[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Great WWII Debate Thread (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/21/2013 5:38:17 PM EDT
|
In an effort to keep the European Stereotypes of Americans thread on track, I humbly present GD with a debate thread about the Second World War. Since we've mostly been talking about the ETO in there, we can start with that in here. Clearly, the war was in many significant respects a continuation of the Great War, which itself was one consequence of the relatively late unification of Germany. So, GD, whom do you say bears the greater portion of blame for the war: A. Hildebrand of Sovana AKA Pope Gregory VII OR B. Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor? Discuss. |
|
I'm not so sure that you are blaming the right people, the late unification of Germany under Bismarck was neither here nor there. The 1870 franco-Prussian war established a united germany on the worlds stage. The death of the Kaiser forcing rule onto an unprepared and indifferent William and the subsequent ditching of the elder statesman ensured the failure of the alliances Bismarck formed. This probably had more to do with the WW1, WW2 and you can choose to go as far ahead as you like. |
|
WW1 was something we didn't need to be involved in. And yes a dive on the Lucitania in the last couple of years revealed a hull full of .303 ammo.
WW1 begat WW2. Until France and Britian declared war on Germany, the Germans had only taken back what was theirs previously, and not all of it either. It was all a waste, and a great example of meddling in the affairs of others. WW1 ended the way it did because we got involved in a family squabble. As a result, WW2 began. I blame democrats. |
|
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did, inadvertently. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did. Another damned Euro Apologetic .. I am sure they have room for you and your revisionism in France or the UK. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did. We also gave the Russians most of their trucks, lots of tanks, jeeps, planes, food and MASSIVE amounts of raw materials. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did, inadvertently. well put |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did. We also gave the Russians most of their trucks, lots of tanks, jeeps, planes, food and MASSIVE amounts of raw materials. Yes we did factually we gave the Russians 20% of their Armor, 30% of their Airpower and 50 % of their ground transports. In addition to the billions of dollars we gave them to rebuild their economy because of the train wreck they may of it after the Bolsheviks were done. Our money built their war industry and our food fed them, our armaments enabled them to fight. |
|
Quoted:
WW1 was something we didn't need to be involved in. And yes a dive on the Lucitania in the last couple of years revealed a hull full of .303 ammo. WW1 begat WW2. Until France and Britian declared war on Germany, the Germans had only taken back what was theirs previously, and not all of it either. It was all a waste, and a great example of meddling in the affairs of others. WW1 ended the way it did because we got involved in a family squabble. As a result, WW2 began. I blame democrats. WW1 is something we were already involved with by supplying the allies with weapons. Like it or not, we were bound to be involved at some point. WW2, Japan started it. We finished it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did. Another damned Euro Apologetic .. I am sure they have room for you and your revisionism in France or the UK. Ok, think that we 'saved Europe' the greater half has still not recovered from the occupation of our allies, the communists. Yeah, we saved France, I will give you that. However it was the Russians who beat the Germans. They were unstoppable well before we landed in 1944. It is a fact, do some reading. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did. Another damned Euro Apologetic .. I am sure they have room for you and your revisionism in France or the UK. Ok, think that we 'saved Europe' the greater half has still not recovered from the occupation of our allies, the communists. Yeah, we saved France, I will give you that. However it was the Russians who beat the Germans. They were unstoppable well before we landed in 1944. It is a fact, do some reading. Only because we enabled it to be so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did. We also gave the Russians most of their trucks, lots of tanks, jeeps, planes, food and MASSIVE amounts of raw materials. Yes we did factually we gave the Russians 20% of their Armor, 30% of their Airpower and 50 % of their ground transports. In addition to the billions of dollars we gave them to rebuild their economy because of the train wreck they may of it after the Bolsheviks were done. Our money built their war industry and our food fed them, our armaments enabled them to fight. Yup. Since logistics wins wars, we are the ones who kept the Russians in it and to see it through. |
|
Quoted:
Clemenceau is solely responsible for sowing the seeds of WW2. Negative he played a large role but the British and the rest of the allies were severely guilty, The US could have prevented it had we stated our position more firmly , The allies in general were wanting revenge and onerous reparations which caused WWII. It was truly a failure of many nations and their attempt to teach Germany a lesson. |
|
I dont know who deserves blame for WW1, but Woodrow Wilson deserves blame for WW2.
Had we not shifted the balance of power, it might have ended in a stalemate. Instead, we decided to arm one side and when the Germans sunk the lusitania we finally joined in. It's interesting to note that the Germans warned the passengers of the Lusitania not to travel to Britain.. It's also interesting to note that the Lusitania was carrying ammo, so from a German perspective, it would be like Hezbollah smuggling in ammunition from Iran. Once we shifted the balance in favor of the allies and won, we imposed ungodly sanctions on Germany and forced them to pay for the entire war. This destroyed their economy and they eventually decided to elect a charismatic leader named Hitler who promised to fix their economy, and we all know how that turned out. |
|
Quoted: I'm not so sure that you are blaming the right people, the late unification of Germany under Bismarck was neither here nor there. The 1870 franco-Prussian war established a united germany on the worlds stage. The death of the Kaiser forcing rule onto an unprepared and indifferent William and the subsequent ditching of the elder statesman ensured the failure of the alliances Bismarck formed. This probably had more to do with the WW1, WW2 and you can choose to go as far ahead as you like.  One of the more significant reasons for the war was Wilhelm II's inferiority complex with respect to other continental powers' colonial empires. Germany was too busy with internal strife to become a player in the colonial game until quite late in the game. Even leaving that aside, the only reason a Hohenzollern with a withered arm and inferiority complexes galore was in charge of things was precisely because of Bismarck's Kleindeutsche Loesung. The Habsburgs had been the acknowledged ruling dynasty of the Germans for centuries with only one break (for a Wittelsbach, IIRC) after the Thirty Years War. The circumstances of the rise of the Kings in Prussia and the reasons for a newly unified and powerful Germany's worrisome economic and military development in the late 19th century were the result of the Germany's disunification in centuries prior, a disunity fostered by successive popes and European powers fearful of just such a united Germany (or worse, a united axis of Germany, the Two Sicilies, the Low Countries, and Spain under the Habsburgs) and codified by Frederick II's concessions to the German princes during his campaigns in Italy and his crusade. |
|
Quoted:
Ok, think that we 'saved Europe' the greater half has still not recovered from the occupation of our allies, the communists. Yeah, we saved France, I will give you that. However it was the Russians who beat the Germans. They were unstoppable well before we landed in 1944. It is a fact, do some reading. I have done reading on the subject, and the Russians were unstoppable, but only because they recieved the fruits of America's labor. By 1944, their populace was fed by America, their soldiers clothed by America, and the entire logistical train was provided by America. If the Soviets had to dedicate manpower to feed and clothe their populace, and if they had to fully support their fielded armies, they would have collapsed/sued for peace (as they did in 1917) well before 1944. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, think that we 'saved Europe' the greater half has still not recovered from the occupation of our allies, the communists. Yeah, we saved France, I will give you that. However it was the Russians who beat the Germans. They were unstoppable well before we landed in 1944. It is a fact, do some reading. I have done reading on the subject, and the Russians were unstoppable, but only because they recieved the fruits of America's labor. By 1944, their populace was fed by America, their soldiers clothed by America, and the entire logistical train was provided by America. If the Soviets had to dedicate manpower to feed and clothe their populace, and if they had to fully support their fielded armies, they would have collapsed/sued for peace (as they did in 1917) well before 1944. This man speaks the truth. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
America saved the world. Europeans hate us for it , next time they can all rot. LOL. Ask all of Eastern Europe about that. The Russians won WW2. We were a mere side show of the big show. Don't fool yourself into thinking we were the winners of WW2. 90% of the German army were fighting the Russians. We were merely on the winning side. OK, we saved France. More importantly, we may have kept the Russians from taking more than they did. Another damned Euro Apologetic .. I am sure they have room for you and your revisionism in France or the UK. You are wrong. the Russians sacrificed something like 23,000,000 against the Germans. We paled in comparison. The Germans may well have won if it weren't for the Russians. Read history and don;t believe all the patriotic bullshit you were fed. |
|
Wilhelm II. When Bismark was prime minister he was able to keep central Europe in check in a balance of power. Wilhelm built a navy which gave the British fears of another Napoleon and then gave Austria a blank check to invade Serbia, which pissed off the Russians and started the dominoes. WWII was just a continuation. Other contenders for stupidity are England and France at Versailles. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, think that we 'saved Europe' the greater half has still not recovered from the occupation of our allies, the communists. Yeah, we saved France, I will give you that. However it was the Russians who beat the Germans. They were unstoppable well before we landed in 1944. It is a fact, do some reading. I have done reading on the subject, and the Russians were unstoppable, but only because they recieved the fruits of America's labor. By 1944, their populace was fed by America, their soldiers clothed by America, and the entire logistical train was provided by America. If the Soviets had to dedicate manpower to feed and clothe their populace, and if they had to fully support their fielded armies, they would have collapsed/sued for peace (as they did in 1917) well before 1944. This man speaks the truth. Taking that as a fact, then WW2 in Europe was simply a logistics balance to sustain the Soviets so they could beat the Nazis. I'd rather win a war by supplying one dictator fighting another, letting them bleed each other out. This casts the American involvement in Europe simply as a "backburn" to keep the Soviets from overrunning the entire continent all the way to England and Spain. Although I suppose that could have been accomplished by limiting the aid to the Soviets, forcing them to further exhaust themselves against the Germans. But that's a difficult balance to maintain, and would have resulted in a much longer war, and risk one side or the other collapsing unexpectedly –– an undesirable outcome regardless of who folded first. |
|
Quoted:
Taking that as a fact, then WW2 in Europe was simply a logistics balance to sustain the Soviets so they could beat the Nazis. I'd rather win a war by supplying one dictator fighting another, letting them bleed each other out. This casts the American involvement in Europe simply as a "backburn" to keep the Soviets from overrunning the entire continent all the way to England and Spain. Although I suppose that could have been accomplished by limiting the aid to the Soviets, forcing them to further exhaust themselves against the Germans. But that's a difficult balance to maintain, and would have resulted in a much longer war, and risk one side or the other collapsing unexpectedly –– an undesirable outcome regardless of who folded first. Purely speaking from a hindsight is 20/20 perspective what we should have done during WWII was let the Germans beat the Soviets down (which they were in the process of doing before we tossed them a lifeline) , while we gave massively larger amounts of aid to Western Europe. The effect would have been a beaten Soviet Union that still would have chewed up the Germans badly we then would have been able to deal with Western Europe and saving it from the Germans. After the war we would not have had to fuck the with Soviets for the next 60 years. It would have been far more beneficial for us and the rest of the world. ETA by helping the Russians we actually caused the cold war. |
|
Had the doctor not yanked Wilhelm's arm out of socket, he would probably grow up normal and as enlightened as his parents instead of an over-compensating blowhard, and Bismark would have stayed a little longer to keep the peace. Or had Queen Victoria not married her daughters far and wide, little Alexi wouldn't had been a hemophiliac and things wouldn't have gone so badly in Russia. Or had Franz Ferdinand's driver not taken the wrong turn, they would've missed Princip and not gotten killed and not touch off the war. And that little fellow with toothbrush mustache would've lived a life of dissolute artist selling paintings and postcards to tourists.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Taking that as a fact, then WW2 in Europe was simply a logistics balance to sustain the Soviets so they could beat the Nazis. I'd rather win a war by supplying one dictator fighting another, letting them bleed each other out. This casts the American involvement in Europe simply as a "backburn" to keep the Soviets from overrunning the entire continent all the way to England and Spain. Although I suppose that could have been accomplished by limiting the aid to the Soviets, forcing them to further exhaust themselves against the Germans. But that's a difficult balance to maintain, and would have resulted in a much longer war, and risk one side or the other collapsing unexpectedly –– an undesirable outcome regardless of who folded first. Purely speaking from a hindsight is 20/20 perspective what we should have done during WWII was let the Germans beat the Soviets down (which they were in the process of doing before we tossed them a lifeline) , while we gave massively larger amounts of aid to Western Europe. The effect would have been a beaten Soviet Union that still would have chewed up the Germans badly we then would have been able to deal with Western Europe and saving it from the Germans. After the war we would not have had to fuck the with Soviets for the next 60 years. It would have been far more beneficial for us and the rest of the world. ETA by helping the Russians we actually caused the cold war. Granted, but there was some urgency in concluding the whole affair as quickly as possible. After all, we were fighting the Japs at the same time, and there was some concern (unfounded as it turned out) that Germany would develop a nuclear weapon as well. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Taking that as a fact, then WW2 in Europe was simply a logistics balance to sustain the Soviets so they could beat the Nazis. I'd rather win a war by supplying one dictator fighting another, letting them bleed each other out. This casts the American involvement in Europe simply as a "backburn" to keep the Soviets from overrunning the entire continent all the way to England and Spain. Although I suppose that could have been accomplished by limiting the aid to the Soviets, forcing them to further exhaust themselves against the Germans. But that's a difficult balance to maintain, and would have resulted in a much longer war, and risk one side or the other collapsing unexpectedly –– an undesirable outcome regardless of who folded first. Purely speaking from a hindsight is 20/20 perspective what we should have done during WWII was let the Germans beat the Soviets down (which they were in the process of doing before we tossed them a lifeline) , while we gave massively larger amounts of aid to Western Europe. The effect would have been a beaten Soviet Union that still would have chewed up the Germans badly we then would have been able to deal with Western Europe and saving it from the Germans. After the war we would not have had to fuck the with Soviets for the next 60 years. It would have been far more beneficial for us and the rest of the world. ETA by helping the Russians we actually caused the cold war. This. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, think that we 'saved Europe' the greater half has still not recovered from the occupation of our allies, the communists. Yeah, we saved France, I will give you that. However it was the Russians who beat the Germans. They were unstoppable well before we landed in 1944. It is a fact, do some reading. I have done reading on the subject, and the Russians were unstoppable, but only because they recieved the fruits of America's labor. By 1944, their populace was fed by America, their soldiers clothed by America, and the entire logistical train was provided by America. If the Soviets had to dedicate manpower to feed and clothe their populace, and if they had to fully support their fielded armies, they would have collapsed/sued for peace (as they did in 1917) well before 1944. Never said we didn't supply them. The Russians won the war with their flesh. Since you have read on the subject, do you care to enlighten us on the number of Russians who died fighting the nazis, how many nazi casualties they caused, and then give us the numbers for the Americans? Firebombing cities doesn't count. |
|
We supplied Russia approximately 4% of their supplies, and that is the larger estimate. Here is a list. Say what you will. The Russians won WW2 with their flesh.
The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945. A very large amount was after May of 45 Aircraft 14,795 Tanks 7,056 Jeeps 51,503 Trucks 375,883 Motorcycles 35,170 Tractors 8,071 Guns 8,218 Machine guns 131,633 Explosives 345,735 tons Building equipment valued $ 10,910,000 Railroad freight cars 11,155 Locomotives 1,981 Cargo ships 90 Submarine hunters 105 Torpedo boats 197 Ship engines 7,784 Food supplies 4,478,000 tons Machines and equipment $ 1,078,965,000 Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons Chemicals 842,000 tons Cotton 106,893,000 tons Leather 49,860 tons Tires 3,786,000 Army boots 15,417,001 pairs |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Taking that as a fact, then WW2 in Europe was simply a logistics balance to sustain the Soviets so they could beat the Nazis. I'd rather win a war by supplying one dictator fighting another, letting them bleed each other out. This casts the American involvement in Europe simply as a "backburn" to keep the Soviets from overrunning the entire continent all the way to England and Spain. Although I suppose that could have been accomplished by limiting the aid to the Soviets, forcing them to further exhaust themselves against the Germans. But that's a difficult balance to maintain, and would have resulted in a much longer war, and risk one side or the other collapsing unexpectedly –– an undesirable outcome regardless of who folded first. Purely speaking from a hindsight is 20/20 perspective what we should have done during WWII was let the Germans beat the Soviets down (which they were in the process of doing before we tossed them a lifeline) , while we gave massively larger amounts of aid to Western Europe. The effect would have been a beaten Soviet Union that still would have chewed up the Germans badly we then would have been able to deal with Western Europe and saving it from the Germans. After the war we would not have had to fuck the with Soviets for the next 60 years. It would have been far more beneficial for us and the rest of the world. ETA by helping the Russians we actually caused the cold war. Granted, but there was some urgency in concluding the whole affair as quickly as possible. After all, we were fighting the Japs at the same time, and there was some concern (unfounded as it turned out) that Germany would develop a nuclear weapon as well. If it would have taken much longer the Germans would have (probably) fielded jet fighters. Air superiority would have vanished. |
|
Quoted:
We supplied Russia approximately 4% of their supplies, and that is the larger estimate. Here is a list. Say what you will. The Russians won WW2 with their flesh. The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945. A very large amount was after May of 45 Aircraft 14,795 Tanks 7,056 Jeeps 51,503 Trucks 375,883 Motorcycles 35,170 Tractors 8,071 Guns 8,218 Machine guns 131,633 Explosives 345,735 tons Building equipment valued $ 10,910,000 Railroad freight cars 11,155 Locomotives 1,981 Cargo ships 90 Submarine hunters 105 Torpedo boats 197 Ship engines 7,784 Food supplies 4,478,000 tons Machines and equipment $ 1,078,965,000 Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons Chemicals 842,000 tons Cotton 106,893,000 tons Leather 49,860 tons Tires 3,786,000 Army boots 15,417,001 pairs The Russians lost over 20 million fighting the Germans while the Germans lost 3.5 million on the Eastern Front, clearly the Soviets were not coming out ahead of the game. Had it not been for our support the best they could have hoped for a was negotiated peace with the Germans. The Germans were in no uncertain terms very good at killing huge amounts of Russians in great disproportion to the size of military they field. Had we not helped the Russians there is NO possible way they could have survived it. |
|
WWII was a team effort in all theatres of operation, with the US providing the industrial surge and sealift capability for the logistics support to get where it was needed. Britain would have eventually not been able to sustain the war against Germany without that support and lend-lease until Japan screwed the pooch and attacked Pearl Harbor which gave us the excuse to openly enter the war against their allies, the Germans and Italians.
Hitler similarly screwed the pooch and decided to attack the Soviets instead of attacking across the Channel and landing troops. Had he not decided that way, the Soviets probably would have stayed out of the war altogether, making the defeat of Germany far harder. In the Pacific, we would have had a much harder time of it without Australian bases for submarines, and without the British keeping the Japanese somewhat busy in SE Asia. It probably could have been done, but again, would have taken much longer and been far more costly in both dollars and lives. Consider that in Desert Storm, we were awarding Purple Hearts that had been ordered in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese home islands. |
|
Quoted:
WWII was a team effort in all theatres of operation, with the US providing the industrial surge and sealift capability for the logistics support to get where it was needed. Britain would have eventually not been able to sustain the war against Germany without that support and lend-lease until Japan screwed the pooch and attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler similarly screwed the pooch and decided to attack the Soviets instead of attacking across the Channel and landing troops. Had he not decided that way, the Soviets probably would have stayed out of the war altogether, making the defeat of Germany far harder. In the Pacific, we would have had a much harder time of it without Australian bases for submarines, and without the British keeping the Japanese somewhat busy in SE Asia. It probably could have been done, but again, would have taken much longer and been far more costly in both dollars and lives. Consider that in Desert Storm, we were awarding Purple Hearts that had been ordered in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese home islands. If I remember correctly, most of the Japanese army was still in China, Burma, and the rest of SE Asia. We were fighting essentially mop up operations against island defenders. Ferocious actions certainly, but no where near as bad as they would have been if the Japanese weren't in China. Edit: Looking for the info, but I also want to say that the bulk of the Japanese army was still over in mainland Asia when Japan surrendered. |
|
Quoted:
WWII was a team effort in all theatres of operation, with the US providing the industrial surge and sealift capability for the logistics support to get where it was needed. Britain would have eventually not been able to sustain the war against Germany without that support and lend-lease until Japan screwed the pooch and attacked Pearl Harbor which gave us the excuse to openly enter the war against their allies, the Germans and Italians. Hitler similarly screwed the pooch and decided to attack the Soviets instead of attacking across the Channel and landing troops. Had he not decided that way, the Soviets probably would have stayed out of the war altogether, making the defeat of Germany far harder. In the Pacific, we would have had a much harder time of it without Australian bases for submarines, and without the British keeping the Japanese somewhat busy in SE Asia. It probably could have been done, but again, would have taken much longer and been far more costly in both dollars and lives. Consider that in Desert Storm, we were awarding Purple Hearts that had been ordered in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese home islands. You almost have it right except for the part where we pretty much won the Pacific Theatre single handed. Thats not my imagination the data collected during and after WWII speaks to that fact I posted it earlier in the Euro Trash thread. The US by itself sank over 9 million tons of Japanese Naval and Merchant Shipping while the combined allied effort accounted for less than 1 million tons with mines accounting for 0.5 million tons. The US re took most of the Islands and largely (read that as entirely funded the Chinese War Effort) against the Japanese. The Pacific was over 90% ours , the British and everyone else had been pushed out of Asia , it was up to us to take it all back and had there been an invasion we would have provided the vast majority of the troops , airpower and naval power. |