Yuku free message boards

ickysdad wrote:

---

StevoJH wrote:

---

bennett0, at least two of Sydney's sister ships took Japanese torpedoes and survived. The point that is being made is that in Sydney's position, the ship would go down no matter what cruiser you picked because it is not at actions stations with hatches sealed. The number of fire control positions is irrelevant if the ship is not at action stations. Not to mention that fact that at 1000 yards you could fire with local control and probably just about hit with every round.

1000 yards is only 900metres, that is within range for a scoped rifle.

And just to point this out in case you haven't realised, the ALLIES won World War II. The ALLIES were not just the US, they were also the UK, Australia, Canada, India, Free France and many other countries. Seriously, yes America had a large impact on the outcome, and without her the outcome would have been more uncertain, however if the US had not become involved the UK, the Commonwealth and the rest of the involved countries would not have just rolled over and died, the results of the war would not have been a forgone conclusion. Did you know that the Canadians for example supplied the US with more war material then they received from the US in lend lease? Seriously, please learn your history a bit better and in a less biased, and less condescending manner.

Thanks.

what yout source on Lend Lease from Canada to the US & US to Canada? Further just what is meant by "US not getting involved?"

The total of defense materials and services that Canada received through lend-lease channels amounted in value to approximately $419,500,000. ¹ Of this total, only $167,158,000 represented War Department shipments. Nearly 56 percent of the War Department shipments, in value, consisted of ground material including rifles, revolvers, antiaircraft and machine guns, ammunition of various types, and trucks. The remainder was aircraft and aeronautical material.² By far the great bulk of goods and material that Canada purchased in the United States was obtained from American suppliers by direct negotiation with them. Army representatives of the War Production Board handled the allocation of controlled materials for these Canadian orders. The appropriate supply services of the United States Army cleared and scheduled the desired production. Some idea of the scope of economic collaboration can be had from the fact that from the beginning of 1942 through 1945 Canada, on her part, furnished the United States with $1,000,000,000 to $1,250,000,000 in defense materials and services. From September 1943 to September 1945, 14 percent of Canada's total war production went to the United States

ickysdad wrote:

---

Steve,
But even if the US didn't enter the war in your scenario would they still be carrying on LL ??? Still selling materials to the Allies? Also LL is far different then simply buying products from one another.

Same Source:

Although Canada, as one of the leading industrial nations of the world, did not request direct lend-lease assistance during the war, a certain amount of war material and a much larger amount of industrial goods were sold to Canada through lend-lease channels as a matter of administrative convenience.

ickysdad wrote:

---

StevoJH wrote:

---

ickysdad wrote:

---

Steve,
But even if the US didn't enter the war in your scenario would they still be carrying on LL ??? Still selling materials to the Allies? Also LL is far different then simply buying products from one another.

Same Source:

Although Canada, as one of the leading industrial nations of the world, did not request direct lend-lease assistance during the war, a certain amount of war material and a much larger amount of industrial goods were sold to Canada through lend-lease channels as a matter of administrative convenience.

The only part of lend lease that the British Commonwealth really needed was the shipbuilding, sure they would not have been able to invade europe until much later, however it would have happened. It would have meant massively enlarging the indian and british armies even further then was done, but it was possible. Oh, and without lend lease its possible shipbuilding *could* have been increased further in britain and the commonwealth however it was not needed, so we will never know if it truly could be expanded and if so by how much (i'd guess quite a bit if you exported british shipbuilders to Australia, India and Canada to build yards and train more local workers).

and just how would the UK/Commonwealth supply an armored force large enough for an invasion when historically they needed US produced Shermans to outfit bthier armored divisions? Also the UK was at the end of it's credits by early 1941 just how are they going to finance this? If I'm not wrong the US had to come in then to help them avert any crisis. Now I still don't think Hitler could have invaded them but not being conquered and being able to carry out an invasion of Europe later on are two totally different things.
We are really getting off course of this thread though.

Lets say the US refuses to aid the Uk and british commonwealth. Instead the funds which were spent in the US are spent in the UK and other Empire countries. A lot of the money will be returned from tax, and because their very survival is at stake the owners of the company are more likely to agree to lower their profits then the companies in the US that "cashed in" on the war. I'd like to point out that a lot of the money spent by the UK in the war before the entry of the US would have probably been on the establishment of the facilities that produced those munitions. The facilities used to build the US war machine.