many Allied merchantmen paid the price in helping keep the Soviet Union alive.

People do not realise how much of a close run thing it was in 1941 and 1942 in the conflict in Russia, where it is likely if Moscow had fallen, Stalin would have been overthrown and peace overtures would have been made towards to the Germans.
Time and logistics was the key as to when the Germans attacked in June 22nd was late in the day to attack. At least a month earlier and they would have succeeded. The biggest failing the Germans made, was also their over confidence, to the point they never took a realistic look at the difficulties they would face. One big prolem was the winter of course in Russia, but even this is over played, because german winters could be as harsh and where Germany failed here was in developing weaponary that could operate in extreme cold weather. They had to light fires under tanks, to just thaw out the perol. They had to keep constant fires going to keep tanks operational. The oil in the machine guns and rifles froze, making them ineffective, to even worse many troops were not supplied with winter clothing. It is quite astounding the Germans held firm after the Russian counter offensive, which shows and proves how limited the Russian capabilities were at the time of stemming the German advance.

The facts are Japan was not the bigger threat and again it took time to build up the necessary naval requirements needed to take on the Japanese fleets.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:52 am

And the Naval Capacity thing is a bit of a stretch since Japan Could have been Stopped in Burma instead of Papua New Guinea Vastly reducing the Naval Requirements

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:53 am

veya_victaous wrote:And the Naval Capacity thing is a bit of a stretch since Japan Could have been Stopped in Burma instead of Papua New Guinea Vastly reducing the Naval Requirements

Utter babble

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:55 am

you repeated like 2 paragraphs of you argument word for word.. that's cheating
frodo

Anyway Been Fun
Churchill: Of Words and Deeds - Page 2 1589716573

Got a mate here now and will probably go to bed without coming back online ... Yay Friday Churchill: Of Words and Deeds - Page 2 2022273579

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:56 am

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:And the Naval Capacity thing is a bit of a stretch since Japan Could have been Stopped in Burma instead of Papua New Guinea Vastly reducing the Naval Requirements

Utter babble

Read the Flying tigers link I posted.. It is interesting I think it would make a good war film Wink

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:58 am

veya_victaous wrote:you repeated like 2 paragraphs of you argument word for word.. that's cheating

Anyway Been Fun

Got a mate here now and will probably go to bed without coming back online ... Yay Friday

Yes because you never addressed a single point, showing what an incompetant amateur Aussie you are.
In other words start addressing the points instead of being a wally.
Immaginary friends do not count.

Razz

by Original Quill Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:50 pm

veya_victaous wrote:And the Naval Capacity thing is a bit of a stretch since Japan Could have been Stopped in Burma instead of Papua New Guinea Vastly reducing the Naval Requirements

Important point. The US needed to break into the tripartite pact in order to get around the Neutrality Act that Congress had hung around FDR's (and Churchill's, indirectly) neck. That means they had to get Japan to declare war on the US. The provocative US moves— e.g., moving the US Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor only said one thing—were designed to start a war.

The reason why the Japanese took longer than Germany to defeat, was twofold: 1) the size of the Pacific Ocean; and 2) the Japanese Samurai code. I have addressed the Japanese fanatical, suicidal mentality, which prolonged the land conquest, elsewhere. However, the Pacific was by far the largest theater of war ever encountered in history. Permitting the Japanese to spread out as far as Guadalcanal, and the Coral Sea for the Navy, added year(s) to containing the Japanese.

True, strategically they were doomed after the Battle of Midway 6-months into the war, but as I've said elsewhere the Japanese had to be taught how to surrender. As long as they held a square meter of land, they would drag it out; they weren't strong soldiers, but they were like ants. By giving them half of the Pacific, it prolonged the war by maybe another year.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:And the Naval Capacity thing is a bit of a stretch since Japan Could have been Stopped in Burma instead of Papua New Guinea Vastly reducing the Naval Requirements

Important point. The US needed to break into the tripartite pact in order to get around the Neutrality Act that Congress had hung around FDR's (and Churchill's, indirectly) neck. That means they had to get Japan to declare war on the US. The provocative US moves— e.g., moving the US Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor only said one thing—were designed to start a war.

Ho many more times are you going to pedal this lie Quill?
Not going to go round yet again easily refuting this conspiracy nonsense.
Such a nation would have been geared up for war or in that time since the outbreak in 1939 of vastly increasing armaments, of which did not happen. It took two years for the US to ramp up their industrial might, which this alone, let alone the countless other evidence I have presented easily refutes such an incorrect claim you constantly make here. If Roosevelt wanted to get around the neutrality act he could have moved conveys into the way of U-boat known paths. Instead he maneuvered them away form them. Proving again there is no validity behind your claim. Japan acted on German success in the East and nothing on the Americas ever doing.

Have a good evening

On the basis of decrypted Axis messages declassified in the mid-1970s, the noted German naval historian Jürgen Rohwer in 1984 published a careful analysis that showed how intelligence on German submarine dispositions was carefully utilized to divert individual ships and convoys so that they would cross the North Atlantic safely. Far from seeking incidents, the United States was trying to avert them. Roosevelt did utilize the minute number that occurred to try to awaken the American people to the dangers ahead, but it would, of course, have been possible to utilize the available information to insure an incident every few days. Unfortunately the linguistic isolationists who predominate among American diplomatic historians have neither utilized Rohwer’s findings nor checked the records available in College Park themselves. Even without this information, there was the discovery by Robert Butow of tapes of the president’s confidential conversations when a recording machine was accidentally not turned off. This text, published in 1982—and in English—similarly shows the president’s interest in keeping the country out of formal participation in the war.

http://h-diplo.org/essays/PDF/JMH-Weinberg-SomeMythsOfWWII.pdf

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:06 pm

by Original Quill Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:13 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Hitler would have still hit the wall of Russia, He hadn't even pacified France yet.
and the Japanese would have been defeated quicker removing the threat in the pacific allowing the now Veteran forces to concentrate in Europe.

Yes, Russia won the war in Europe. But, too, Germany was heading east.

veya_victaous wrote:Of course the US could have started fighting Japan in as early as July 7, 1937 instead you waited until...

No it couldn't. The US was constrained by the Neutrality Acts.

Wiki wrote:The Nye Committee hearings between 1934 and 1936 and several best-selling books of the time, like H. C. Engelbrecht's The Merchants of Death (1934), supported the conviction of many Americans that the U.S. entry into World War I had been orchestrated by bankers and arms dealers for profit reasons. This strengthened the position of isolationists and non-interventionists in the country.

Powerful forces in United States Congress pushing for non-interventionism and strong Neutrality Acts were the Republican Senators William Edgar Borah, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Gerald P. Nye and Robert M. La Follette, Jr., but support of non-interventionism was not limited to the Republican party. The Ludlow Amendment, requiring a public referendum before any declaration of war except in cases of defense against direct attack, was introduced several times without success between 1935 and 1940 by Democratic Representative Louis Ludlow.

Democratic President Roosevelt and especially his Secretary of State Cordell Hull were critical of the Neutrality Acts, fearing that they would restrict the administration's options to support friendly nations. Even though both the House and Senate had large Democratic majorities throughout these years, there was enough support for the Acts among Democrats (especially those representing Southern states) to ensure their passage. Although Congressional support was insufficient to override a presidential veto, Roosevelt felt he could not afford to snub the South and anger public opinion, especially while facing re-election in 1936 and needing Congressional co-operation on domestic issues. With considerable reluctance, the president signed the Neutrality Acts into law. When Congress passed the Neutrality Act of 1935, the State Department established an office to enforce the provisions of the Act. The Office of Arms and Munitions Control, renamed the Division of Controls in 1939 when the office was expanded, consisted of Joseph C. Green and Charles W. Yost.

The Neutrality Acts were aimed primarily at Europe's war, but it didn't escape anyone's notice that given the tripartite pact, and even before (the Acts stated both Europe and Asia), for the US to initiate hostilities with Japan would have led to a violation. The AVG (Flying Tigers) was organized ostensibly as a private group, under the auspices of the Chinese forces.

by Sponsored content

Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds

Re: Churchill: Of Words and Deeds