I would have to agree with Octospire. The west takes an undue amount of credit for ‘winning’ WWII. The lend lease program really didn’t pass as a percentage, that much equipment on the allies. The 50 destroyers lent/leased to the brits were of WW I vintage. It did allow the USSR to not have to concentrate on building small numbers of transport planes and utility equipment but rather concentrate on building their excellent stormovik (sp) ground attack plane and the steller T-34 tank.
By the time the US was ready to do some fighting it was mid -42 and they got their nose bloodied fighting in west africa as they did not care to learn the lessons the easy way from the other allies with 3 years of fighting experience. Moreover the initial daylight bombing raids over Germany in 42 early 43 were a disaster!
Dispite all the allied bombing, the germany GDP continued to INCREASE and only started to decrease when Germany started to lose France in mid 44.
I have said it many times, 9 out of 10 germans killed in the war were killed by russians. So that means the US, Britain, Canada, and all the rest get to split the other 10% of inflicted casualities and from that take credit for winning the war?
No doubt, without US industrial help the War probably would have ended in 1947 with the USSR controlling all of europe including France.
But what if Japan entered the war and attacked British territories and the US didn’t?
Well Japan and Germany never had a world conquest pact. Japan would have been happy with control of the near pacific and access to oil and resources. Britain could have signed a peace treaty with Japan, Japan never entered the war against the USSR and it was only after Germany gave up that the USSR declared war on Japan. Hence the use of the a bomb to pre-empt the eventual military conquest of Japan by Russia.
In fact the only reason Japan went to war with the allies was due to the oil embargo by the US starting in the spring 41 I think. Has the US kept up the supply of oil, Japan would have NEVER attacked the US or other western nations and would have been happy to rape and pillage China. Obviously, the US did the right thing but the allies should have been more prepared for the consequences. You tell a starving person to just roll over and die so I can eat my dinner….well just don’t turn your back on that person and expect them to just roll over and die.
Is it true that the British were working on the A-bomb in Canada?
Is it true that the British were working on the A-bomb in Canada?
Quoted From http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKOrigin.html
“Britain was the first country to seriously study the feasibility of nuclear weapons, and made a number of critical conceptual breakthroughs. The first theoretically sound critical mass calculation was made in England by Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls in Feb. 1940. Inspired by this finding the MAUD Committee (a code name chosen from the first name of one member’s nanny) was founded. Headed by Sir Henry Tizard, from 10 April 1940 to 15 July 1941, this committee worked out the basic principles of both fission bomb design and uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion. The work done by the MAUD Committee was instrumental in alerting the U.S. (and through espionage, the USSR) to the feasibility of fission weapons in WWII. A high level of cooperation between Britain, the U.S., and Canada continued through the war, formalized by the 1943 Quebec Agreement. Britain sent the “British Mission”, a team of first rank scientists to work at Los Alamos. Among the scientists who made this journey were the pioneer of shock wave physics Geoffrey I. Taylor and a protege - William G. Penney. The mission made major contributions to the Manhattan Project, and provided the nucleus for British post-war atomic weapons development effort.”
So given that the British mainland was under the threat of possible invasion moving a nuclear weapons program to Canada would of been a likelyhood as to not let the technology end up in Nazi hands. So even without American involvement it is quite possible that Britain could of obtained an atomic weapon and ended world war 2 in Europe with a bang.
The uranium ore was produced in Canada. I’m not sure that Canada supplied many or any of the top tier theoretical physicists but doubtless many mid-level and lots of engineering types were involved. True, many brit brains at top levels were involved. I would suggest the contribution of Alan Turing in cracking the enigma machine probably was a greater contribution to winning the war, seeings as the A-bomb was in response to a german threat and came a bit late for use there.
Theory is all fine but it did take enormous resources and long term industrial development/investment which only the US could have done.
Ugh more Canada junk? seriously? No The UK and the USSR could and would have survived without the US assistance
Somebody implied or asked if the a-bomb production could have been moved to Canada. My suggestion perhaps was a but too nuianced. Basically I said Canada had ZERO high level contribution and MERELY supplied the ore and some technicians. If this is bragging in your mind I would suggest your country has rather modest achievements.
By the way, I did not mean to imply Alan Turing was Canadian. He was Brit, so again, the ‘bragging canuck’ points out how a foreign nations contribution were key, how arrogant….
The U.S help in Europe allowed for a secend front. Had the U.S not got involved the U.S.S.R would have ‘liberated’ all of Western Europe. This would have caused a situation that would have led to a 3rd World War.
@ABWorsham:
The U.S help in Europe allowed for a secend front. Had the U.S not got involved the U.S.S.R would have ‘liberated’ all of Western Europe. This would have caused a situation that would have led to a 3rd World War.
Would it of led to world war 3 though? its quite the interesting scenario. Post 1945 Communism conquered a large part of Asia, including China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia as well as Stalin’s aquisitions in Eastern Euripe and that didnt cause WW3 so i’m not really sure that the U.S would of got involved especially given the possibility of facing off on two fronts against both in the Pacific and Europe. Most likely the islationist policies would of continued as well as the anti- communist operations in Latin America, but beyond that I dont think they would of been willing to commit they’re entire armed forces for something that for the majority wasnt their war.
If the Americans would have intervened before the end of 1941, the second world war would have been less long.
Probably that there would have been less death.
Then, the Americans did not save the world!
In fact, the hesitation of the US government caused the death of million human beings.
Its a bit hard on the Americans to lay and blame for them not doing anything to stop WW II. They actually did, wildrow Wilson (sp) was against the treaty of versailles which the French and Brits forced on the Germans. It is often said WW II started the day that treaty was signed. Nobody did much to promote democracy in Germany post WW I which they did get for awhile. Remember, Hitler was elected…… reichstag fire rally cry notwithstanding
Had the Brits and French done something in 36 I believe when Hitler re-occupied the ruhr valley it would have been game over for the Nazis. The Americans came to the rescue of the european colonialist once in WW I. Many americans believed if the europeans didn’t learn their lesson then a pox on both their houses.
Its a bit hard on the Americans to lay and blame for them not doing anything to stop WW II. They actually did, wildrow Wilson (sp) was against the treaty of versailles which the French and Brits forced on the Germans. It is often said WW II started the day that treaty was signed. Nobody did much to promote democracy in Germany post WW I which they did get for awhile. Remember, Hitler was elected…… reichstag fire rally cry notwithstanding
Had the Brits and French done something in 36 I believe when Hitler re-occupied the ruhr valley it would have been game over for the Nazis. The Americans came to the rescue of the european colonialist once in WW I. Many americans believed if the europeans didn’t learn their lesson then a pox on both their houses.
I thought Wilson signed but Congress failed to ratify it.
Wilson never proposed war-reparations from Germany and was against it. It was the French who pushed for it. The brits wanted Germany relatively strong but not too strong to act as a bastion against the communist threat from russia. Most of the war was fought on French soil, naturally they suffered the most and wanted some compensation including lost industrial lands lost to the prussians in the latter half of the 1800s.
Wilson wanted and proposed the league of nations, the Senate (I don’t believe congress gets involved in foreign affairs if I understand the US political structure correctly) thought this would bring the US into another war so voted not to ratify the treaty of versailles but rather signed a seperate peace accord with Germany. Because the Germans felt they never really lost the first war and it was a conspiricy of poor leadership along with the humiliating treaty of versailles that let the allies basically plunder germany and ruin its economy thus making it ripe for a strongman to make promises of a better world.
Wilson never proposed war-reparations from Germany and was against it. It was the French who pushed for it. The brits wanted Germany relatively strong but not too strong to act as a bastion against the communist threat from russia. Most of the war was fought on French soil, naturally they suffered the most and wanted some compensation including lost industrial lands lost to the prussians in the latter half of the 1800s.
Wilson wanted and proposed the league of nations, the Senate (I don’t believe congress gets involved in foreign affairs if I understand the US political structure correctly) thought this would bring the US into another war so voted not to ratify the treaty of versailles but rather signed a seperate peace accord with Germany. Because the Germans felt they never really lost the first war and it was a conspiricy of poor leadership along with the humiliating treaty of versailles that let the allies basically plunder germany and ruin its economy thus making it ripe for a strongman to make promises of a better world.
The Senate is part of the Congress, along with the House of Representatives. It is the Congress’s job to declare war and ratify all treaties
I think UK would have trouble on assaults like D-Day and Italian Campaign.
@Dylan:
I think UK would have trouble on assaults like D-Day and Italian Campaign.
1942 Dieppe Raid
Actually, congress does not ratify treaties, the senate does. And with the treaty of versailles, it was the senate that did not ratify it, congress had no part in it. Oddly, congress has the power to declare war but not sign treaties.
1956 Suez crisis should be advertised to the muslim world as an example of American standing up for a muslim nation agasint the French,Brits and Israel nations.
Actually, congress does not ratify treaties, the senate does. And with the treaty of versailles, it was the senate that did not ratify it, congress had no part in it. Oddly, congress has the power to declare war but not sign treaties.
1956 Suez crisis should be advertised to the muslim world as an example of American standing up for a muslim nation agasint the French,Brits and Israel nations.
The Senate is part of the Congress
