The Surrender Of The United States To Russia.

[Zavulon]

As usual your vague generalities fail at precise concept.
With or without "battle", the USA had and/or found resources elsewhere to replace what the Japanese took. Enough to produce nearly as much as all other belligerents combined.
The Japanese had an increasingly hard time getting those resources to the Home Islands as USA submarines sank increasing merchant tonnage during the war.

Yep. But in our alternative scenario, where the USA and Japan are both part of Axis, American submarines don't sunk Japanese ships. They are perfectly save. The main oceanic theatre in this war, is Atlantic theater, and the main adversary of the joint American-German Fleets are British, Soviet and "Free France" fleets. (Much more serious enemies).

It means, that in this scenario America has lesser amount of resources to use, lesser amount of intellectual working force (for American Jews, Russians, Brits and Frences are going to the detaining camps and in 1941 they were more educated and valuable than Japanese), but much more resources distracted to the naval warfare (for British fleet was three times larger than Japanese one).

It means, that in this scenario Germany got even lesser American help than Russia got in our reality. And Russia defeat Germany in 1945 as in our reality.

 

[Zavulon]

Your delusions continue to run rampant.
And your claims are undocumented, you don't cite sources to back such up. Therefore leave the strong impression you fabricate.

I can post documents. But can you read them?

USSR/Russia had neither inclination nor resources to make an atomic bomb while still fighting back the German invasion.

Russia had resources. It might demanded another Holodomor in Middle Asia, or something close to genocide of Poles and Czechs - but it was possible.
The Commies have been monitoring nuclear program even before it started.

Only post war did they learn that the atom bomb was real and did work, and then could make use of the limited information it got from it's agents during the war. Still, the majority of knowledge was stolen and likely would never have been discovered by the Soviets until decades later otherwise.

It is simply not true.

Russia no clue as to what higher moral and intellectual ground is. Also is far from having such.

And one more time - its just your underestimation of the Russians.

Our bombers never did, or could bomb "Chinese commie guerillas"*. Or had any reason to do so during the course of the war.

If you were a part of Axis, and allied with Japanese, you might choose to bomb Chinese Commies or KMT.

So little chance Russia would "capture" our "bombers". As it turned out, the few that had to make emergency landing in Soviet territory were never returned and were copied, give the Soviets a huge leap forward in modern technology.

It was useful, but not essential.

* Mao had more regular army units than guerillas.

Until Russia captured the German scientists and some of the factories and actual V-1 and V-2 missiles, Russia was largely clueless on missile development.

Ever heard about Tsiolkovsky?

Russian Long Range Bomber type, Start of WWII

Best version LRB of home design;

Petlyakov Pe-8 - Wikipedia​

Then impounded USAAF B-29s allowed the Soviets to acquire more modern technology, including pressurization crew compartments;

Soviet Tu-4 copy of USAAF B-29

Could the USA develop and produce B-29s without Jews, Brits, Russians, while volonteerly gave up Pacific to Japans and fighting for Atlantic with the Brits?

 

[Zavulon]

History, especially military history is filled with countless examples of leaders having been given intelligence of an enemies impending attack, yet failed to believe such and/or act upon it.

Yes, it is. Or, sometimes, people don't have a lot of choice.

Often this is because of many other intel reports coming in with similar warning and similar question of reliability. Which of the many are correct? Historical hindsight is also more accurate long after the event.

Or, sometimes, historical myths are even more far from truth than in-time mistakes.

A classic example, of a nature similar to the Pearl Harbor* attack, and likely of larger damage and shock, is the opening of Barbarossa.

Reported Stalin had been given supposedly accurate intel reports a couple months in advance that Germany was going to attack. Yet Stalin was skeptical of those reports and the implication he couldn't trust Hitler/Germany. Hence rather than pull back the Western Border defenses into a more defensible posture/positions they remained right on edge of border with minimum alert status.

Germany's attack was ever bit as much as a sudden surprise as the one at Pearl Harbor and with more destruction. Dozens of Soviet division were destroyed or captured and about 80-90% of the air force in that region were destroyed on the ground at their air fields.

"incompetence, treason or a sophisticated plan" ???

Mostly incompetence, sometimes - treason. Some Generals were arrested and executed for this. As far as I know, no American General or Admiral was executed for Pearl Harbour, that gives people soil for conspiracy theories.

* Often overlooked is that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was one of several other attacks at the same time through out the Pacific at other bases and military locations. Most all of these also had a surprise and shock value and impact of their own upon those targeted.

Yep. Looks like that American intelligence was deeply f#cked. Or as if somebody betrayed the USA.
Anyway, can you be sure that your intelligence now isn't in the same position?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Actually, you caused millions if death to spread your ideologies. And no, as we can see now - Russia has higher moral and intellectual ground.


If you don't pick your side by yourself - someone else make it for you (as it happened with Japan in our reality).



And the USA didn't have back in 1941. America was forced (by Japan) to be allied with Russia and Comintern, and thats the main reason why America earned all those skills. If America joined anti-comintern pact in 1939 (and start war against England), then, significant part of those scientists would work for Soviet Union.



According unclassified documents, there were more than 130 scientists in Manhattan project working directly to Soviet intelligence and greater number of sympatizers. If the USA are part of Axis - many of them were going in Soviet Union.


As if, in the alternative reality, Russia wouldn't be able to capture and copy your bombers bombing Chinese commie guerillas, or develop their own planes or missiles.

The B-29 was beyond state-of-the-art in the mid 1940s. The Soviets lacked the ability to design any of the hi-tech components and had to make monkey copies right down to bad rivets. The Soviets used the metric system, but the Bulls were built using English measurements because they were a like for like copy of the Superfortress.

 

[Highlight]

The USA had nothing to do with making Germany invade Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.
We gradually became involved as a supplier of weapons, food and other items via Lend-Lease during the next two years leading up to Dec. 7,1941. During that time two USN destroyers had been attacked by German U-boats, one sunk, the other damaged and both with loss of lives and injuries. This could have been reason enough for the USA to declare war but we didn't. We also had a semi-active role via formation of the American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) sent to China to help them fight the Japanese.

USA sanctions against the Japanese were intended to encourage Japan to stop it's aggression on China. They were not meant to "provoke" Japan into attacking the USA.

I find it amussing, to put mildly, that Leftist wingnuts will say that USA sanctions provoked Japan to attack us, then out of the other side of their mouths they encourage sanctions against Russia to make it end it's war on Ukraine. As if such couldn't backfire and result in repeat of what Japan did, was "provoked" to do. Among the many aspects of mental illness common to Leftist ideology, the concept of "provoke" is a clear contradiction in it's meaning, and applications.

Didn't I ask you to not bring up this stuff in this thread? **** your history written by the victors. Which means it is most certainly lying propaganda. Next, U.S. sanctions against Japan for their invasion of China could possibly have provoked them. Too ******* bad. If the Russians were provoked by our sanctions against them for invading the Ukraine, again, too ******* bad.

 

[Stryder50]

Didn't I ask you to not bring up this stuff in this thread? **** your history written by the victors. Which means it is most certainly lying propaganda. Next, U.S. sanctions against Japan for their invasion of China could possibly have provoked them. Too ******* bad. If the Russians were provoked by our sanctions against them for invading the Ukraine, again, too ******* bad.

1) YOU do not own or control this forum/board !!!
As any member here I am free to present anything I think relevant to the thread topic.

2) Losers also have their versions of history. Written and presented for consideration. Either (Winner or Loser) version can be considered "propaganda" depending upon the viewer's perspective and choice factors. One person's propaganda can be another person's truth(Pravda).

3) As I've repeatedly try to present/express; the concept of "provoke" is a weak, intellectually bankrupt and dishonest concept by the Leftist disinformationists to absolve them of responsibility for their choice or response on an issue. In a universe of Free Will, no one can compel another to act in a certain way unless they are willing and chose to do so. Hence "provoke" is a false narrative and justification to try and absolve one of an action/course of their own choice in response to a situation they dislike.

4) I don't buy into the concept of other supposedly rational minded nations being "provoked" into a line of response/action. If they act a certain way, it is by willful choice and a decision of their own doing and responsibility, can not be blamed on the actions of others. Of course this is advancing an adult, mature perspective of actions by national leaders and immature, non-responsible juvenile minds will not grasp this concept of being responsible for one's choices and actions.

 

[Stryder50]

Didn't I ask you to not bring up this stuff in this thread? **** your history written by the victors. Which means it is most certainly lying propaganda. Next, U.S. sanctions against Japan for their invasion of China could possibly have provoked them. Too ******* bad. If the Russians were provoked by our sanctions against them for invading the Ukraine, again, too ******* bad.

In case you failed to "get it" no one can be provoked into something.
That is a lame and false/phony excuse.
If you chose to do something it is on you for making such a decision and course of action.
Mature adults leading nations can not be "provoked" or pushed into doing something they don't want to do already.
That concept is a lame excuse and deflection of place for actual responsibility for actions.

 

[AZrailwhale]

In case you failed to "get it" no one can be provoked into something.
That is a lame and false/phony excuse.
If you chose to do something it is on you for making such a decision and course of action.
Mature adults leading nations can not be "provoked" or pushed into doing something they don't want to do already.
That concept is a lame excuse and deflection of place for actual responsibility for actions.

The Japanese made the choice to go to war against the USA, UK and Netherlands East Indies because they impeded Japan’s journey to empire. Japan’s choice was to continue on the path to war, or lose face by allowing western sanctions to control their actions. This was the lesser of the evils available to Japan as the Japanese saw it. They weren’t provoked, the USA and UK tried to deter them and failed.

 

[Zavulon]

The B-29 was beyond state-of-the-art in the mid 1940s. The Soviets lacked the ability to design any of the hi-tech components and had to make monkey copies right down to bad rivets. The Soviets used the metric system, but the Bulls were built using English measurements because they were a like for like copy of the Superfortress.

Russia had state-of-the-art long range bombers in 1930s-earlier 1940. Just after the start of the war with Germans Russia concentrated efforts on developing and building battfield planes (which were more important in time). Of course Russia has opportunities to develop nuclear delivery systems with or without American help.

And, by the way, you seems to be a fan of popular British (of Ukrainian origin) pseudohistorian fiction-writer Vladimir Rezun (AKA "Victor Suvorov"), are you? If you wish, we might play a game "find a page without lie in Rezun's books"

 

[Mushroom]

In a universe of Free Will, no one can compel another to act in a certain way unless they are willing and chose to do so. Hence "provoke" is a false narrative and justification to try and absolve one of an action/course of their own choice in response to a situation they dislike.

It can also be equally claimed that Japan provoked the US into conducting the embargos in the first place.

The US had warned them multiple times that continuing to attack their ally China as well as their occupation of French Indochina would result in repercussions. It started with the metal embargo in September 1940, and the US and Japan appeared to be negotiating a withdrawal of their forces and resuming shipments. But even as those negotiations were underway, Japan started to militarize Indochina (which they claimed they would not do), so in July 1941 the US froze all Japanese assets and in August placed an embargo on all petroleum products and closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping.

However, at that time the US was unaware that Japan was well into their war plans. They already had pilots walking through a mockup of Pearl Harbor to plan their attacks, even updating the ships present and their placements whenever that changed. And were in the final testing of torpedoes that had been modified to work in the shallow water of the harbor without striking the bottom.

No matter what, Japan was going to go to war with the US. Because a key part of their goal of the South-East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was the Philippines. In addition to the Dutch East Indies for oil and Malaya for rubber and tin. And there was no way in hell they would dare to attack those islands with the US sitting right across their supply lines.

 

[Mushroom]

Russia had state-of-the-art long range bombers in 1930s-earlier 1940.

Oh nonsense. Once again, you prove you just make things up and think nobody will check out your claims.

The absolute closest to that was the DB-3. And it was indeed first tested and flown in 1935. However, it did not enter service then. It required a lot of improvements first, and was a challenging aircraft to build. So the first units to enter service were not until late 1938.

However, one also has to remember that this was not a heavy bomber, it was a twin engine medium bomber. And "medium" is only in relation to the size, not the payload. They made so many sacrifices for lesser metals used in construction and maximizing the fuel capacity that the internal payload was only 1,000 pounds. With the majority of the ordinance putting it at a staggering 5,500 pounds.

Which also resulted in multiple aircraft losses as putting that much of a bomb load on the wings highly stressed them and resulted in multiple failures due to metal fatigue.

Now the B-29, that was a true heavy bomber. Four engine, with a bomb load of 20,000 pounds.

Oh, and with a range of over 5,500 miles compared to the 2,400 miles of the DB-3, the Soviet "long range bomber" fell pitifully short in that are also.

I am not even sure what you are trying to claim here, as the list of Soviet heavy bombers in WWII is rather anemic.

First the TB-3. That entered service in 1932, and it was obsolete even then. Especially as considering it was a "heavy bomber", the bomb load was only 11,000 pounds and only had a range of 1,200 miles. And it was just a 4 engine update to the long obsolete TB-1, it was actually withdrawn from service in 1939, but put back into service after Germany invaded. But in 1941 they made up ¼ of the total Soviet bomber force, so remained in service despite heavy losses. In fact, the losses were so heavy that over 75% of the inventory of over 800 aircraft were destroyed by 1943. At that point the remaining aircraft were withdrawn from bomber duties and converted into transport aircraft.

At the end of the war, the Soviet Union only had 10 operational.

The other is the Pe-8. That was to be the replacement for the TB-3, but it was underwhelming from the start. The range was decent at 2,300 miles. But with a combined internal and external bomb load of 9,800 pounds it was pitiful by the standards of WWII. And they were only able to manufacture 93 aircraft total.

And those were all of the Soviet made heavy bombers of WWII.

Meanwhile, the US B-17 which actually entered service in 1936 had a maximum bomb load of over 17,000 pounds. And the US built close to 13,000 of them by the end of the war. And Boeing submitted the first design of what would become the B-29 in 1940. With the first test flight in 1942 and full production in 1943. With over 3,700 of them built before the end of the war.

 

[longly]

How could it have happened! Especially to Russia. Though Russia may be large in land area, it has only a little over half of the population that the U.S. does. So how did such a small country in terms of population, (and in many cases undeveloped) end up kicking the ass of AMERICA! Which indeed did happen. Or may as well have. Because everything Putin may have wanted to see happen to America that was bad for it's citizens, Trump has done for him. Such as seeing our Capital Building attacked, trying to destroy our economy, cutting funding to the CDC, NIH, VA, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, The Department of Education and even to some Universities, etc. etc. etc.

Trump has also fired 17 Inspectors General's. You know. Those people who's job is to see to it that things are done right. And in opposition to the supposed goal of DOGE, see to it that things are done efficiently. Another thing Trump's boss Putin also wanted done is for the U.S. to stop backing the Ukraine. And to do whatever he can to make America's friends our enemies. Another thing Putin would no doubt want that Trump has done for his master is to put incompetent people in positions of power. Such as making a lowly captain in the Minnesota Army National Guard the secretary of defense. Even worse was making John Phelan the secretary of the Navy. Who has no military experience at all.

So, does anybody around here have the ear of any high ranking officer in the military? If so, you can give them this opinion of mine. Just because a traitor was duly elected President, (by fools and traitors) doesn't mean that they shouldn't treat Trump like the traitor he is. So I personally would support a military coup! Failing that, there is something the American People can do. When the mid-term elections come up in 2026, vote every damn Trump supporting republican traitor out of office! That will lead to an impeachment against Trump being able to happen. After that, as a private citizen, the courts can take over. Where he will be tossed into prison as he deserves to be!

How could it have happened! Especially to Russia. Though Russia may be large in land area, it has only a little over half of the population that the U.S. does. So how did such a small country in terms of population, (and in many cases undeveloped) end up kicking the ass of AMERICA! Which indeed did happen. Or may as well have. Because everything Putin may have wanted to see happen to America that was bad for it's citizens, Trump has done for him. Such as seeing our Capital Building attacked, trying to destroy our economy, cutting funding to the CDC, NIH, VA, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, The Department of Education and even to some Universities, etc. etc. etc.

Trump has also fired 17 Inspectors General's. You know. Those people who's job is to see to it that things are done right. And in opposition to the supposed goal of DOGE, see to it that things are done efficiently. Another thing Trump's boss Putin also wanted done is for the U.S. to stop backing the Ukraine. And to do whatever he can to make America's friends our enemies. Another thing Putin would no doubt want that Trump has done for his master is to put incompetent people in positions of power. Such as making a lowly captain in the Minnesota Army National Guard the secretary of defense. Even worse was making John Phelan the secretary of the Navy. Who has no military experience at all.

So, does anybody around here have the ear of any high ranking officer in the military? If so, you can give them this opinion of mine. Just because a traitor was duly elected President, (by fools and traitors) doesn't mean that they shouldn't treat Trump like the traitor he is. So I personally would support a military coup! Failing that, there is something the American People can do. When the mid-term elections come up in 2026, vote every damn Trump supporting republican traitor out of office! That will lead to an impeachment against Trump being able to happen. After that, as a private citizen, the courts can take over. Where he will be tossed into prison as he deserves to be!

I do think that is a possibility. How possible? I'm not sure, but if it happens. It will happen in the Arctic—we’re the least prepared. And it will be happening primarily because the way the left has devastated American culture. We outnumber Russians two to one, but probably half of our population of military age wouldn't be worth drafting. I have doubts that Americans would respond to a draft anyway—at least the liberal portion of the population. And in a democracy, if not everyone participates, no one will participate. I remember when the left actually attempted to destroy American patriotism; to this day, they are still opposed to patriotism being taught in American schools. So yes, it is possible that we could lose—unless we're prepared to use tactical nukes. And I just can't see a Democratic president doing thatt

 

[Zavulon]

Oh nonsense. Once again, you prove you just make things up and think nobody will check out your claims.

The absolute closest to that was the DB-3. And it was indeed first tested and flown in 1935. However, it did not enter service then. It required a lot of improvements first, and was a challenging aircraft to build. So the first units to enter service were not until late 1938.

Ever heard about Valery Chkalov and his first transpolar flight at ANT-25 in 1937? Or about military modification of ANT-25 - ANT-36?
Russia had good engineering school of building heavy and long range bombers. Just in WWII long range bombers were not in big use for Russia - the enemy was pretty close, and army support planes were much more useful.
Copying of B-29 was just cheaper and more reliable solution. American help wasn't essential. And the help of American and foreign commies was essential in the making the nuclear bomb in America. Russia could build long range heavy bomber in the end of WWII, even without capturing American samples. America couldn't build a nuclear bomb without Jews and commies.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes, it is. Or, sometimes, people don't have a lot of choice.


Or, sometimes, historical myths are even more far from truth than in-time mistakes.


Mostly incompetence, sometimes - treason. Some Generals were arrested and executed for this. As far as I know, no American General or Admiral was executed for Pearl Harbour, that gives people soil for conspiracy theories.


Yep. Looks like that American intelligence was deeply f#cked. Or as if somebody betrayed the USA.
Anyway, can you be sure that your intelligence now isn't in the same position?

Unlike Russia or the USSR, the USA doesn’t execute failed generals. Both General Short and Admiral Kimmel were held responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. Short retired and Kimmel was sidelined for the rest of the war

 

[Zavulon]

Unlike Russia or the USSR, the USA doesn’t execute failed generals.

Bad for you. May be, it's the reason why your military are that poor. Corruption, incompetence and treason rotten it.

Both General Short and Admiral Kimmel were held responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. Short retired and Kimmel was sidelined for the rest of the war

Really? No surprise that there are that many conspiracy theories about it.

 

[Highlight]

1) YOU do not own or control this forum/board !!!
As any member here I am free to present anything I think relevant to the thread topic.

2) Losers also have their versions of history. Written and presented for consideration. Either (Winner or Loser) version can be considered "propaganda" depending upon the viewer's perspective and choice factors. One person's propaganda can be another person's truth(Pravda).

3) As I've repeatedly try to present/express; the concept of "provoke" is a weak, intellectually bankrupt and dishonest concept by the Leftist disinformationists to absolve them of responsibility for their choice or response on an issue. In a universe of Free Will, no one can compel another to act in a certain way unless they are willing and chose to do so. Hence "provoke" is a false narrative and justification to try and absolve one of an action/course of their own choice in response to a situation they dislike.

4) I don't buy into the concept of other supposedly rational minded nations being "provoked" into a line of response/action. If they act a certain way, it is by willful choice and a decision of their own doing and responsibility, can not be blamed on the actions of others. Of course this is advancing an adult, mature perspective of actions by national leaders and immature, non-responsible juvenile minds will not grasp this concept of being responsible for one's choices and actions.

Well it isn't relevant to the topic of this thread. This thread is about our basically surrendering to Russia. It doesn't have anything to do with WWII or how it began. If you want to talk about that topic, start your own thread about it.

 

[Highlight]

I do think that is a possibility. How possible? I'm not sure, but if it happens. It will happen in the Arctic—we’re the least prepared. And it will be happening primarily because the way the left has devastated American culture. We outnumber Russians two to one, but probably half of our population of military age wouldn't be worth drafting. I have doubts that Americans would respond to a draft anyway—at least the liberal portion of the population. And in a democracy, if not everyone participates, no one will participate. I remember when the left actually attempted to destroy American patriotism; to this day, they are still opposed to patriotism being taught in American schools. So yes, it is possible that we could lose—unless we're prepared to use tactical nukes. And I just can't see a Democratic president doing thatt

You missed it. We were basically at war with Russia, and we lost! So what you bring up is water under the bridge. That ship has dun sailed! Just aboput everything bad Putin would like to see happen to the U.S., Trump has made it a reality and is working on making things even worse.

 

[Stryder50]

Well it isn't relevant to the topic of this thread. This thread is about our basically surrendering to Russia. It doesn't have anything to do with WWII or how it began. If you want to talk about that topic, start your own thread about it.

Your thread topic presentation is garbage and you haven' half a clue what you are talking about.
9/10ths of what has been presented here in this thread is beyond your grasp and comprehension, it would seem.

 

[Zavulon]

Well it isn't relevant to the topic of this thread. This thread is about our basically surrendering to Russia. It doesn't have anything to do with WWII or how it began. If you want to talk about that topic, start your own thread about it.

It is simple, and it is relevant. Russia already declared that they see situation in Europe and Ukraine as vital theat, and ready, if necessary, escalate to the nuclear war level. So, America basically have a choice:
1) Surrender while it is possible (and it is still conventional proxy-war), try to minimise the damage, buy some time and prepare better for the next war.
2) Declare that America is also ready to the nuclear war over Ukraine and try to attack Russian nuclear forces first by a limited counter-force strike.

And, of course, those discussions about possible start of WWIII, demand discussions about WWI and WWII.

 

[Highlight]

It is simple, and it is relevant. Russia already declared that they see situation in Europe and Ukraine as vital theat, and ready, if necessary, escalate to the nuclear war level. So, America basically have a choice:
1) Surrender while it is possible (and it is still conventional proxy-war), try to minimise the damage, buy some time and prepare better for the next war.
2) Declare that America is also ready to the nuclear war over Ukraine and try to attack Russian nuclear forces first by a limited counter-force strike.

And, of course, those discussions about possible start of WWIII, demand discussions about WWI and WWII.

You are wrong. And possibly insane.

1. Surrender is never an option.
2. We don't need to declare anything. All we need to do is what we were doing. Sending military aid to the Ukraine. And more to the point, continuing our cold war with Russia. That is as long as they are being led by a dictator. Also, using nuclear weapons at all is unlikely to remain "limited." Only a deranged person would even try. Another point is that the Ukraine actually invaded part of Russia. If that didn't cause Putin to use nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that anything would.