[SIZE=7][COLOR=blue] Was the country of America neutral during the time of WW2 before the battle of Pearl Harbour, I would really like to know the answer to this. I do feel that personally they were neutral but I want to know others opinions about this small topic.

Thanx
Dan

I don't think we were neutral during WWII before Pearl Harbor. I think we were supplying weapons to the Brits

Ever hear of the Neutrality Act, yes we were neutral on paper, but FDR got around it by the Lend Lease Act, not giving aid to Britain but lending and leasing.

Germany and Japan along with Italy signed a mutual defense agreement called the Tri pact or something like that, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we declared war, and 1 hour after the attack Japan declared war on the U S A, that War declaration forced Germany to Declare war on the U S A as required by the Mutual Defense agreement with Japan. This ended the Neutrality Act.

America was full of German sympathizers, they held Nazi rally's in Madison Square Garden filled to capacity, they held parades all over the country, in particular Milwaukee Wisconsin. Charles Lindburg was a Nazi sympathizer, Prescott Bush was, the grandfather of the current president, his bank in NYC was shut down as a Nazi front, and closed for doing business with the enemy, all major American Corporations were doing business with the Nazi,s and continued to do so after the war started, many anyway.

And yes we Liberated France, nearly 4 years after Germany occupied France and after Germany declared war on the U S A, and it just happens , France is in the path to Germany, so our liberation was not just because we loved France and did them such a great favor. We had to do it.

It's a bit convenient isn't it?

"oh, we can't give you any weapons but you CAN buy them from us".

Let's face it, the USA stayed out of the war because it didn't affect them until Pearl Harbour. I don't mind that the USA stayed out of the war, i do find it offensive that some Americans try to give the impression that they joined the war for "freedom".

I also find it upsetting that while British men were in Europe fighting, American soldiers were in our country, taking the women who were married to the guys dying in some other country.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying they were all like that, but I think that the people who believe America fought for freedom should look a little harder and realise that the powers in the USA are only human, and they saw an opportunity to make some cash from the struggling Britain.

?? We were aiding Britain before Pearl Harbor and had agreed to take on the nazi's before pearl harbor. I suggest some research on the North Atlantic Charter. We were involved in Europe months before pearl harbor. Just prior to world war II our army was the 16th biggest in the world...right behind the vaunted Romanian army. We were in a depression. We could not afford to send troops immediately. Not to mention we didnt storm Europe until 1944 because of Winston Churchill. US Commanders wanted to attack Europe in 1942 but Churchill suggested we start on the outskirts of the nazi regime (North Africa) which we did. We lost more combined lives in WWII then Britain did. We enabled the push from both fronts. In Stalin's own words in reference to the mainly US lend Lease "without the help of the allies we would have not been able to cope". The US sent a gargantuan amount of aid to Britain and Russia during the conflict. The US troops were involved in some of the most horrific fighting in that war. The US did as much as it could. More then any one else.

Maybe the fact you lost more lives has something to do with the fact that you cant fight as well as the British or Russians. lets face it, the Italians were a bit of a joke in ww2, i think you guys were a bit, didn't you practically invent the term friendly fire?

Also, since when have you ever listened to another country? I doubt you would hold back just because Churchill told you so.

You quote Stalin, but nowhere in that sentence does it specifically mention America. even if it did, i don't think you can class a brutal communist dictator's "opinion" as credible evidence.

I'm not questioning the aid, I am questioning the motive, and the price we had to pay for your help.

The US Lend lease was just a smokescreen so they wouldn't have to give something away for nothing, the USA couldn't see past their own dollar signs. They still do it today, so why was it any different back then?

The Charter also said that countries should abandon the use of force when the war was over (to ensure peace). That really happened didn't it?

Actually in head to head match ups we did much better against the Germans then the British and Russians did. Especially the Russians. We lost more troops because we were more active and I said combined dont forget us Americans were fighting an equally tyrannical Japan in the Pacific.

Since when have we listened to a nation? You must be thinking of Europe. The US until very recently has listened. Who made Germany sign the treaty of Versailles producing a hostile arena that sprung Hitler? Could have sworn it was the French and Britiah and Italians. America wanted leniency but know one wanted to listen to Wilson. We did listen to Churchill we were mindful of the coalition which is why Montgomery was always more supplied then Patton despite the fact Patton outperformed Montgomery. This is why Eisenhower allowed Market Garden under Monty which was a failure.

Does it have to specifically mention the US??? Where do you think Russias rail service and cars came from?? All American the raw materials used to produce their mechanized force? All American. The huge food supplies that allowed the starving Russians to see 1944? American.

The price you had to pay?? What price the US forgave billions of owed debt to Britain before and because the Marshall Plan. We gave Britain billions more the Britain gave back. Britain to summarize got free aid.

Why was it any different? We were in a massive depression Einstein. We werent the world super power back then. The Lend lease was pushed by our own agenda? Russia didnt begin payment of world war two debts until after the cold war ended. Oh yes the brilliant US smoke screen give Britain billions of dollars in which we forgive half of it and allow the Russians 50 years before they start repaying us even despite the fact that we pump so much aid into Russian currently that the meager payments they now give us are more symbolic rather then repayment. Brilliant smoke screen

Abandon the use of force? That is an impossibility of the highest order. You act as if every nation in the world adheres to that. The US and Britain cannot afford to disband their military's. The world isnt a utopian society where you can skip and hop through life as everyone enjoys love and prosperity. As long as humans exist so will war. Should the world sit idle to world threats?

Actuall ywasnt it the British who invented the term friendly fire? Like as in when British soldiers executed French citizens while retreating from Dunkirk? Or how about when they strafe bombed a column of US pows in Germany.

you may have been more active but you missed out on 2 years of war. i would imagine it kind of balances out.

At the end of the day the British became quite lenient with the Germans, with the Anglo-German Naval agreement of 1935, and such.

I dont think you can directly compare Patton and Montgomery seeing as Patton had more resources to work with. Seeing as Market Garden was Monty's idea why wouldn't he command it?

OK granted, you helped out Russia alot, but like i said, for a price.

Oh how generous of you to let us off with our debt. At the end of the day we shouldn't have been charged for it at all. If you guys had just came in the war when you should have then we wouldn't have needed it.

I agree that you cannot aandon the use of force, what i was saying was that if the USA and Britain signed the Atlantic charter and that was included, then isn't the whole charter basically worthless, because both parties signed without really agreeing to most of it.

You have cited two examples of British friendly fire, the Americans are notorious for it. My grandfather fought in the war and he always said "never go into a battle with the Americans behind you because you will get shot in the back". And i think he would know, don't you?

Um, I believe the Russians lost more lives at Stalingrad than the Us lost during the entire war.
Ditto for Leningrad.

Somewhere between 30 and 50 million people died as a result of WWII. The United States accounts for about 250,000 battle fatalities.

At no time after they entered the war did the Soviet Union face less than 80% of the Nazi forces. We did our fair share, but the Germans were defeated by Soviet soldiers and American $$. This is a simplification but it will do. No disrespect intended for the brave people who wore an American uniform.

First to Leegoz.

At the end of the day? Hitler took power in 1933 this was after the turmoil Britain,France and Italy created within Germany. Dealing with a menace you helped spurn to office doesnt qualify as leniency. Patton didnt have more resources to work with at all. Montgomery was a procrastinator who bugged centarl command time and time again for troops and supplies whether he needed them or not. Their is a story of Patton taking a major city in Europe with 2 divisions. That very day he recived a report from central comand ordering him to stay put (at the location he had moved from to sack the city, the position they thought he stayed at) until two more divisions arrived. to take the city he had just taken. Patton wrote a cocky letter saying "I have taken it with 2 divisions should I give it back?" Montgomery always had greater resources then Patton. He still demanded more. If Eisenhower would have supplied Patton in the manner he supplied Monty, Patton would have taken Berlin.

Like you said for a price???????? What price????? They didnt pay a dime back until the 1990's.

What on earth are you talking about? You shouldnt have been charged? Talk about being ungrateful. So the US should allow itself to slip back into the depression it had just came out of? So our economy should come second fiddle to Britains? We couldnt afford to give so much for nothing.

The whole charter is worthless because they were not clairvoyants? They wanted peace the world wanted different it was both our nations duties to rise to world adversaries. We agreed and followed as much as was humanly possible. Can you name a single agreement that has been followed to its exact specification? Look no further then Kyoto.


The Americans are notorious for it? Thats because Brits are illogical when it comes to war. Americans dont whine about it the same way Brits do because we accept it as an unfortunate part of conflict. We dont bring it up and hark on it all day as we understand its a part of war. An additional logical observation. The army that does the majority of the fighting and has the most weopens and machinery by common sense would have more friendly fire incidents. The US shot down a British fighter (which was missing its ally beacon). We killed some Canadian soldiers. This is our friendly fire incidents. This is twice the amount Britain had which was zero. Do you think the US merely only had two times as much equipment or manpower? We had 50 times more equipment and 5 times the troops. If Britain fought at our capacity and only had two instances of friendly fire incidents amongst allies this would be considered a massive success. The French are notorious for it the British too especially in world war I as thousands of friendlies died because of French and British artillery. 70,000 French soldiers alone. My grandfather who fought in the Netherlands said the Britsh soldiers there were incompetant buffoons who stopped marches and advances for tea breaks and whose Cromwell tank commanders drove blissfully unaware into Tiger traps and were blown to pieces because they were to arrogant to listen to the American scouts. Your grandpa doesnt know anything. He is one soldier. I could find a million American soldiers who could say the same exact thing about Brit soldiers. Its all rhetoric. So no grandpa doesnt know much.


To eyore.

Yes the Russians did lose millions of lives at Stalingrad and Leningrad....what is your point??? I said in engagements Americans performed better then Russian forces. How can you disagree with that considering Russia lost millions of troops as compared to the amount of troops Germany lost. Russia was dominated on the field and that casualty list you provide clearly shows that. Russia had awesome man power but were overmatched in ability. America in head to head matchups were more evenly matched.

80% is inaccurate. Von Paullus had like 250,000 men but germany had several million troops. Its more like 60% still not many troops when compared to the amount Russia had. Those soviet soldiers who fought were enabled to fight because of American aid. Russia left to itself would have fallen.

We spawned a menace? Perhaps if the USA had the courage at the time to make sure the Germans could no longer be a threat Hitler would have been dissuaded from going to war in the first place.

I have read official documents whereby Montgomery refused American help but the Americans kept the resources there just in case he needed it. Was this Montgomery's fault? If he said he didn't need you then he didn't need you to keep resources for him "just in case".

When i said it should have been free, i meant that America came into war as if it was the saviour of the world and they were there to protect it. If they really cared they would have come into the war earlier and not charged us to fight it for them. Do you really think Britain was in any state to fight a war either?

Im not saying either that the agreement should be followed to the letter, but if they didn't follow one part, what would stop them just ignoring another part?

Britains are illogical when it comes to war? I don't think so, you see, we dont see war as a John Wayne movie like alot of American soldiers do (take the footage from Iraq as an example). Killing your own men isn't acceptable at all, it shouldn't be dismissed as just "a part of war". Maybe this lack of compassion is why you guys do it all the time.

Well if my grandfather is one soldier then that means yours doesnt know anything either. I'm not saying the British were faultless, far from it. But you seem to be unable to comprehend the fact that the USA has its faults as well, alot of them. Perhaps your grandpa called us baffoons because we got in the way of his bullets.

Well you wouldn't think Russia were ill-trained from the stand at Stalingrad and The Battle ok Kursk. They seemed to hold their own.

Leegoz, you keep heaping blame on the US for not entering the war sooner. Have you forgotten the the British and French treaty with Poland is what got them involved in the war. The started as a European problem, why should the US have come into the conflict in 1939? Where were the British after the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong, and during the defense of Australia?
That's like us bashing Britain for not helping us when we fought in Panama.


You keep citing references to the atrocious amount of US friendly fire incidents. Do you have any statistics, other than a family anecdote to back up that assertion?


Quite amusing.....any proof of that? Didn't think so.


If that's factual, then it is proof of nothing more than the standard of British women's fidelity.

Okay, this isn't so much of a debate as an argument about who has the best soldiers!

Britain went to war with Germany in WW2 because we were threatened by Germany, not because we wanted to bring freedom to Poland. The USA was unconvinved of the need to fight a war involving another continent - especially against a country which was rather strong. Germany had no desire to fight America along with Russia & the UK and the US might never have got involved had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbour.

We (meaning the West) do not & never have get involved in wars purely in the name of Freedom & Democracy. If we can bring it about, then its good, but we fight wars because they are in our interests. No one knew about concentration camps until after the war, reports of them were simply considered unbelievable. Had we known, perhaps we would have moved to prevent Hitler taking power, perhaps not. With hindsight, the Treaty of Versailles wasn't very intelligent, but then, Germany had been the agressor in a horrific war, which the UK didn't want to repeat, we wanted Germany crippled. (Woodrow Wilson lived in America and although I think he was a very good & forward thinking president, there was NO WAY that Britain or France were going to listen to him about Germany's treatment after WW1. He was from a country on the other side of the world, so didn't need to worry as much as we did.)



The British Army is over 400 years old. It knows about 'friendly fire'....that people don't LIKE it doesn't make them illogical.


America got involved because it's own interests were at stake...as did Britain, Russia and every other country

Ok, I am going to have to step in here and deal with some of the history you people are tosing about.

Lets start with the Russians.

The USSR did get a great deal of aid from the west, and this bolstered them somewhat during the dark months of early 1942. It also provided the Red Army with badly needed mobility, the single most important import was thousands of trucks. However, raw materiels and actual weapons of war were few and in nearly irrelevant numbers. This is not to denegrate the aid given, it was certainly important, but to say that the USSR would have lost the war without it is a vast overexaggeration. During the high points of the allied aid, 30% of it was being sunk en route anyways.

Yes, the Rusians did face about 75% to 80% of the entire German war machine. They certainly did the vast bulk of the fighting, and defeated the vast majority of the German military strength, not only in numbers but in quality, the best German divisions, both Wehrmacht and SS were deployed against the Russians.

Next: origins of the war:

Both the UK and the US share blame for allowing the rise of National Socialism, if in fact anyone really carries any blame. Given the situation at the time (and no knowledge of the future) there was no reason for either countrty to really act any differently than it did regarding Germany until about 1945, when the Nuremburg laws deprived Jews of citizenship and property rights, that should have been a clear sign to both nations, but nobody in the world really did anything. Tossing about international blame for the rise of Hitler is silly. As an aside, neither the UK NOR the US were particularily stringent about the terms of the Versailles treaty, when Germany violated it again and again only France stood in any kind of opposition, the US and the UK both quietly agreed.

Next the skill of the fighting forces:

Statistically, the most effective forces in the second world war were the germans, if you compare a ratio to enemy deaths per friendly death. The worst were the Japanese, though that statistic is skewed by the isolated nature of the island hopping campaign.

Yes, when the Americans first arrived in combat they got their assess handed to them. Kasserine Pass was an example of inexperience and clumsyness. This has nothing to do with nationality, just that the US had not actually fought a modern war yet, and its troops were all green. They learned quickly, and by the end of the war they had a marginally better ratio than the British, but when I say marginally I mean about a 10th of a percentage point. In other words, the US and the Uk forces by the end of the war were exactly the same in terms of combat capability and fighting skill. (Aside: slightly better in terms of ratio than both US and UK is Canadians. Woop!!) By the very end of the war, the Russian ratio was not that far below the western allies, however their ratio was SO bad in the first 24 months of the war that it kindof skews the statistics.

Lastly: Patton and Montgomery.

Patton was an inconsiderate, borderline sadistic bastard with delusions of grandeur and a bad temper. Montgomery was a supremely arrogant snob with a god complex and borderline racist tendencies. Neither is a particularily good example of their respective nations. They had completely different styles of warfare, but they were both extremely competent leaders of men. Both scored great victories, and had not a few reverses. Comparing them as exemplar of their nations does neither country any good.

Somehow I have the feeling that you could take the statistics and show anything you like with them, especially in such a large war.....

Not really. These come from a series of studies of combat effectiveness conducted after the war, and if broken down temporally, they provide a solid view of the capacity of each army at particular phases of the war. They are also used in Harisson's excellent bok, the Economics of WWII, which I recommend to all.

Taken as a whole, you cant really show anything with these stats except the reality of national combat effectiveness during the war.

Leegoz I find it really pointless talking to you so this is the last post to you.

By spawning Hitler I mean forcing the Germans to sign the unfair treaty of Versailles after world war I. This put Germany in a state of chaos. The economy was in shambles. This lowly existence is what allowed Hitler tocome to power. I am saying if France and Germany and Italy would have shown respect and leniency to Germany following World war I Hitler would have never been able to rise to power.

Read official documents?? yeah I believe that. Any semi respectable world war II researcher would laugh at you right in your face for that comment. Montgomery constantly clamored and requested everything from Eisenhower whether he needed it or not. He was always given supplies that kept Patton from moving. Eisenhower trying to be mindful to the British and the coalition always favored Monty.

Yes that is why I called it rhetoric. My grandpas opinion doesnt matter either. He is one soldier.

The rest of your post I am done with as it makes zero sense and you contradict yourself. Not to mention you bring up this totally cliche and ignorant European stereotype that feels just in classifying Americans because of Hollywood. Yes its true everyone in Europe we all have SUV's, Million Dollar Homes, we have all killed someone, We kill our mailmen when they dare trespass on our lawn, everytime I walk outside I hear gunshots and blah blah blah. Stereotypes are for the illogical.

Nikachu I am sorry. I didnt want to make it a culture war. I like Britain I have the utmost respect for Britain. Friendly fire accidents happen on both sides is all I am saying. I am not saying American troops are better I am saying they are not worse. It is simply impossible to judge who had the best troops and illogical to try. I jumped on Leegoz because he said Americans couldnt fight and that we avoided the war in Europe. Both ignorant statements

One more time we were involved in Europe prior to Pearl Harbor. We were aiding Britain before harbor and had agreed to take on the nazi's before Pearl Harbor. I am bored with this myth. We were involved in Europe months before Pearl Harbor.

Vermillion. In Stalins own words he admitted w/o the aid of the allies Russia would have fell......In Stalins own words. Stalin as in Joseph Stalin.

The aid didnt bolster them somewhat it was their lifeblood. It was their end all be all. The amount of raw materials the US sent to the Soviets was gargantuan.

30% was not being sunk. We shipped non-stop from Alsid, from the arctic convoys,airdrops, and through the British in Turkey. The aid came in non-stop.

No the Russians faced about 60% of German armies. Maybe 70 % percent as stationed there but not all were fighting. This is why Hitler demanded Von Paulus to break out and link up in Poland with other army groups. Von Paulus in the 6th had like 300,000 men suboordinate attack units were largely Romanian. Germany still had oveer a million men in the West and several hundred thousand waiting in Poland. Russia never faced the bulk of the German army. They faced portions of disunited German and Romanian units.

The treaty of Versailles that unfairly made Germany admit to being solely responsible for the war was created and pushed by the French and Britihs and Italians. The US president Wilson was lenient he didnt want to punish Germany. He wanted to rebuild it but George Lloyd and Clemenceau wanted to punish Germany. The desolate situation in Germany caused by Brit and French sanctions is what gave rise to the Nazi's it wasnt America at all. Wilson was lenient. 14points.

Patton was effective. Patton was a military genius. Even the Germans recognized patton before any allied commander which is why the beaches in normandy were so lightely defended as they were expecting the allies to launch an attack at Calais with Patton and believe me Patton was the only name that reverberated with the German Brass Jodl, Guduerin and Manstein. Montgomery has success but his battles were won as followed. Build up huge troop supplies, get massive supplies attack. Patton was the only general in Rommels class who understood manuever. He attacked, he positioned, he won. As field commanders Monty wasnt in Pattons league his greatest field success at El Alamein only gave way to huge German retreat in which Monty did nothing as he was to busy revelling in his victory. Like Burgoyne in the American revolution. Patton invited war he attacked.

No he didn't. Sorry, but the reality is that while aid was coming he continuously asked for more and harped on the importance of it, but certainly never made any declarations about it being necessary for the survival of the USSR. After 1944 he completely downplayed it and eventually wrote it out of much of the history of the USSR. If he ever made such a completely uncharictaristic comment, then I am sure you could find a source for me?



Actually supplies of raw materiels were fairly limited. The major product of the aid was several hundred thousand motor vehicles, mostly medium and heavy trucks, as well as locomotives and rail stock. Some old tanks and aircraft were sent as well, and valuable AA guns. However, when seen as a percentage of the war production of the USSR they are very small, and most of the lend-lease aid did not even ramp up until after the victory in front of Moscow, winter 1942.

I did not say 30% of all aid was being sunk, I said that during sevral critical periods, as much as 30% of the aid was being sunk. The North Atlantic convoys carried the bulk of the aid, and over the course of the war about 20% of them were destroyed, but at times, like the infamous PQ17, as much as 50% of them were not getting through.



You keep referring to Paulus as if 6th army was the only army stationed in the East at the time. Not only was it not, it was not even the largest. Go read up a bit on operation Mars, the simultanious soviet attack on the Moscow front which paralleled the Stalingrad counteroffensive. I am not referring to where units were stationed, I am referring to destruction of units on the overall orders of battle, and the USSR accounts for a little over 75% of all German forces, including their best.

Yes, in 1942 Germany had a million men in Poland and France. There were slowly transferred east however, to deal with the worsening situation. By the time the Allies invaded France the forces there were terribly denuded.



Nobody is saying that Patton was not a good leader, he excelled in mobile armoured warfare in particular. However to dismiss Montgomery out of hand is silly and demonstrates that there is a certain amount of nationalism backing up your points. Monty proved himself to be as able a leader as Patton, though in different situations. The Germans certainly knew of Patton, and respected him, but he was one of many Allied commanders they knew and respected. Patton had his strengths, and he most certainly had his weaknesses, as did Monty. Their styles of command were extremely different.

Even Rommel, though again a brilliant commander, was not in the top three of most skilled German commanders, but post war tales and stories have inflated the skills of both Rommel and Patton past their reality.

Um yes he did. I have about it in multiple sources. I have read about Martin Gilbert and Richard Overy.....After a minute or two of searching here is a place that quote's Stalin.....http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml

I believe its the second page Stalin very explicitly says w/o the help of the allies we wouild have not been able to quote. I have read this numerous times.

Actually they were not fairly limited.

I know about operation Mars?? You must mean operation Blue where Manstein went south. This failed then operation Sturgeon was enacted spearheaded by hundreds of thousand s of Romanians troops. Germany never had a concentrated attack of 75 percent of their forces on Russia that is ludicrous they never attcked in such a cohesive manner which was the problem. Half a million troops in Russia were not German this is why they were seldom used as Germany didnt trust non German soldiers. Barbarossa entailed nearly 3 million men but you have to take into account the the forces Germany diverted from Barbarossa to crush the Yugo coup. The percentage of German troops in Russia was about 65 percent but they were not cohesive it isnt as if the Russians confronted 2.5 million men in a single push. Russia is massive dealing with 65 percent of a disunited German invasion doesnt send chills of respect down my spine.

The Alsid airway between Alaska and Russia and the airdrop carried the bulk.

Hitler still had a combined 1.7 million troops who were not engaged in Russia. This is leaving several portion of his units in Poland which could easily put the total at 2.5.

I am sorry, that makes no sense. I was referring to operation Mars, the Soviet counterattack on the German armies in Front of Moscow, winter 1942-43.



Nobody ever said that, or anything like that. Nobody claimed that the Rusians faced 75% of the German military might at once, simply that over the course of the war, Russia accounted for the destruction of over 75% of the Forces the Germans wielded during the 5 years of Eastern warfare, including their best and brightest.

As for Stalin's quote, I shall check in my library when I get home. I have everything those two men ever wrote, and was fortunate enough to participate in a forum with Overy when I was doing my MA at the LSE. Brilliant man, if a bit short tempered.

That wasnt worded very well. My thing was operation mars was a failure was it not? It gave way to another plan. This is why I had question marks as I didnt understand why you referenced it. Operation Blue was a German offensive that I was using to show the lack of concentration of German units it is the plan where manstein attacked the Crimea and Von Paulus attacked Stalingrad.

Someone did bring it up in that context as I read it. Russias geographic size makes their defense of German forces non to impressive. The geography scale in which Russia resisted German forces doesnt show anything except the ignorance of Hitler. It was a systematic crushing. Its pace of execution enabled the offensive from the west to be equally important. Delegating the assault to Berlin to the Soviets was a measure adopted for Americans to save lives and to prepare the assaults in the Pacific. Russia payed dearly.

As for Stalins quote?? I just gave you the link. Its on page two. That whole report was created by Overy. You claim to read him and in that report he definately explains the soviet resistence was reliant and enabled by foreign aid of which the absolte grand majority was American. Why must you rummage through books when Overy presents Stalins quote in the link I provided? Its right in that link on the bottom ofpage 2. That blurb was written by Richard Overy.. He says " Without Allied help, Stalin Later admitted, we would not have been able to cope" What do you think that means? Read that whole report and see how much raw materials and rail cars and food was given to the Soviets and tell me they would have been able to resist on their own.

My point was more that you can take statistics from one battle (or whatever) & use 'em to show that one country was more effective than another, or that Montgomery was useless, or a genius, or Paton was a sadist or a hero or whatever you like, because chances are there will have been another conflict that proves the exact opposite.....(as a quick read of the posts on this thread seem to suggest!).

But I will look at that book, as I'm a sucker for Economics & Warfare!

America Neutral in WW2. Not after Germany declared war on the U S A, we were not and not after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Before that we tried to remain Neutral, but when it was obvious Britain was loosing the war, we began the Lend lease program, it was the only way FDR had to get around the Neutrality Act. Until the war declartions.

In so far as fighting men go Americans in WW2 were Citizen soldiers, draftee's or enlisted , with a few weeks training, all things considered they did remarkable well, but who in what Army was more Brave than the Bomber Pilots who bombed Germany during the Daylight bombing raids, knowing only 50% would ever return. More than anything the round the clock bombing won the war, it stopped war production.

And for the Brit here,who complains about Americans, socializing with British women ,whats wrong with you, young men far from home about to enter battle to help your country, and you want to bitch about the women.

I also recall, many young America Pilots flying for RAF before the war, seems to me Joe Kennedy was one of them, lost his life flying for the Brits.

The Russian Army of WW2, give me a break, many were forced to fight, and would not have had there not been equal fire power at there back. They lost thousands of men in stupid WW1 assualts to overwhelm by numbers against fortified positions. The Russian Winter did more to defeat the German Army than the Russian Army did.

America is not a perfect country, but I know of no other that has done more for other people in time of war or peace than the people of America.

Searching for new avatar material I came across some of the most fascinating political art from this era and I thought of this debate.
Here is the link: Editorial Cartoons
These are cartoons by Theodor Seuss Geisel, you probably know him better as Dr. Suess.

...wha???

Yes. the Dr. Suess.

Dr. Suess was the head editorial cartoonist for a New York magazine called PM at the time. You will see in his art from before Pearl Harbor that he very much desired to see the US become involved in the European war. I particularly liked his anti-apathy poem from 06/24/1941:

I find it interesting how you mention Prescott Bush as a nazi sympathizer, yet fail to mention the biggest nazi sympathizer of all, Joe Kennedy, the ambassador to england and patiarch of the corrupt Kennedy clan. He was dismissed by a president, FDR, because of his anti-british, pro-nazi opinions.

The US was not neutral during WW2. From September 1939, to December 7th, 1941, it was neutral. However, that neutrality was "slipping" as the Lend-Lease to England was drawing the ire of the Germans. Furthermore, the US policy of escorting British convoys halfway across the Atlantic was another sore point. Not mentioned thus far was the fact that during 1940, the United States was also arming a semi-German ally, against the Russians. Yes, the US supplied Brewster Buffalo fighter planes to the Finns for use against the Soviets during the "Winter War."

At no time were American soldiers traipsing all about England seducing all those fine British chippies while the brave Brits were duking it out with the Hun in Europe. The US 5th Army invaded Europe, first in Sicily, then later in Italy. Alongside the 5th Army was the British 8th Army, fresh out of North Africa. In short, the return of the Allies to the Continent was joint. When the brave Brits landed, so did the Yanks.

Allied aid to the Soviets. The Russian "war machine" was tuned almost exclusively to produce weapons. Thus, in addition to 600,000 trucks which were absolutely crucial, the other extremely important material that we supplied them was avgas. This was very important, and without it, the Soviets would have suffered far greater casualties to the Luftwaffe.

The German Wehrmacht WAS beaten by the Red Army. One important point that is overlooked is this: The Red Army never faced the entire Wehrmacht. Millions of German troops were deployed in the Balkans, North Africa, Italy, France, and Scandinavia. These troops, which faced, and fought, the Commonwealth and American forces, were not available for use against the Red Army. Had they been, extensive simulations played over the last 60 years indicate that the Germans would have handily defeated the Russians. In contrast, the full weight of the Red Army WAS available to Stalin. As a result of the Non-Aggression Pact signed with the Japanese, the Soviets were able to redeploy tremendous numbers of troops that were facing the Japanese in Manchuria, and use these troops against the Germans. Nor did they find it necessary to reinforce the quite modest border guard forces left behind for the duration of the European conflict.

The Pacific War was fought almost exclusively by the Americans (90%), with NO help whatsoever from the Russians until August 1945, and minimal help from the Commonwealth. The war in South Asia was primarily fought by the Commonwealth (75%), with American involvment as well.

The British did one heckuva job, although, just like the Americans and the Russians, they made some real bonehead decisions as well. The last of the "major powers" to begin rearming was the United States, and unlike the Soviets, we not only had to build an Army, we also had to build up a Navy adequate to fight a two ocean war.

ALL of this info is available for anybody with a library card. I would suggest that most of y'all avail yourself of the opportunity to educate yourselves, rather than displaying your ignorance.

Without American aid, Britian would have succumbed to the Nazi assault, and so would have the Soviets. Without Britian's gallant defense, alone against the storm, the Soviets wouldn't have stood a chance. And without the Soviet meatgrinder, the Western Allies would have never been able to sustain an invasion. In short, defeating the Axis took all three of us. Grant each the credit they deserve.

excuse me, but if i am not mistaken, 20 million Soviet soldiers were killed during WW2, plus civilian losses. also, if the defense of stalingrad failed, Hitler very well may have take over the U.S.S.R. needless to say, this would have been disastrous.
in sumamry, i disagree with the statement quoted above very much.

for the sake of adding a little fuel to the fire and maybe go on a little hypothetical tangent. can i hear some opinions as to how the war would have developed had the americans practiced total and complete isolationism. meaning, no aid to anyone, russians brits or anyone.


i personally believe britain would have fallen by late 43. at the latest. russia would have eventually become a quagmire and some kind of DMZ would have existed for awhile. at least until the germans moved their western forces eastward. with the technological advances of the germans america would eventually have to deal with germany. alone, america would have fallen too. so basically, in ww2, germany had the superior military. vastly superior to any single military in the world. in hind site all the countries involved could have done a better job in working together.

[quote]The Pacific War was fought almost exclusively by the Americans (90%), with NO help whatsoever from the Russians until August 1945, and minimal help from the Commonwealth. The war in South Asia was primarily fought by the Commonwealth (75%), with American involvment as well.[quote]




after germany fell the russians turned eastward in a land grab. they had no interest in helping america.

Just thought I would mention that even before Pearl Harbor the United States was largely responsible for Canada's coastal defense, as per Roosevelt's famous comment at Queens University in 38'. Moreover they actually escorted Canadian forward vessels heading to the eastern Atlantic, after being built. Not a proud moment of Canadian sovereignty but certainly gives indications opposed to being neutral

The U.S. would do anything to help the allied cause just short of belligerency...hardly a position of neutrality.

It seems silly to me that so many people would get so worked up about something that happened 60 years ago! I mean really, a lot of this 'debate' has been carried out as if you were talking about sports teams. Despite all the facts and figures; who lost more soldiers, who fought the bloodiest battle, when one nation joined the war and for what reasons... WW2 was an a war fought between two groups of nations. I seriously doubt that it would have ended with an allied victory if any of the major allied forces were not present. To say Russia, the UK or the USA were irrelelavant is preposterous, thegdin is correct in saying Germany was the most advanced military and would have walked over the allies if they weren't united.

Anyway, was America neutral before Pearl Harbour? No idea! Lets just be thankful they declared a side in 1942. Oh, and there were Nazis in my country too. Not sure about highstanding figures, but my grandfather (who worked as a chief engineer so was in the UK during the war) knew of several, including people in professional positions. Individuals have the right to have such strange affiliations, so I don't see the presence of American Nazis (even very highstanding ones) as a reason to say that America as a whole couldn't care less about the outcome of the war.