I think you might be straying from the original statements that led to this, to me, pleasant exchange.
All of my previous posts deal with the one paragraph you posted ” our reasons for getting into the war were based on economics. Remember, we weren't even vaguely aware of the German's long range bombing capabilities or their intent on invasion. We got into the war to protect our assets in Europe, mainly our shipping industry. The reason we got pulled in was cos they kept bombing our shipping. Several very good speculative books have been written on the outcome had Hitler approached the US as an ally...” ” I have no idea what to say other than you're ignorant and ill educated. I can't carry on a conversation with someone who has little to no understanding of either global events or motivations”
I feel that I’m fairly well educated and inform, but I’m always willing to admit that I don’t know everything, I’m always open to learning new thing.
I’d be happy to discuss any aspect that WWII that I am familiar with. My current project is the North African theater. I’ve just finished Rick Atkinson’s “An Army at Dawn : The War in Africa, 1942-1943, Volume One of the Liberation Trilogy.” The second book, dealing with the invasion of Sicily and Italy, is due out this year. I highly recommend it. ” Haggis, Saying we went to war with Germany because they declared war on us is like saying the sun rises every morning because it does.”
I’m not sure I know what you meant by that, but if you are implying that declaring war on Japan was tantamount to declaring war on Germany, then that’s not true. Congress had already informed FDR that the declaration of war on Japan was not a collateral declaration on Germany. Even after 12/07/41, the American people did not support a two front war on Germany; they wanted to punish Japan for Pearl Harbor.
Obversely, there was no mutual protection pact between Germany and Japan, Hitler didn’t have to declare war on 12/11/41; he just thought it would be a good idea.
So without Hitler’s declaration, FDR would have been in an awkward position, fortunately Hitler overplayed his hand. So, war with Japan did not automatically mean war with Germany. "Gerhard Weinberg's "A World at Arms" looks at the global political/economics of World War 2, without doing any of the combat thing."
I have it, a very good book, and a brief review confirmed my original thought that the book concentrates on the tactical decisions made by Allied and Axis leaders and the relationship among the various theaters.
Please quote some of the economic passages that counter what I posted regarding American economic interests in Germany and how they led to the war. Page numbers will be sufficient. ”R.J.Overy's "Why the Allies Won" specifically looks at the economics of WWII and the role it played in it”
Again, no argument from me, please quote some passages that counters my argument to your statement that we ”got into the war to protect our assets in Europe, mainly our shipping industry”
Again, page numbers will be sufficient. "I'd start with Gonicks "A Cartoon History of the Universe." It gives a rather general overview of civilization from start to around 1000 AD (he's working on the rest now)."
While I’ve never heard of it I’m slightly perplexed at what pertinence a cartoon history that ends approximately 922 year before Hitler’s rise brings to the argument of America’s reason for going to war with Germany, economic or otherwise? Or what war making capabilities Hitler possessed? "…so that we can discuss this misconception that "Germany was not developing long range capabilities to use against the United States."
Moving the goal posts?
You said originally that: "Remember, we weren't even vaguely aware of the German's long range bombing capabilities or their intent on invasion”
Now you’re changing that to “developing”?
Re: the He 177 Griffon
[i]”Out of the eight prototypes, six crashed. And of the 35 pre-production A-0s, (built for the most part by Arado Handelsgesellschaft, Warnemunde) a large number had to be written off due to take-off swings or in-flight fires.
Arado built 130 A-1s, followed by 170 Heinkel built A-3s, and 826 A-5s, which had repositioned engines and a longer fuselage. About 700 Greifs served on the Eastern Front, many of these having 50mm and 75mm guns for tank-busting duties. A few even (nervously) bombed England in 400mph shallow dives, without any proper aiming for their bombs. The aircraft proved so bothersome that Goering had to forbid Heinkel to pester him any more with plans to use four separate engines!
A bomber that seldom drops bombs is as useful as runway behind it and altitude above it, in other words, it’s useless.
But, you’re right. It carried more bombs than the B-17 and had a longer range.
I’ll amend my earlier statement to accommodate your point; Germany never had long range bombers that were effectively operational.
Finally, the V-2 wasn't a bomber and wasn't long range, it went up 50 miles and traveled a few hundred miles, mainly due to the earth rotation came down, more or less in the vicinity of London.
I’ll defer to some of the physicists types on the board to explain that. It’s beyond my math skills.
<small>[ 10-28-2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Haggis@wk ]</small>