And if the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbour and the Americans remained neutral?
Printable View
And if the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbour and the Americans remained neutral?
I m no authority (BMT) but i think the poms were called tommies after their machine guns, tommy guns, gerry i supose is just shortened
yeah if pot & pans etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
The same force that bombed Pearl Harbour were also responsible for bombing Darwin, there is no understating the sheer might of the American war machine they certianly had the goods over the rest,
The germans were better equipped, but the French were in a position to hold them up if they wanted to. They had more troops on the ground than did the invading germans and the means to fight; but either surrendered or went home.
Apart from the initial assault, the bulk of the german invasion force was still horse drawn. But the french armies basically divided and let them in with little or no resistance.
The BEF (British Expeditionay Force) in France was neither trained nor prepared for any sort of attack and thus couldn't hold back the invaders and barely made it back to dunkirk. it was not put together for such a task.
One could argue the 'what if's' for ever, but that was and is the nature of WWII and many others. Basically, the side that made the least mistakes won.
For instance, the RAf didn't win the Battle of Britain per se; the germans simply stopped because they couldn't see it going anywhere.
Only two SS generals were prepared to tell hitler than Barbarossa (invasion of Russia) was doomed, and both were sacked. Rommell asked for just two more divisions to win on North Africa and was refused from the supply of over 200 Hitler had waiting to go into Russia.
When told of Japanese troop ships heading for the Phillipines, Gen Macarthur locked himself in his office for several days. he was a notorious ditherer. He had the means to take them out and thus save a lot of bloodshed in SE asia. He famously stated 'I shall return' when leaving the phillipines, but it was his fault the yanks had to leave anyway.
Incidently, both Macarthur and Montgomerie employed PR men to give them the commanding personas that history believes they had.
Hitler went into Russia, a country that has harsh terrain, a people that tradtionally hated the germans, and more importantly had virtually endless country to keep withdrawing into if necesssary. Big mistake.
The Japs attacked the US, a country whose mainland was extremely difficult to attack with the technology available at the time, whose people tend to be very patriotic, and who had got itself out of the depression by massively building up production capacity. Big mistake.
Unfortunately the Tommy Gun was named after an WW1 US Army General John T Thompson, who organised financing of the manufacture of the weapon designed and patented by John Bell Blish. So that rules that option out :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
Diana
Thanks for all the replies. Im currently reading up on ww1 and ww2. Im reading about the german side of things as i find it very interesting as to how a country could develop into what it did.
this is a copy and paste from wikipedia
On the 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student, shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo. Princip was a member of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria-Hungary. The assassination in Sarajevo set into motion a series of fast-moving events that eventually escalated into full-scale war. Austria-Hungary demanded action by Serbia to punish those responsible and, when Austria-Hungary deemed Serbia had not complied, declared war. Major European powers were at war within weeks because of overlapping agreements for collective defense and the complex nature of international alliances.
So if the austrians started ww1 why where they not treated as harshly as the germans when they lost?
The assassination was simply the final straw/excuse. The build up to WWI started basically from the unification of germany in 1870.
A lot of it had to do with the romanian oil fields and a lot of ancient rivalries thrown in for good measure.
Be careful of wikepedia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamo
yeah wikipedia is good, but i dont trust it too much. I knew the shooting was the spark to ignite the war. obviously it was a very complicated war in regards to alliances. all we have to decide is labor or liberal:(
It was the last gasp of the European monarchies.Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark77
Why Germany and not Austria.
Because the Western Allies, Brittan, France and America were fighting the Germans.
The Austrians were fighting the Italians (on the Allies side that time) and it was pretty much a stalemate, so while there was suffering it was mostly in the Alps and not so much destruction and desolation so the claims to financial compensation were not as great as those demanded of Germany. Although Austria was separated from Hungary and lost it's Italian possessions including the port of Trieste and the Croatian port of Pula both on the Adriatic Sea. Leaving Austria land locked and significantly reduced in size.
After the Russian revolution in 1917, the Germans were fighting the French, British and eventually the Americans causing huge numbers of deaths and causalities in the trenches within France and Belgium. The large "empires" of France, Brittain and America had to justify the cost of war to their electorates and so insisted on financial compensation (War Reparations) over a period of 50 years.
That is very brief but a reasonable summary, I guess.
Diana