安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
And if it´s about military i guess it´s about that in the U.S. it´s values a bit higher, so they have the most advanced stuff and the most money to develop things, while others of course participate and invest there as well - and it´s the only real export good of the USA.
Because we give out money for free at the cost of screwing over our own citizens if it means some politicians can get rich off the aid packages usually pumping up their military-industrial complex stock portfolios or paying out to their nepotism "contractor" family and friends.
Money printer go: "BRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!"
Sadly, this is how war plays out. All sides do bad deeds to both soldier and civilian alike and like you I believe the truth should be told in schools. But lets be honest, the german's did some truly awful things, things that should never be forgotten, period.
But from my own experience and my children's experience in history classes, to much is covered up... going to basically sum it up what we are taught - germans bad, allies good and that's it.
You do know there is a difference between the dollar and the yen right?
The Japanese military budget is 1.19% of Japan's GDP.
In dollars which is generally used for international currency things Japan's is 51.4 billion US dollars.
How? The RAF proved itself capable of defending the channel. The Germans and their whole culture within the Luftwaffe was flawed.
In My Opinion
I tried a couple of times to put together a reasonable post here on WW2 and 'Murica, but it's a touchy subject. The first thing a non-American assumes is that some upstart 'Murican is screaming "'Murica" with guns blazing, trying to steal the credible thunder of other combatants by touting US significance in WWII.
This isn't one of those sorts of posts.
*TLDR: Great Britain would have withdrawn from the War in Europe, signing a treaty with a Germany that obtain some token gains, but allowed Germany to focus on the Soviet Union. (After that, it's a crapshoot I didn't discuss)
Don't read below if ya don't wanna.
****************************************************
This is the map of Europe and the Middle East when the US was attacked by Japan and had war declared against it by Hitler. (Yes, that's right - the US was forced into WWII... Shocking, huh? It's like, with one little factual observation, history in this thread was rewritten.)
https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/europe-middle-east-1941
For the moment, we'll leave out the Pacitif/India and Japan's rabid hunt for wartime resources.
Keep in mind that if they are shown as an "Ally" of Germany, that generally means either a subjugated nation with a puppet government or a strongly National Socialist(depending) form of government that is not always a minority government. Hitler did have popular support in places, else he couldn't have become such a monster. In some places, the population was not supportive of their Nazi conquerors at all.
When talking about "what would have happened if the US didn't join WWII" most everyone makes a wrong assumption, IMO - They assume a pristine state of affairs where the combatants of December, 1941, remain... the same.
IMO, that is a fatal flaw in prognosticating "what would have happened." It's also why most people, even Historians, make errors and just get it wrong...
This is an illustration of power. See this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Robert_E._Peary
That "Liberty Ship" was built in 4 days, 15 hours and 26 minutes... Sure, it was a competition, but it went on to continue service for four years, adding to the population of 2700 Liberty Ships built during the course of the war. Twenty-Seven Hundred Cargo Ships... "2700" is a very big number of ships... built. Add a "+" to that total, too. And, that was over the course of its production/delivery period, from April 1941 through to the end of WWII in 1945. Four years. That's over 800 of these cargo ships produced per year, on average...
They were produced to move lots of stuff from one place to another. Where was a lot of that stuff coming from?
This is one of, but not the only, powers of the US - Unparalleled industrial production. It's the pop-quote "sleeping giant" meme. (Though with false confidence, Japan attacked, it also knew it could only hope to force a truce long enough to accomplish its goals)
In order to stay out of World War II, a number of things would have to happen and not happen where the US would be concerned:
US support/shipping to GB and USSR could not continue. Why? Because Germany would blow them up, that's why... So, either they blow them up and the US does not retaliate or the US stops supplying GB and USSR. Simple.
Japan, briefly - The US expected war with Japan. So, would that have happened? Probably. Would that lead to involvement in Europe? Probably. So, to get the US to not be involved in WWII, one has to do something here, like enable some truce/treaty between the US and Japan where Japan agrees to not do some things and the US agrees to turn a blind eye to some things... Namely - It would probably involve.. this:
https://adst.org/2013/11/the-failed-attempts-to-avert-war-with-japan-1941/
So, in essence, Japan returns some stuffs over time, keeps some stuffs, and the US lifts embargoes over time, measure for measure with Japan's compliance. (They keep Manchuria, though, and probably anything that wasn't previously owned by any traditionally "Western" empires/powers.)
Meanwhile, Hitler does not take the Pearl Harbor opportunity to declare war against the US and the US, namely the pacifists/non-involvement politicians, succeeds in avoiding "yet another" large scale European conflict. Support for Germany continues to grow in the US, too, as a result. A large US German population, things like the "German Bund" in the US, and continued opposition in US Congress to war keeps the US from jumping at shadows in Europe.
Japan retains what it needs to have in order for "economic independence" and... Europe gets nothing unless it's delivered by various postal services still functioning and with their own cargo ships to haul it through submarine-infested waters.
OK, now we have the US "out" of World War II so we can theorycraft stuffs.
You know, like everyone wants to hypotheticalize about, but doesn't consider how that would really happen...
So, what course of action does Great Britain take? Plan to invade France? With what? And, more importantly, most importantly... "Why?"
France, Great Britain's once-ally is "gone." It's kaput. The French are learning how to enjoy wienerschnitzel and pickled red cabbage. (Highly recommend, btw) There's Vichy France, a puppet government, and Occupied France, where Germany has its occupying military forces. BG is alone... Well, until Hitler drank too much of his own Kool-Aid and decided that it was time to strike the Soviets.
Poland is gone and so any pieces of paper GB has in inventory with their name on it. Finland, Norway, Belgium, etc et al, Ibid.
When Operation Barbarossa finally kicked off, Churchill reportedly said something like "finally,, we are not alone" regarding GB's stand against Germany without any other military allies.
But, Churchill was very much opposed to the Soviets and Communism:
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/proceedings/churchill-and-russia-3/
It was certainly not the ally Churchill wanted, but it's the one he got. Thanks to Hitler and not through any treaty, agreement, or common cause other than German aggression. In fact, the Soviets were not overly friendly with GB, either, despite Russia being an ally in WWI.
It's also not like nobody in GB favored a quick end to the war, either, even going so far to discuss peace... including Churchill.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/revealed-why-churchill-considered-negotiating-with-germany-in-1940-535401.html
And, while the British put up a dogged fight during the Battle of Britain, a successful defense is not a credible offensive threat. (And, as has been popularized, Germany overestimated its capabilities and hotter heads prevailed in dictating German strategy. They also did not pay enough attention to how Radar enabled GB to maximize its use of resources, even though they also had it.)
The prognosis without US involvement and with no backstabbing that brought the Soviets into the mix was grim. Churchill knew it, too.
Now, we've framed the theater for the play...
Great Britain was not about to invade Europe. It is, after all, crawling with Nazis...True, while the Germans had what was arguably the best trained military, followed closely/equally by the British, with the Americans being a distant third in that department, Germany had other issues and was stretched a bit thin in the West. But, GB just didn't have the means to mount an invasion of Europe at that time.
Time.
It's a %^#%, ain't it?
Every day that GB is defending itself and mounting some resistance against Germany, but with little in the way to a military victory on its own (important) then what is the sentiment going to be? How long will Churchill stand against peace with Germany even with the Soviets, who he doesn't like at all?
Keep in mind the above link - Churchill didn't like that little German housepainter...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw54WuLniyI
But, he may have not been opposed to peace with a German government that didn't have Hitler as its leader.
So, Hitler didn't sprout up out of the cabbage patch in 1939. He had, in fact, been in power, either as a defacto leader or supreme tyrant, for quite awhile. From the moment he became a figurehead during the attempted coup, Hitler became a known "leader" to everyone who may not have associated with him, before. His name was in lights and he played the part, just like he always wanted...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power#Move_towards_power_(1925%E2%80%931930)
In 1930, the Nazis became a political power in Germany and that... was... that. From then on until and unless your country was shot at by Germans, nations started dealing with what would become "Nazis." Up to the onset of WWII when Germany began needing "growing space" and started insisting that places where people spoke German were actually part of Germany... (sound familiar?) nations had been trading with, negotiating with, holding State functions with, Nazis.
They may not have liked them, but they bought their clocks and coal, despite how it was mined, and sold them oil, steel, aluminum and all the other stuff people like to do fighty-things with.
Hitler became, in effect, the German Government in 1934, five years before the invasion of Poland, that ignited the war and the French and British military response.
In "what if moments" what if... Churchill was ousted? While Churchill did have overwhelming support in the Vote of Confidence, it wasn't like peace was not considered prior to that. And, in the face of what would decidedly be an uphill battle in terms of gaining a defensible foothill in an invasion of Europe, is that so hard to consider?
Keep in mind - Keeping the US out of World War II involves securing all of Britain's holdings in the Pacific and IndoChina area. That would be a condition of any lasting treaty between the US and Japan. (IMO) (China would get screwed over, not GB or any other traditionally Western gov't...)
Hitler obviously knew how to maneuver, appearing as a political subordinate while wielding true power. When Hindenberg died, he seized legitimacy for a his dictatorship. But, what if a peace treaty could be obtained if he, only temporarily, appeared to step down to a lower role while still retaining true power? He could have done it. He could have named a figurehead as a new "President" and returned to a secure Chancellorship while dictating affairs just long enough to get a peace treaty out of Britain.
What happens when GB, seeing such a pathetic opening response by the Soviets and Stalin in June of1941 when Barbarossa kicked off?
GB had just experienced "The Battle of Britain" from September of 1940 to May of 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union days later.
But...
Stalingrad was not until July of '42, a whole year later, and then Kursk not until July of '43, a year after that. We're talking about what GB was thinking after watching the Soviets get wrecked for nearly six months during Barborossa, just like every other nation Germany had attacked so far, on the morning of December 8'th, when the US woke up to a nice sunny workday Monday...
In that light, what world was Churchill waking up to on that December, 8'th, 1941, with no US aid, no military alliance, and an "ally" that appeared, and could be argued was, incompetent?
Time.
While everyone is touting how the progress of the war would continue and ultimate Allied victory is assured, without US involvement, people are still living back then, day by day. They're still waking up to news reports. They're still watching the German Wermacht and Friends marching around wherever they please and doing whatever they wish. They are waking up to that inevitability for days, weeks, months... years.
Somebody give me a reason aside from traditional British stubbornness... WHY Great Britain is going to continue fighting a war who's only means of military victory means invading Europe with stuff they don't have.
Without that "second Front" ever being a realistic possibility for at least years yet, who is actually going to be that chuffed to keep on fighting the Germans?
Remember - Russians will fight wars with horrendous losses, but they're pretty much more in favor of fighting their own government at the drop of a hat, too. (Which is why opposition leaders have NEVER lived for very long since Lenin.)
PS: Post is too long, so I didn't bother with the Soviets or anyone else. While powerful, Soviet performance would have been quite different against a focused Germany, IMO. So, I chose to build the case for British withdrawal from hostilities and some measure of peace treaty, but didn't go into that, either.
We also likely would have seen an identical iron curtain situation, as well as a cold war proxy warfare paradigm. Just, the conflicts would have been mostly in northern asia rather than southern asia. Closer to the ongoing war, assuming nobody signs a ceasefire.
It would have been interesting to live in a world where people knew authoritarian might could not hold a country together indefinitely, but had still homogenized itself into authoritarian blocks anyway. Although some argue that the knowledge that authoritarianism is pointless is well-distributed today, and that that is the situation we have now anyway.
The US' role in this situation is primarily as a go-between, or rather the lone moveable part in a global woodblock sudoku puzzle. One that keeps hemming in other blocks that might want to move around, as per the will of the puzzler(s.)
I agree, but with the caveat that I do think a negotiated settlement may/would have been pursued earlier. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have reignited, though.
And, maybe with worse results for everyone involved - Nuclear power was a matter of "when" by that time. Even though Germany was going about it less optimally, due to their scatterbrained lack of focus in research, a more peace-time approach could have made it a reality. Though, everyone knew it was possible, few had clear routes to eventual success.
That would yield a very scary situation a few years after a negotiated peace between hostile neighbors in Europe. Hitler's declining health was an issue, but with some loyalist successor in power it's feasible that the prevailing "doctrine" would still encourage pushing "The Button." (In the USSR too, if they had similar capability)
PS: Just for the sake of futurology from the point of a Euro-Conflict without the US, nobody had the capability to invade the US at that time. "The Man in the High Castle" could not have occurred. Though, "Nationalism"... could have.
Most of what we know about modern nuclear doctrine comes from a position where nobody's been able to use one, and only threaten to do so as a form of complaining about other restraints. It's likely that if we wound up in a negotiated settlement situation then the same basic logical rules would apply for that as for the nuclear question. People wouldn't see what there is to gain.
Then again maybe they would have used them for saturation strikes before they knew about long-term radiation, and we'd have Stalker world throughout Europe.
It's hard to discuss the what-ifs of history from a vantage point where things went differently. Our present will always color those questions.
A brief glance at the beginning, on manpower, India and other parts of the commonwealth would have been tapped into more.
I would assume as things got more desperate South Africa would have been forced to chuck some of its policy aside and recruit all people it could not just white.
Personally, I would've given up on helping a while ago... but then again let the bad guys grow and then you have a bigger problem
They made several attempts to remove warlords, only to be stopped by the English interests backing them.
England has assassinated a few of the more problematic ones themselves.