"How America Lost WW2..." Topic

I recently came across an interesting article from Life magazine in 1942, postulating six ways the USA could be defeated.

Possibly a tad far fetched with the benefit of hindsight but lots of excellent wargame potential…

link

I found the article about everyone's naval power very interesting. Apparently, they knew nothing about the Yamato/Musashi and thought the Germans had two aircraft carriers.

I read somewhere that the Allies lost WW2. Since England & France went to war to keep Poland from being taken over by a foreign government, and at the end of the war Poland had been taken over by the USSR, we did not achieve our objective.

Kinda a weird way of looking at it.

…not if you are Polish.

As Montgomery would say, it was "…90% successful."

I thought WE (the Empire of Great Britain and her Dominions overseas) lost the war !
Interesting article.

LOL tberry

So the English & French went to war to save Poland?

Phew! Thank goodness we Scots stayed out of it. My father drove an ambulance during that period, and, for some reason was kept very busy, as, lots of Scottish buildings kept falling down, with lots of casualties – wonder why? – something to do with the German aircraft that had previously been in the vicinity? One uncle went sunbathing in the Western Desert, before making his way home through Sicily & Italy. Another uncle took himself off to Burma, and didn't come home until 1946 – and the rest of the family were kept busy making ships, weapons & munitions. Strangely enough, for some reason, they also had some Polish soldiers staying with my granpa & granma.

Thank goodness the English, (with the French & Americans) sorted out that messy business for us Scots, Welsh, Irish, Canadians, Australians, etc, etc……….

> Apparently, they knew nothing about the Yamato/Musashi

I have read that those two ships came as a surprise to the Allies, so not far fetched. At least in regard to the main armament size of eighteen inches.

" Apparently, they knew nothing about the Yamato/Musashi and thought the Germans had two aircraft carriers."

Well, it _was_ written in March 1942 and there is a big question mark next to the 'Deutschland'.

Look how big the Royal Navy is. Those were the days.

Eighteen inches is usually a surprise to anyone :)

"Eighteen inches is usually a surprise to anyone :)"

You're not from Texas, son.

I love the ads as well…

Doug

Was there really any need for the remember Scotland rant, it was a small mistake from one person?

Neat stuff!

1. It was not a rant – it was education.
2. It was not a "small" mistake – it was an insult.
3. Many people make the same "mistake".

Every Scottish town and village has a war memorial – for the "need to remember"

1. The last line just came off as a bit much of a rant to me.
2. I don't think you can call it an insult, unless you think the person saying it intentionally decided not to include the Scots (and others) out of spite.
3. I agree it does happen, I just think you went a bit far with the correction is all.

I know every Scottish town has a memorial, mines has several – although I don't think enough is done to encourage local memory of the events.

I imagine someone from Nauru will appear and demand they be remembered as well – after all, Axis and the Allies both bombed/shelled them. Needless to say, everyone helped themselves to local phosphate reserves anytime they were there. That's gotta you off.

People, you can't remember everyone. War is what it is. It'd be nice if someone had a brain and took Hitler and co. out with a strike team. Would have saved us all a lot of effort.

You are making my point for me. I did not ask for Scotland to be remembered exclusively. England did not/could not fight the war on it's own.

To be fair, if England had lost the war, and nobody else came to help, it would have taken Scotland a helluva long time to beat Hitler and Japan.

I did not say that you asked for Scotland to be rememberd exclusively. All I said is that you took a minor mistake from a person too personally when nothing negative was meant by it.

In many cases when the UK, England, etc. forces are mentioned in WWII, that includes units from India, Scotland, ANZACs, etc., etc. …

"In many cases when the UK, England, etc. forces are mentioned in WWII, that includes units from India, Scotland, ANZACs, etc., etc. …"

And the Free French, let's not forget the Free French.

That's exactly my point anleiher. People say "England" when they mean Britain. It's like believing that America was not in the war, only the Holywood Californians – now don't deny it, I've seen the movies!

If you want to include Scotland & the others, say "Britain", not "England", or more encompassing, "British Empire". (some would say "Brutish") England does not include Scotland or any of the other nations.
Of course, nobody likes to say "Empire" any more 'cos empires are no longer PC – actually, they never were. That's why they switched to "UK" and "Commonwealth" – sounds more inclusive and less colonial (aye, right!). Those terms were never used in the WWII period.

Bill

PS

A book was mentioned recently on this forum about how Churchill sacrificed the 51st. Highland Division at Dunkirk to save the British (English?) and French troops. Worth a read – as is "With the Jocks"

I agree that 'British' is what should be used most the time (unless specifically describing certain units etc). As a Scot it doesn't bother me that much when it is called England by a non-Brit, it's a mistake that people can make, like saying Holland instead of the Netherlands.

One piece of advice I will give to anybody is be careful when referring to the USSR as Russia, a student in one my classes made this mistake and a Ukrainian student did not take to kindly to it!

Oh and I much prefer using Imperial over Commomwealth, mainly because I like the sound of it better!

PS
Don't know the specifics about the deployment of the 51st in France. But Churchill also sacrificed the (English) 18th Division in Malaya to appease the Australians, so it wouldn't surprise me that much that he would sacrifice the 51st to show the French we were still fighting with them.

Weren't no ANZACS in WWII. It was a WWI thing ;-)

Actually the Australian & New Zealand troops sent to Greece in 1941 were incorporated in the Second ANZAC(orp). So it is both technically accurate and a handy shorthand.

"Worth a read – as is "With the Jocks"" I'll try to find a copy.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should admit that I am married to a Scottish lass.

My reference to the French however, was fully tongue in cheek. I do take your point.

There is a difference in English and British. You should perhaps forgive your American cousins the occasional lapse though. Many still confuse Texas with the rest of the US. I know I do.

Fair doos Anleiher. I do forgive, but reserve the right to correct such lapses. Recently, I did jump down the throat of an American on the 1250 message board who mentioned the "English" heavy cruiser, HMS EDINBURGH!!!!!!!

I imagine that famous Scot, John Paul Jones, would have been spinning……….

Bill :)

Yes, we can all be pedantic about the terms, I've read a number of times British Forces, UK, etc. covering all the units from "the Empire" for simplicity. Just as the term ANZAC used also in WWII, as Etranger noted … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZAC Even if just briefly … Of course we could continue to argue about it. But in most documents many of those terms were an expedient. For example in WWII Italy, the British Force included South African, Indian, Aussies, New Zealanders, Poles, etc., etc. even a Jewish Bde, that was part of an Indian Div., IIRC … And Free French Forces included units from their North African colonies as well as … It is obviously easier to say the "British Forces attacked", then the English, South African, Indian, Scotish, Australian, New Zealand, Polish attacked … Oh don't forget the Irish and Welsh Guards … Maybe that's just me …

Legion, you can be pendantic as much as you like. I wasn't being pedantic. I would not have commented if the term "British" or, in this case, "Britain" had been used. I was pointing out that "England" or "English" was incorrect, as England is only one of the nations that make up Britain.

So, to avoid being pedantic, you would have been quite happy with this?

"I read somewhere that the Allies lost WW2. Since SCOTLAND & France went to war to keep Poland from being taken over by a foreign government, and at the end of the war Poland had been taken over by the USSR, we did not achieve our objective.

Kinda a weird way of looking at it."

Do you honestly think nobody would have commented on that?

As you said Bill … "Kinda a weird way of looking at it."
Of course when one says "Americans" in reality that should include Canada, the US, Central and South America … But I guess that's why we say North American, the US, Canada etc. … There are Canadians, The 50 US States (including those from California and Texas !), all the Central and South American nations … and of course Mexico which is between Central and North America … So I promise to never, ever, ever say England unless I just mean England and not Wales, Scotland … oh don't forget Ireland or is it just Northern Ireland … So again, who did the Welsh and Irish Guards fight along side in WWII ? During WWII, my father an Ohioan, was a replacement in the US 90th Infantry Division which was a unit from Texas and Oklahoma … So where am I from ? My grand parents were from Italy. So am I an American, or, since Ohio is in the northern US am I a Yankee, eventhough my people weren't here during the ACW ? Who am I ?

"Kinda weird way of looking at it" was not from me, but part of the quote from the original posting – hence the inverted commas.

I don't think Canadians or Mexican would consider themselves to be Americans. But your great natiom is made up of United States. Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland,(and I include the British-occupied north) are separate nations.

I read somewhere that the Allies lost WW2. Since England & France went to war to keep Poland from being taken over by a foreign government, and at the end of the war Poland had been taken over by the USSR, we did not achieve our objective.

Yes….if it had been one huge wargame, the Allies would have lost on VP's

<Yes….if it had been one huge wargame, the Allies would have lost on VP's>

The Western Allies would have. The USSR would have got a fair few victory points. I am not sure if liberation of Poland was ever one the USA's formal war aims either. I don't think so. In any event, the allies soon settled on 'unconditional surrender' as a war aim, which superseded liberating Poland. Interesting to think of 'unconditional surrender' as a softening or war aims, at least as far as Poland was concerned.

As the aggrieved party (attacked by Japan, declared war on by Germany and (LOL) Italy), the USA didn't start out with any formal war aims, unlike Britain and France which ostensibly went to war to guarantee Polish sovereignty. I don't know if any intermediate conditions were adopted by the US alone prior to the unconditional surrender doctrine.