USA and WWI and WWII

[Blub2k]

damn I missed that

Anyway 1000 posts and possibly only 500 arguments in there, not bad

[Eddy396]

not many US troops in NI eh?

Precisely! Upto 3 years ago the US were suppling arms to the IRA.

[KBeee]

Precisely! Upto 3 years ago the US were suppling arms to the IRA.

Up to 3 years ago the US was the biggest foreign money earner for the Taliban too.
They paid the Taliban for their "Good work in suppressing the heroin trade" in the War Against Drugs
Now we have the War Against Terror instead, and the money has been internalised to spy on US citizens and visitors.

[Apex]

Terror State.

[Skeps]

Without the Americans yes things would have been very different, the bit that gets me is we asked for help and they said no!
It wasnt until Pearl Harbour that the US got involved.
I know there were Americans that wanted to come over and do the right thing but the US's arrogance is what annoys me about it, "Oh we saved your buts in WW2" etc etc
That arrogance again was seen after 9/11, the US gets attacked and its an all out war against terror, theres plenty of countrys out there that have to put up with terrorism without US help yet when the US itself gets stung they expect all and sundry to be with them on there personal crusade around the world.....

Very Very Well Said

[KBeee]

There's a lot of myths about WW2 that are hardly ever addressed - yes the Americans still bitch about how much money and respect they're owed, and yes, the British are still paying vast sums of money in debt repayments. AND IT IS PAID AND NOT DEFAULTED ON! (Though Fox News won't tell them that)
The US helped the Allies plenty - they sold them arms in a clandestine sorta way. Always denying they were helping. Until they were attacked.
Before Pearl Harbour the US "gave" 50 destroyers to the Royal Navy, but the US wanted the payment for these Destroyers (which were earmarked for scrap) in gold, and also took all British interests in US and world companies in payment, along with ceding territorial rights of many British administered places. Oh - the ship transporting the gold bullion from UK to US also had to be insured by Lloyds in case it got sunk by U-boats ergo the UK would still have to pay....
In WW1 the first US troops (1917) couldn't get any arms, cos the US companies were getting too much money from selling to the Allies and didn't want to provide their own army with guns and lose a good profit... The first US units had to borrow from the British Army
That's why I find it hard to accept the view that "Hey - We Saved Your Butts Out Of The Goodness of our Hearts" from US citizens that are 18 years old, never been abroad - except in Service - (Heck, US is Centre Of The World, And To Prove It I Don't Even Have A Passport!), and the ones that HAVE been actually OUT OF THE USA were either in a Base in Germany, or a Base in Okinawa! Jeez.. they LOVE us.. look at all those Jap Chicks waiting in the Bar outside our base...

[Stolly]

Do we still owe from Lend/Lease ? I thought that was paid off some time ago ?

In terms of US contribution in WWII yes of course their contribution was critical at many stages in the European theatre.

Even in before 1941 they were contributing in many ways. The Browning machine guns that armed the Spitfires and Hurricanes were American, the 100 Octane fuel that squeezed an extra few mph out of them came from refineries in the Americas (Albeit Shell owned). There was also their production of ammunition and other items.

All this was in the form of business transactions though rather than American altruism. We paid in cold hard cash, and their companies made a cold hard profit. The 1940's economic boom that established them as the worlds economic powerhouse had its foundation in our gold. It was only when the gold was in danger of running out that they implemented lend/lease. We paid on credit, and paid in full. Don't let any American tell you different. In fairness to the Americans this commercially hardnosed attitude was a result of our (and everyone elses save the Finns) failure to repay debts from WWI, although as noted we did equip the American armies in WWI.

Once America entered the war the floodgates really opened, but by 1944 only 25% of our material came from America. Their production of transports, aircraft carriers and items such as Sherman tanks was crucial however and should not be overlooked.

It was far from one way traffic however. We gave them Radar, and the jet engine. The first American jet fighter used a British engine, as did the famous Sabre of the Korean war (the Russian MiG15 also used a British engine in a strange twist of history). We also gave them the Merlin engine that powered the famous P51 that allowed them to carry out their daylight bombing campaign. Half the American troops landed on D-Day landed from Royal Navy vessels. All of them were based in the UK prior to D-Day. A million Commonwealth troops fought the Japanese.

Its entirely true to say we could not have won without them, but we may not have lost.

Its also true that without us they would not have landed in Europe, and may not have defeated the Japanese.

It was a partnership, less equal as time went on but a partnership nonetheless and as previously noted some American 18 year old who thinks differently is showing his ignorance of the historical facts.

[Blub2k]

Precisely! Upto 3 years ago the US were suppling arms to the IRA.

This is probably better in another thread but lets see how it goes, do you have a source for this? I am interested as I think you are referring to NORAID collecting money from Irish communities in Boston etc but not official government support in the form of arms and logistics.
So let's see your source thanks

[FarmerJon]

If i remember correctly it wasn't a case of official government funding, but more a case of a blind eye being turned. Considering the American reaction when terrorism threatened THEM for once, it would be expected that they had been paragons of the anti-terrorist movement for decades and had been using their money & expertise in helping rid other countries of their terrorists for generations, rather than the state of affairs which actually was in place.

[Blub2k]

Ok that would be my thought but Eddys claim is a lot stronger than that lets see if he can clarify thanks.

[RVF500]

The first Nazi defeat was the battle of Britain. Without air superiority an invasion could not be mounted. They failed and their losses were significantly greater than our own. Also it dealt a huge psychological blow to the Luftwaffe as prior to this they had never suffered a setback. The next major defeat came in North Africa in 1942. I'm sure you've all heard of El Alamein. This too was decisive as it forced the Nazi forces onto the back foot and kept them rolling backwards. This too took place before the US became actively involved in the war. The Torch landings in Tunisia coming after this. British, French and commonwealth troops made up the majority of troops inItaly later on.

Let's not forget that the British were fightling on more than two fronts. Europe, North Africa and the Far East where the Japanese were finally halted and then repulsed at Imphal and Kohima. The overland route back through Burma and Malaysia was the domain of UK led forces. And as for the Battle of the Bulge. Don't forget that the North flank was held by British and Canadian troops. These same troops reinforced and assisted the American effort to redress the balance in the Ardennes. Finally, let's not forget that D-Day was a 3/5th British and Commonwealth affair.

Yes the Americans played a huge part in shaping the modern world. Many of the feats of their troops must not be detracted from. But saving us from speaking German? I don't think so. If they had got involved early on instead of playing shopkeeper again then the whole affair would have been much shorter lived and perhaps the total death toll of 55 million worldwide would have been significantly reduced.

The US is very good at promoting it's involvement whereas the rest of us are very bad at promoting our own efforts.

[RVF500]

The NORAID thing was ignored by successive administrations afraid of losing the 'Irish' vote. Self interest again. After 9/11 they couldn't really be seen to be tacitly supporting such a fund raising organisation (maybe not supplying arms directly but supplying cash that was ultimately used to buy arms). Whilst asking everyone else to join them on an anti-terror crusade.

[Eddy396]

OK may be not directly selling arms but certainly having a hand in supporting and funding the IRA. Come on, the money wasnt going into buying sweets and chocolate was it?

I thought Clinton was a complete arse tbh. John Major bent over backwards to negotiate a peace deal with the IRA and was promptly shafted by Clinton when he continued funding and supporting them. The whole relationship with the US and UK went sour. Pity we dont have a leader with balls anymore instead we have Mr Blair. I dont have links to back this up I just remember all this from the mid 90's, and from subsequent interviews with the people from that time.

[FarmerJon]

I personally thought that a lot of what Clinton did was good. He may have made some decisions I dont agree with, but in terms of his effect on america, i think it was positive. The economy of the US (& by extension to a point the world) flourished under his leadership, and his ties with the rest of the world cemented the US as a good influence in general. This contrasts sharply of course to what has happened post clinton. In any case, that was all a bit off topic...sorry

[spikegifted]

There is evidence that the US and UK armies left weapons for the German army to use as they withdrew from Russia.

Wow... That's a bit rich!

I somehow doubt that the US and UK military 'supported' German efforts to resist the Russians. First of all, British and US absolutely wanted unconditional surrender from the Germans - return to former boarders was not an option. To add to that, what were the German going to do with Allied weapons? The most important pieces of the jigsaw were transport and petrol. The Germans, under Speer's Armament Ministry, were able to produce huge amount of military hardware and ammo, but can't get to the fronts fast enough due to poor transport in the wasteland called USSR. Increased level of rear saboteur activities certainly didn't help either. Also, the German's military exploits were limited by the amount of oil available to them - primarily due to the loss of Soviet oil supplied that it had up to the beginning of Barbarossa.

[spikegifted]

I have my doubts about the real impact of American forces during WWI. Yes, they through a lot of bodies at a narrow sector on the Western Front, but the Germans were on their last grasp by the winter of 1917/18 - they managed one more large scale attack in late spring 1918, but it was nearly a spent force.

WWII was an entirely different issue. For those who have doubts, please don't simply look at the European/North Africa theater. The Americans practically single-handedly won the Pacific War. Yes, the British-led Indian forces held the Japanese advance into India and even pushed them back across Burma, but it really didn't change anything - they were still fighting when Imperial Japan surrendered. If you even have any illusion about Britain contributing in a positive and significant manner in the Far East, you should go and do some serious reading.

In additional to getting historical facts right, please try and understand historical events in their proper historical context. 1920s and 1930s was a time of when a great deal of the world's politics was dominated by a pacifist nature. Moreover, the US had a isolationist policy, shutting it doors, eyes and ears to the rest of the world.