P51-B What gives

[JeffroK]

I thought the 1-6th Commando Sqns arriving in Aden/Karachi where fitted with the P51B (I think they should have the P51A but little difference except some had 20mm cannon)
 
Kingfisher, Aussie troops landed in Normandy. Well at least in very small numbers attached to British Rgts.
 
As for japan, I see him as one who knows a liitle about everything, and didnt someone say that a little knowledge is dangerous. I am waiting for his next plea of "Will AE have" and see if he wants Unit 731 in the japanese OOB.

[scott64]

Unit 731 in the japanese OOB.

What is the unit/what does it do? [&:]

[DuckofTindalos]

IJA bioweapons unit. Murdered hundreds of thousands of Chinese for "testing purposes".

[jeffs]

An interesting/ironic sidebar to Unit 731...I am copying from Wiki
 
Green Cross was founded in 1950 as Japan's first commercial blood bank and became a diversified international pharmaceutical company producing ethical drugs for delivery or administration by doctors and healthcare workers. Its founders included war criminals such as Kitano Masaji who performed torture and experimentations on humans in the Japanese military's notorious Unit 731 during World War II.
 
In the late 1980s, Green Cross and Takeshi Abe were at the center of a scandal in which up to 2,000 Japanese contracted HIV through the distribution and use of blood products which were known to be unsafe.
 
(most of those who contracted HIV were Hemopheliacs)

[wdolson]

All three major Allied powers made critical contributions:

The US provided the weapons production (the US had 50% of the world's entire industrial capacity in 1939).
The UK bought time.  They fought Germany to a stalemate in the West and kept their foot in the door until the Western Allies were capable of invading the continent.  England was also a great launching point for air raids on Europe as well as for a continental invasion.
The USSR provided blood.  The land war in Russia is the largest war in history all by itself.  The Russians took more casualties than anyone else and they fielded a staggeringly massive military force.

So all three were important in different ways.

[JeffroK]

IMHO,
 
The main result of LendLease was the supply of thousands of trucks, without them the Red Army would have been far less mobile.
 
The second effect was that with the west supplyng strategic materials and large number of AFV & Aircraft the USSR could concentrate on manufacturing combat weapons and not have to go through the mnufacture of these materials, the AFV & Aircraft though not always st line allowed the concentration at the front of top class materiel and still cover rear areas with "modern" combat weapons.
 
Another effect was the denuding of the Commonwalth Armies by the need to supply Russia, those AFV & Aircraft might have made Malaya secure!

[Japan]

Well.. so lets say that  the US financed the war then ^^
Soviet still won it.

As far as I understand it,  the Normandy Operation was about preventing Soviet of turning France into a puppet state.
The Actual Military effect of the Normandy operation I would not say was to big,  of course it pinned down alot of German troops,   but seriusly,  the Soviets had made progress from 43,  i dont think thay would be stopped with or without a Normandy Operation.

[John Lansford]

Uhhh, no, the Soviet Union did NOT "win WWII".  Absent the USAAF/RAF bombing campaign, the North African, Italian and European land campaigns, Lend Lease for all sorts of desperately needed items to the Soviets such as trucks, food, clothing and radios (Soviet tanks had one radio per 10 tanks), it is questionable if the Soviets could have defeated Germany and her allies.  Plus, just what did the Soviets do in the Pacific Theater (also a part of WWII last time I checked) that wasn't anything but grandstanding at the very end?
 
Certainly the Soviets suffered the most casualties and campaigned across the most land area in the history of modern warfare, but they did NOT do it by themselves, and it's revisionist thinking to say they could have done so alone.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Uhhh, no, the Soviet Union did NOT "win WWII".  Absent the USAAF/RAF bombing campaign, the North African, Italian and European land campaigns, Lend Lease for all sorts of desperately needed items to the Soviets such as trucks, food, clothing and radios (Soviet tanks had one radio per 10 tanks), it is questionable if the Soviets could have defeated Germany and her allies.  Plus, just what did the Soviets do in the Pacific Theater (also a part of WWII last time I checked) that wasn't anything but grandstanding at the very end?

Certainly the Soviets suffered the most casualties and campaigned across the most land area in the history of modern warfare, but they did NOT do it by themselves, and it's revisionist thinking to say they could have done so alone.

Na, Soviet won WW2, no questions about it.

Here is why:

1) Who gained the most of WW2, Soviet of course - A whole bunch of new nations under its command (Poland, Checkoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Yougoslavia, Estland, Lithuinia, Lativa... ect ect ect...) Thay were exploited for Resourses, Industry, and evan skilled workers, professors, recharch personell ect ect ect...

2) The Allied Bombing Campaing did not gain very much, was definetly not worth the investment in material, training and human lives. The only real gain was the disruption of German Aircraft Production, something who was neccesary for them to be able to do the bombing campaing... its largest gain was to disrupt German Syntetich Oil production, and some ball baring production.

3) The Invation of Italy... haha, Italiens hardly had an effect of the war, thay were generaly incompotent in all possible leavels, so who cares if Italy was invaded.

4) North Afrika, well that problem was created by the Italiens.

5) The Pacific war was the Allies gain, but Japan was never ever able to actualy win a war with the USA, do you realy think USA would on any conditions agreed to peace with Japan after that nasty suprice attack on the US?

6) The Lend LEace was indeed handy, but it was about the Western Demacrocys Survival. If USA and UK would not ivnvested hevaly in equicmant to Soviet Union, then Soviet Union might have fell, and if Germany would win Soviet Union ... well then thay would win WW2.



Due to the Political Gains, Resourse Gains, Indistrual Gains, National Development, as well as National Pride... Not to mantion all the whole Nations who comed under Soviet controll --- One can not make any other claims then saying that Soviet Union was the winner of WW2.


[:)]

[mlees]

I think it was a team effort. I do not wish to belittle the lives the USSR spent towards victory, but I don't think that they would have won alone. (And the Western Allies probably would have had a hard time with the entire German Wehrmacht available to defend Fortress Europe.)

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Uhhh, no, the Soviet Union did NOT "win WWII".  Absent the USAAF/RAF bombing campaign, the North African, Italian and European land campaigns, Lend Lease for all sorts of desperately needed items to the Soviets such as trucks, food, clothing and radios (Soviet tanks had one radio per 10 tanks), it is questionable if the Soviets could have defeated Germany and her allies.  Plus, just what did the Soviets do in the Pacific Theater (also a part of WWII last time I checked) that wasn't anything but grandstanding at the very end?

Certainly the Soviets suffered the most casualties and campaigned across the most land area in the history of modern warfare, but they did NOT do it by themselves, and it's revisionist thinking to say they could have done so alone.

100% correct. A lot of troops from other European Nations died fighting the Nazi's as well. You can't downplay their contribution to the war effort. To do so cheapens their sacrifice.

The fact is that even in the countries conquered by the Germans, fighting still went on with bands of partisans. Norwegian, Dutch, French, Greek, Czech, and Polish groups all waged a guerrilla war against Germany and tied up troops and equipment that could have otherwise been put to use fighting the Russians. So no, the Russians did not win WWII. It was a team effort period.

[DuckofTindalos]

Erm, Danish patriots fought against the occupiers too. That, along with the irrational fear of a landing on the west coast of Jutland kept 100,000 German troops in the country.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Erm, Danish patriots fought against the occupiers too. That, along with the irrational fear of a landing on the west coast of Jutland kept 100,000 German troops in the country.

That is right, the Danish did fight as well. I've probably left out other groups as well. It was not intentional.

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, this was a fun little thread hi-jacking. Let's just agree that Japan's post was 100% false and move on.

[Japan]

lol

Well i still think Soviet was the Winner..


Here is why:

Soviet gained the most of WW2, - A whole bunch of new nations under its command (Poland, Checkoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Yougoslavia, Estland, Lithuinia, Lativa... ect ect ect...) Thay were exploited for Resourses, Industry, and evan skilled workers, professors, recharch personell ect ect ect... 

The Pacific war was the Allies gain, but Japan was never ever able to actualy win a war with the USA, do you realy think USA would on any conditions agreed to peace with Japan after that nasty suprice attack on the US?

Many indeed contrebuted to the victory, but i still think it was a Soviet Vicotry..

Due to the Political Gains, Resourse Gains, Indistrual Gains, National Development, as well as National Pride... Not to mantion all the whole Nations who comed under Soviet controll --- One can not make any other claims then saying that Soviet Union was the winner of WW2

[mlees]

Typing it in bold does not make it more correct...

[John Lansford]

Yeah, having the most industrialized, populated and fertile part of your country occupied for nearly 4 years, fought over multiple times, burned to the ground, and losing a big chunk of your population from war, famine, forced labor and disease all means that you were the "victors" of WWII because you ended up with even more fought over, burned down and devastated areas to control afterwards.
 
By that token, I'd say the US was the "victor" of WWII, since not only did we have less casualties, our homeland was never touched and we ended the war with the biggest, most successful industrial and agricultural society this world's ever known, not to mention the most technologically advanced military to go with it.

[Capt Henry_MatrixForum]

Terminus has it right, time to move on. Japan is just baiting the forum at this point. He's expressed his view, others have expressed theirs, and we're going to need to agree to disagree.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Capt Henry

Terminus has it right, time to move on. Japan is just baiting the forum at this point. He's expressed his view, others have expressed theirs, and we're going to need to agree to disagree.

That's just exactly the problem. Those who would rather trash Japan can't seem to agree to disagree. They would rather be free to attempt to get away with categorical statements that he is incorrect, like you have just done, than agree to disagree.

Japan has perfectly valid points in the way he defines Soviet "victory" (not that I necessarily agree with him). Real gentlemen would acknowledge his points and THEN point out that they disagree with them, NOT dismiss them as INCORRECT. The REAL problem here is the lack of gentlemen [:-]

[wdolson]

Who contributed the most to victory in Europe has been a raging debate for 60+ years.  Who contributed the most (ie Won the war) depends on your definition. 

Japan has defined who contributed the most one way and others have defined it other ways.  I don't agree with Japan's position, but he is arguing a position the Russians have taken for all these decades.  Who contributed the most is a claim that is ultimately not as solidly provable as the size of the Hong Kong garrison on December 8, 1941, or the gross tonnage of the Boston Maru.  There are some assersions and basic premises that go into the argument that acan be interpreted many different ways.

Personally, I believe that the UK/Commonwealth, US, and USSR each brought something critical to the table and it took all three together (with help from other forces) to win the war.  No single player gets all the credit.

I think we have hijacked this thread enough.  I suppose we can move into a discussion of what those premises and assertions are, or just drop it entirely.  I suspect if this thread continues much longer, management will ask that it be taken to another part of the forum.  I don't think that pointing fingers and accusing others of being wrong is terribly productive though.

Bill