NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as another post developed into an argument on whether America 'saved' Europe (and more specifically the UK) in World War II, I thought it should have its own thread.

As a Briton, it is quite frustrating to hear Americans claim that they 'saved us in WWII', a claim that is arrogant in the extreme and ignores much of history. It is also frustrating to see Hollywood portray America as either the only Allied power in the entire war (Saving Private Ryan) or claim that even when America wasn't fighting, it was still the Americans winning the war for Britain (Pearl Harbor and the American RAF pilot who seemed to shoot down the entire Luftwaffe). We mustn't forget either, of course, the film about the submarine, U-571, that completely and utterly changed history without any sense of embarrassment, claiming it was Americans who recovered the Enigma machine for the Allies and stamping all over the graves of the British sailors who had died when they recovered the machine months before America even entered the war. The line in Pearl Harbor when the Naval Base is finally attacked, "World War Two has just started!" has got to be one of the most annoying lines in cinema history to a non-American audience.

Now, I realise that Hollywood would claim that it is allowed to take liberties with its stories as they are primarily written for an American audience and do not claim to be history books, but I feel this is irresponsible in an age when many people do get much of their understanding about the world from cinema.

So, my little Hollywood rant aside, I'm interested to see what people really think of America's role in the war. Personally I believe that had America not joined the European war, in the short term Britain would have remained the only free power in Europe (the country had already beaten back Hitler's attempts to invade and he had turned his attention East). As the Germans were defeated in the East, the Russians would have swept through Europe and it would have been incredibly hard to stop them continuing their drive and occupying the entire mainland. The fate of Britain would be questionable, and, quite frankly, would be a pure guess. Russia might have successfully invaded, or Britain might once again have beaten back a far superior enemy.

Ultimately, I believe that a WW2 without America would have led to a Russian Europe and a question mark over Britain. Where many Americans are wrong, however, is to claim that this means 'America saved Europe' - it could be the opposite. Had Britain not fought on and defeated Hitler, America would not have had the necessary Ally need to launch a counter attack and along with British forces and the freedom fighters of occupied European nations and push the Germans back.

I’ve written too much; you all know the arguments, so what do you think?

America was a major player in WW2, but it is indeed inaccurate to think that it was the only or most signifcent player. Without Britian, America would have been able to launch its invasion of Western Europe and Britain held out for a very long time. America also ignored British advice when attacking Omaha beach. The canvas duck bags that Britian invented to carry Tanks ashore were given to all the allied attacking force, but they were specificly advised not to use them much more than 5 miles off shore as they would overturn in the size of the waves much outside that range. However at Omaha beach they did use them aproximately 8 miles offshore. As a result the tanks all sank and Omaha was one of the bloodiest battles of the war in Europe, which the Americans only won through force of numbers. It is also important to remember the USSR in the conquest of Europe, which Hollywood often forgets due to the cold war. They were the ones (according to current estimates) to have lost the most in the war. An estimate of 40 million losses in both civilians and millitary during WW2 were Russian. Also we should remember that during WW2 the US suffered practially zero civilian casulaties.

In Europe, the USA were basically reinforcements to the British and Russians. Hitler was overextending in the USSR and they were driving him back, while the British needed US troops to get back Western Europe. The Nazis had to wide a front to fight and that got them in the end.

In the pacific and Asia, the USA was needed. Europe was too busy fighting, so it was really up to the USA to take on the Japanese.

USA, Britain, and the USSR were the saviors of Europe.

If Hitler had not declared war on the US, we would not have entered into the war in Europe. By the same token, if Japan didn't attack the United States, it would've been longer before we had to take on Japan.

So no, we weren't glory seeking. We were literally dragged into WWII kicking and screaming.

I would think the OPs analysis is pretty much spot-on.

Usually though, when people in Germany speak of the war, they are mainly talking about the Eastern Front. Because no matter who did what in the West, it was in Russia that the war would either be won or lost.

More than three quarters of German casualties were in the East. More than 200 divisions were fighting there, compared to only about 50 (if that) in the West.

Had the Soviet Union lost in Moscow in the first winter, the Allies could never ever have won. It would simply have been impossible to land a force large enough to defeat an Axis military of something like 10 or 20 million.

Once again, a thread that demands polarization with no middle ground.

In Europe, the USA were basically reinforcements to the British and Russians. Hitler was overextending in the USSR and they were driving him back, while the British needed US troops to get back Western Europe. The Nazis had to wide a front to fight and that got them in the end.

In the pacific and Asia, the USA was needed. Europe was too busy fighting, so it was really up to the USA to take on the Japanese.

Britain did assist America in the pacific as we had interests in Asia (Singapore etc), and at the battle of Midway, the biggest guns of any ship there belonged to a British Battleship.

I wont say that the US forces were not needed like some people probably will. They were, we could not have won without them. We might have been able to keep Britain free from nazi rulae as long as trade was kept open, but Europe would not have been liberated without US help.


I DO get annoyed when people try and make out or imply that Omaha was the only beach landed on on D-Day and things like that, but I acknowledge that the commonwealth alone did not have the numbers needed to do the job in Europe. Russia might have been able to finish the job eventually, but maybe that would have been too long.

USA, Britain, and the USSR were the saviors of Europe.
Italy's incompetence diffused the Third Reichs forces, making it easier for the Brits, 'mericans, and commie pinkos. Don't forget them!

Once again, a thread that demands polarization with no middle ground.

Not really

There are three postions

1. The USA is the princpal saviour of Europe, everyone in Europe should grovel to them etc...

2. The USA were just a backup, the British and the Russians were the principal saviours

3. The USA, Russia and Brtian along with the resistance in Europe combined to defeat the Nazi's. While some had larger roles than others, one could not have done without the other.

And to those who take on position 1, I should point out that since Europe essentially created the USA (Partically Britian because of the colonists and France for their support in the American war of independence, whithout which the American rebels would have lost), then you really should consider WW2 a debt repayed.

During World War II, England was driven into the Sea. The BEF was crumbling under the German military, and could not have withstood much longer had the United States not assisted them in North Africa and Europe. Had we not entered the war, you would be speaking German now. Did the Brits fight bravely? Yes! Tobruk, Dunkirk, Sword Beach, all were brave British fights. But without the American attack at Pont Du Hoc, Omaha Beach, and Utah, or even the Canadian attack at Juno, it wouldnt have succeeded. Actually, the invasion was a plan of the Americans. Britain wouldnt have been strong enough to launch the assault on its own because the industry was shot after the Battle of Britain, and their military was recovering still. But the Germans would have greatly outnumbered the British forces who might have invaded.

Without the Americans, the war would have been lost.

Not really

There are three postions

1. The USA is the princpal saviour of Europe, everyone in Europe should grovel to them etc...

2. The USA were just a backup, the British and the Russians were the principal saviours

3. The USA, Russia and Brtian along with the resistance in Europe combined to defeat the Nazi's. While some had larger roles than others, one could not have done without the other.

And to those who take on position 1, I should point out that since Europe essentially created the USA (Partically Britian because of the colonists and France for their support in the American war of independence, whithout which the American rebels would have lost), then you really should consider WW2 a debt repayed.


Why consider it a debt repaid, when we REVOLTED against you?? You didnt create us, we did. You just put us on the land.

Russia might have been able to finish the job eventually, but maybe that would have been too long.
Too long for what?

And most of the divisions who ended up fighting the Allies in the West didn't actually come from the Eastern Front, but from occupation duties all over Europe. The Eastern Front wasn't actually weakened nearly as much as both Soviets and Allies had hoped.

And here are the Front Lines as of D-Day. As you can see, the Germans have already been driven out of Russia in parts, and are on the retreat.
http://www.ornebridgehead.org/Photos/Map_Europe.GIF

And this is a link to "Operation Bagration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration)" - which is what the Soviets were doing while the Allies were fiddling about in Normandy.

Britain did assist America in the pacific as we had interests in Asia (Singapore etc), and at the battle of Midway, the biggest guns of any ship there belonged to a British Battleship.

I have studied the Battle of Midway and there is no mention of a British Battleship. So I'm going to have to ask for the name of the ship and proof that it was there.

During World War II, England was driven into the Sea. The BEF was crumbling under the German military, and could not have withstood much longer had the United States not assisted them in North Africa and Europe. Had we not entered the war, you would be speaking German now. Did the Brits fight bravely? Yes! Tobruk, Dunkirk, Sword Beach, all were brave British fights. But without the American attack at Pont Du Hoc, Omaha Beach, and Utah, or even the Canadian attack at Juno, it wouldnt have succeeded. Actually, the invasion was a plan of the Americans. Britain wouldnt have been strong enough to launch the assault on its own because the industry was shot after the Battle of Britain, and their military was recovering still. But the Germans would have greatly outnumbered the British forces who might have invaded.

Without the Americans, the war would have been lost.

And without the British, the Americans would have had no landing platform from which to launch the invasion of mainland Europe. And I've already pointed out the flaw at Omaha Beach. Yes without America the war would have been lost. But without Britian the war would also have been lost. As would it have been without Russia. All three were needed.

I noticed no one has really mentioned Italy, but then Italy failed to subdue a small set of islands called Malta. The Italians were pretty much useless.

Why consider it a debt repaid, when we REVOLTED against you?? You didnt create us, we did. You just put us on the land.
Well, in that case, you owed a debt to the French, without whom your revolution wouldn't have got off the ground.

Italy's incompetence diffused the Third Reichs forces, making it easier for the Brits, 'mericans, and commie pinkos. Don't forget them!

Italia was defeated in 1943 by the Brits and Americans. Then the Italians joined against the Germans so I guess you can say that the Italians also saved Europed in a perverse sort of way.

Why consider it a debt repaid, when we REVOLTED against you?? You didnt create us, we did. You just put us on the land.

The colonists were all Europeans. European governemnts finaced the expeditions. The French (Europeans) supported you when you rebelled against British control. Had the Europeans not colonised America, America would not exist as it does now. It would be a nation of the natvies, rather like Japan. Eventually they would make contact with the west on a large scale and after a long time model their governmental style on Europes (much the same way Japan did).

Why consider it a debt repaid, when we REVOLTED against you?? You didnt create us, we did. You just put us on the land.

By doing that, they did create us :rolleyes:

Too long for what?

And most of the divisions who ended up fighting the Allies in the West didn't actually come from the Eastern Front, but from occupation duties all over Europe. The Eastern Front wasn't actually weakened nearly as much as both Soviets and Allies had hoped.

And here are the Front Lines as of D-Day. As you can see, the Germans have already been driven out of Russia in parts, and are on the retreat.
http://www.ornebridgehead.org/Photos/Map_Europe.GIF

And this is a link to "Operation Bagration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration)" - which is what the Soviets were doing while the Allies were fiddling about in Normandy.

Why is Finland always put as an Axis power?

That still stumps me...

And without the British, the Americans would have had no landing platform from which to launch the invasion of mainland Europe. And I've already pointed out the flaw at Omaha Beach. Yes without America the war would have been lost. But without Britian the war would also have been lost. As would it have been without Russia. All three were needed.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Italia was defeated in 1943 by the Brits and Americans. Then the Italians joined against the Germans so I guess you can say that the Italians also saved Europed in a perverse sort of way.

It's funny you said that. The Torino Winter Olympics 2006 - featuring the torch relay thing introduced by Hitler and the stadium used for opening and closing ceremony - built by Muscollini.

Why is Finland always put as an Axis power?

That still stumps me...

They basicly accepted an invitiation from the Nazi's to join their 'empire'

I have studied the Battle of Midway and there is no mention of a British Battleship. So I'm going to have to ask for the name of the ship and proof that it was there.

Im sure it was Midway(got a cold and lack of sleep so my brain is running on basic functions only so i maybe wrong on Midway), i know that in one of Americas battles in the Pacific, a British Battleship was their.

Italia was defeated in 1943 by the Brits and Americans. Then the Italians joined against the Germans so I guess you can say that the Italians also saved Europed in a perverse sort of way.
Mussolini screwed up in the Balkans, so Germany had to come in and clean the mess up - which arguably delayed Barbarossa, which arguably lost the war for Germany.

At any rate, it's a lucky break of history that one can always blame Germany's incompetent allies. :D

Well, in that case, you owed a debt to the French, without whom your revolution wouldn't have got off the ground.

We were fighting for 2 years prior to the French coming to assist us.

Why is Finland always put as an Axis power?

That still stumps me...

Because Finland Supported Germany because they feared the USSR.

Too long for what?

Too long for the Jews in europe for a start. And maybe too long for there to actually be any hope of taking Europe back, If the US were not in the war, odds are the germans would not have wasted so much manpower on the atlantic wall.


Also, lets remember, while the eastern front was not weakened as much as was hoped, without the Normandy landings they may have been strengthened. And then even more people would have died, and the rebuilding would have taken much longer.

It's funny you said that. The Torino Winter Olympics 2006 - featuring the torch relay thing introduced by Hitler and the stadium used for opening and closing ceremony - built by Muscollini.

Yes it is funny.

Im sure it was Midway(got a cold and lack of sleep so my brain is running on basic functions only so i maybe wrong on Midway), i know that in one of Americas battles in the Pacific, a British Battleship was their.

Wasn't at Midway. That was 100% American. I think your thinking of actions down in the South Pacific near Guadalcanal in that area. Which is funny because weren't the British battleships sunk prior to that?

They basicly accepted an invitiation from the Nazi's to join their 'empire'
Say that to a Finn [or me] and you'll get a beating! It was not so!
When a country of under five million goes against Russia, you take any help you can get. The Nazi's didn't even do that much anyhow. Other than burn down all of Northern Finland.

Mussolini screwed up in the Balkans, so Germany had to come in and clean the mess up - which arguably delayed Barbarossa, which arguably lost the war for Germany.

At any rate, it's a lucky break of history that one can always blame Germany's incompetent allies. :D

Don't have to tell me that. Most wars are won on a break :D

If the US were not in the war, odds are the germans would not have wasted so much manpower on the atlantic wall.
You might wanna find out how much manpower that actually was, and what sort.

I'm tired and will log off, but I can almost guarantee you that the Soviets wouldn't have cared much even if the entire garnison of the atlantic wall was moved to the Eastern Front.

Say that to a Finn [or me] and you'll get a beating! It was not so!
When a country of under five million goes against Russia, you take any help you can get. The Nazi's didn't even do that much anyhow. Other than burn down all of Northern Finland.

But the fact remains that you accepted their assistance. That effectively puts you in the Axis Camp. Sorry but that's the cold hard facts.

Because Finland Supported Germany because they feared the USSR.

They basicly accepted an invitiation from the Nazi's to join their 'empire'

That's the thing, I never hear Finland as having done anything besides protecting itself from Russia.

I have certainly never seen any history book which said "And Finland was offered to join the Axis forces".

Not to mention that I have never seen any detailed information that tells us of how Finland supported Germany.

And I wil support any Finn who says that Finland was not an axis power.

That's the thing, I never hear Finland as having done anything besides protecting itself from Russia.

I have certainly never seen any history book which said "And Finland was offered to join the Axis forces".

Not to mention that I have never seen any detailed information that tells us of how Finland supported Germany.

I never said they joined the Axis Alliance. I said they supported Germany because of the USSR. Germany offered them help against the USSR and Finland agreed. It wasn't an alliance but this support puts them into the axis camp.

To suggest that America was anything other than isolationist prior to WWII flies in the face of the facts, being as charitable as possible. Some have even suggested ( wrongly, I believe ) that warnings about an impending attack on Pearl Harbor were ignored because President Roosevelt knew an attack on American soil was the only thing that would overcome America's reluctance to enter the war.

After Pearl Harbor, the first actions by America were focused on relieving the pressure on GB, not on a counter-strike on Japan. America had already done everything possible to help GB without a formal declaration of war against Germany: Lend-Lease, continuous relief convoys, reporting German ship movements in the Atlantic, etc.

Even Winston Churchill averred that had America not intervened when she did, England would have been in dire straits, primarily because German U-Boat activity in the Atlantic was sending thousands of metric tons of needed goods to the bottom.

Most accounts of WWII I have read indicate that, had America not entered the war, GB would eventually have had to negotiate a peace treaty with Germany. This would have allowed Germany to focus all of its attention on the Russian front. A protracted conflict would have followed, possibly leading to a stalemate.

You might wanna find out how much manpower that actually was, and what sort.


A fuckload, and slave labour.

But the fact remains that you accepted their assistance. That effectively puts you in the Axis Camp. Sorry but that's the cold hard facts.
I grow tired of this black and white view of things.
Finland, while being an "Axis Power" fought Russia, for the most part, single handed and won. The Allies didn't care, they were getting whopped by the Krauts. Just like Poland, Finland was forgotten. Sure, its not nearly as powerful as Russia, but it sure is a nice place. Molotiv coctails were invented here. Lets get a big round of sisu!

They were just defending their independence after all from the greedy, grubby commies.

Anyhow, my location doesn't contain my nationality anymore. I'm Michiganian, which happens to be located in the States.

During World War II, England was driven into the Sea. The BEF was crumbling under the German military, and could not have withstood much longer had the United States not assisted them in North Africa and Europe. Had we not entered the war, you would be speaking German now. Did the Brits fight bravely? Yes! Tobruk, Dunkirk, Sword Beach, all were brave British fights. But without the American attack at Pont Du Hoc, Omaha Beach, and Utah, or even the Canadian attack at Juno, it wouldnt have succeeded. Actually, the invasion was a plan of the Americans.

I can't help thinking you have a slightly confused idea of world war two and the respective roles the British and Americans portrayed. You paint a scenario where the British armies were always on the back foot until the american forces decisively defeated the Germans. Yet, for instance in North Africa, the British had already turned the tide, with the help of lease lend supplies, and the American landings in Tunisia were more of a coup de grace.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the invasion was a plan of the Americans. Certainly the US had been pushing for an invasion of mainland Europe for some time, but had we proceeded without the lessons and experince learnt from operation Torch and the invasion of Sicily, which was the British alternative, or the Dieepe raid, who knows how overlord would have turned out. Likewise, it was a Brit who first drew up the plans for Overlord and Montgomery pressed for an increase of scope from 3 to 5 divisions, and was in charge of the breakout from the beachheads. so even if Eisenhower was in charge of the whole show, it isn't as simple to say that it was an american plan.

Bevin Alexanders book "How Hitler Could have Won World War 2" which bored me to tears, but I slogged through to the end. Not that its a bad book, nor is it badly written. Its written well, but its all tactics, which, never having been in the military, I frankly dont understand. For anyone who asks these questions, Id recommend it. A few salient points:

1. The US was the "Arsenal of Democracy" the US role in the was was always subsidiary to that of the Soviets and the Brits (and the French Resistance and Free Poland, now why do we forget those folks, hmmm?) But it was the US industrial might that tipped the balance in favour of the Brits and Soviets, et al. Lend-Lease might be construed as cynical quid pro-quo, it also might be known that the Brits and especially the Soviets REALLY COULD use those Jeeps and MREs that we sent.

2. Finland was sort of a adjunct Axis Power, having fought the Winter War while Ziggy was doing all his creative alliances. I dont think, in retrospect, Finland was a voluntary Axis country, they were off fighting their own thing.
(note, if Im not incorrect the only country that DIDNT fail to pay off all its war Debt was Finland...anyone who knows otherwise, please set me straight)

3. Politically, most of the US didnt want to get into another European War. What I see from people right now is criticism at the US's current eagerness to get into intervention (Afghanistan and Iraq). Yet they also criticise the US reticence to get into WW2. Thats nice, but its also illogical...you cant always have it both ways.

4. Because of unpreparedness, or possibly overconfidence, the US troops needed some time to "get into" the war effort on the ground. I believe after a blistering defeat the US took in North Africa, it was common for Brit troops to refer to the US as "Our Italians". Thanks guys. But then again, look at the history of Pattons Charge across France for finding out how one can learn ones lessons.

Just a few points to try to be fair here. My opinion? Well Im not a military man, so It doesnt really matter, but I tend to side with the people who say that the Brits, Soviets and Americans all finally put together enough effort to rid the world of Ziggy. And, though Im biased, I think that was a good thing.

I grow tired of this black and white view of things.
Finland, while being an "Axis Power" fought Russia, for the most part, single handed and won.

Won the 1st round yes but did not win the 2nd round. And the view isnt black and white. Every historian I've read on World War II puts Finland in with the Axis because of their association with them. They accepted aide to help fight the Russians so the historians are correct to put them in with the axis powers.

The Allies didn't care, they were getting whopped by the Krauts. Just like Poland, Finland was forgotten. Sure, its not nearly as powerful as Russia, but it sure is a nice place. Molotiv coctails were invented here. Lets get a big round of sisu!

Yes they were invented there. I actually like the things but I would never use them. To crude.

They were just defending their independence after all from the greedy, grubby commies.

With aide from Germany.

Anyhow, my location doesn't contain my nationality anymore. I'm Michiganian, which happens to be located in the States.

Naw! Really? I didn't know that.

But the fact remains that you accepted their assistance. That effectively puts you in the Axis Camp. Sorry but that's the cold hard facts.The Americans accepted Soviet assistance. Does that make them communists?

With aide from Germany.


Frying pan or fire really.

I wouldn't hold it against them especially given the whole 'Winter War' thing.

Saviour...not. Heroes...not. There are no heroes in war. There is no black and white, good and evil. Soviets were as bad, perhaps even worse than Nazis and still the "heroic" west supported them. And what west did after beating germans? They invaded western-europe and practically forced them to become their allies in Cold War. US invasion continues in europe(i.e Rammstein) but finaly after the birth of European Union we can stand united and show our middle fingers to USA:s "bigbrother" attitude(Except UK, you are still on your knees towards america). Don't understand me wrong, we must be gratefull for all the help we got to rebuild our continent after the war, but i say 60 years is enough. We are the ones who are "revolting" now and we don't need Americans anymore.


Btw, we won the olympics. Hooray EU ^^

The Americans accepted Soviet assistance. Does that make them communists?
Americans accepting Soviet assistance made them Allies, but not communists.

Finland accepting German assistance made them Axis, but not Nazis.

Jeez... Axis vs. Allies are just a matter of universally-accepted vocabulary terms and nothing more. It doesn't make the Finns evil or the Americans into communists or the Soviets into American-style democrats

Saviour...not. Heroes...not. There are no heroes in war. There is no black and white, good and evil. Soviets were as bad, perhaps even worse than Nazis and still the "heroic" west supported them. And what west did after beating germans? They invaded western-europe and practically forced them to become their allies in Cold War. US invasion continues in europe(i.e Rammstein) but finaly after the birth of European Union we can stand united and show our middle fingers to USA:s "bigbrother" attitude(Except UK, you are still on your knees towards america). Don't understand me wrong, we must be gratefull for all the help we got to rebuild our continent after the war, but i say 60 years is enough. We are the ones who are "revolting" now and we don't need Americans anymore.


Btw, we won the olympics. Hooray EU ^^


Wrong, Britain actually plays mediator between the EU and US.

For an interesting what-if Europe under nazi rule, read Robert Harris´ Fatherland.

It relates an interesting detail seemingly overlooked in this debate: What if there would have been no invasion in the West, but rather stagnant fighting in the East, giving the nazis enough time to develop the bomb?

I fully agree with you there! The US didn't save shit, they only did everything to look good! :mad:
The Aliies could've done it very well on their own, as they were already nearly there, but then the US saw it's chance to get maximum rep with minimum effort by jumping into it :mad:
Some other much more disgusting thing is their drop of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Other than portrayed by them, this was *far* from neccessary to end the war. Research (also documented by the BBC not too far ago) has shown that peace negotiations were already well underway *before* the bomb. There even was a submarine with delegates on the way to Germany to sign a peace treaty, but it was shot down along the way, most probably by US forces so they have an excuse to use the bomb.
The absolutely *only* reason why they dropped the bomb is to show off, to show all others how much better they are. Those were only "worthless" non-Americans they slaughtered there, so they didn't give a damn. They chose the Japanese for this because they were mad they got their asses handed on a platter in Pearl Harbour (which just was because of their own inability).

The reason America came to fight in Europe was because Winston Churchill asked them too as he explained that Germany was the bigger threat due to its technological achievments.

The reason America came to fight in Europe was because Winston Churchill asked them too as he explained that Germany was the bigger threat due to its technological achievments.

Or the fact that Hitler declared war on them...

The US was needed desperatewly by the Allies at the time of their entrance into the conflict in late '41 early '42. The supplies from the US that were transported to Murmansk, such as food supplies, Sherman tanks and Jeeps were all vital to the Soviet cause and were needed to continue their offensive against the Wehrmacht. Yes, the Soviets hated the Shermans, but the food and Jeeps and such were vitally needed, albeit never officially recognised in war reports - it was american supplies that helped feed many of the Stalingrad defenders, I believe, and the Willy Jeeps were excellent transport.

The US was not a glory seeker, as they took heavy losses during the conflict. They bought vital economic aid to the allies and bought the might of the US industry to the side of the Allies, churning out equipment and supplies to equip the Russian and British and Commonwealth forces, as well as send inexperienced but needed troops to North Africa and then Italy. It is perhaps neccessary to recognise that without the US's entry into the conflict, the Western Allies would have most likely fallen or forced into a bitter stalemate; without US economic and food supplies, the Russians would have had a much harder time, although possibly not impossible, fighting the Wehrmacht.

On the issues of Finland and Italy, I'd like to comment. The Finns had very little choice in the matter - caught between the USSR, who had invaded Findland only a short while ago, and Nazi Germany who threatened to raze Northern Finland to the ground, the Finnish government chose Nazi Germany. They really had little choice in the matter, and they had a chance to hurt the USSR, a golden opportunity, especially as it seemed weak and about to fall. On the issue of Italy, I should like to come to the average Italian soldiers defense. The average Italian soldier was just as good a fighter as any other soldier, with the possible exception of the fanatical Russian. In many battles and conflicts, particularlyy in Italy and North Africa, Italian units put up an excellent defense and often caused many casualties, especially with their Bersaglieri units. However, it must be remembered that the average Italian soldier did not want to fight this war and were therefore often unwilling to fight and perhaps even apathetic at times - something aggravated by the attitude of many Wehrmacht and SS units towards them.

The Americans accepted Soviet assistance. Does that make them communists?

Actually the soviets accepted American assistance.

Frying pan or fire really.

I wouldn't hold it against them especially given the whole 'Winter War' thing.

I wouldn't either.

I fully agree with you there! The US didn't save shit, they only did everything to look good! :mad:

Go back and actually learn History.

The Aliies could've done it very well on their own, as they were already nearly there, but then the US saw it's chance to get maximum rep with minimum effort by jumping into it :mad:

Bull crap. The only nation that could were the USSR. We would've been more than happy to let Europe fight it out but Hitler, for some unknown reason, declared war on us. Again go back and learn a little history.

Some other much more disgusting thing is their drop of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Do you want the reasons again on why we dropped the bomb? I be more than willing to share them with your pigheaded and bigoted mind but alas, I feel that it would be a wasted post.

Other than portrayed by them, this was *far* from neccessary to end the war.

Again, more BS. I suggest you go back and look at the times and the Japanese culture of the era. Also look into the coup attempt by the military to dethrown the emperor so that the war can continue.

Research (also documented by the BBC not too far ago) has shown that peace negotiations were already well underway *before* the bomb.

Actually, delegates were sent to the USSR and the USSR ignored them.

There even was a submarine with delegates on the way to Germany to sign a peace treaty, but it was shot down along the way, most probably by US forces so they have an excuse to use the bomb.

Subs don't get shot down dude. They get depth charged and sunk. This is the first I've heard of this so I'm going to have to ask for proof.

The absolutely *only* reason why they dropped the bomb is to show off, to show all others how much better they are. Those were only "worthless" non-Americans they slaughtered there, so they didn't give a damn. They chose the Japanese for this because they were mad they got their asses handed on a platter in Pearl Harbour (which just was because of their own inability).

Someone here is very ignorant of history and I do not know why I wasted my time answering this post that is so full of errors.

I fully agree with you there! The US didn't save shit, they only did everything to look good! :mad:
The Aliies could've done it very well on their own, as they were already nearly there, but then the US saw it's chance to get maximum rep with minimum effort by jumping into it :mad:
Some other much more disgusting thing is their drop of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Other than portrayed by them, this was *far* from neccessary to end the war. Research (also documented by the BBC not too far ago) has shown that peace negotiations were already well underway *before* the bomb. There even was a submarine with delegates on the way to Germany to sign a peace treaty, but it was shot down along the way, most probably by US forces so they have an excuse to use the bomb.
The absolutely *only* reason why they dropped the bomb is to show off, to show all others how much better they are. Those were only "worthless" non-Americans they slaughtered there, so they didn't give a damn. They chose the Japanese for this because they were mad they got their asses handed on a platter in Pearl Harbour (which just was because of their own inability).
I see the spirit of Herr Hitler is still alive and well in "modern" Germany.

Could the Allies in Europe have defeated Nazi Germany without America?

If so, then what about the Pacific? Could anyone else have stopped Japan?

Btw, we won the olympics. Hooray EU ^^

And here I thought it was Germany that got the most medals. So where is the EU team at? I don't see the EU flag in the medal standings. Care to point it out to me?

The absolutely *only* reason why they dropped the bomb is to show off, to show all others how much better they are. Those were only "worthless" non-Americans they slaughtered there, so they didn't give a damn. They chose the Japanese for this because they were mad they got their asses handed on a platter in Pearl Harbour (which just was because of their own inability).

(person has been getting his-her history from Taliban scholars, apparently)

a) The reason we dropped the bombS in Japan was to avoid a protracted invasion in Japan which likely would have resulted in seven- or even eight-figure losses. So it really saved a whole lot of human life.

b) The Japanese snuck up on us at Pearl Harbor with a big sucker-punch. It was a sneak attack. The started their war with us, and we finished it.

And here I thought it was Germany that got the most medals. So where is the EU team at? I don't see the EU flag in the medal standings. Care to point it out to me?[Checks Medal count] I will now temporarily hijack this thread to Congratulate Germany and all the other countries for their victories. Whoo let's hear it for all participants and olympians.

I now return this thread to it's original topic. :D

The war could not have been won without the US. Lend-lease, cynical, profiteering and lingering as it is (we're still paying for that shit) kept Britain in the fight in Europe.

Of course, so many other factors bear on the same event that none may be more important than another. Goering's strategic ineptitude, Hawker's patriotic risk-taking, the sheer balls posessed by the RAF and a dozen other factors which, if they had not been would have rendered Lend-lease moot.

In terms of actual combat, the US were similarly important, their strategic bombing for example was vital to the Allied ability to cripple the Germans, though they never did anything as spectacular as Belfield or the Dambusters (617 Squadron FTW) they played a massive part.

But we won many successes independently. Africa was almost a purely Empire run campaign, the Soviets never had any real US support in terms of men but broke the back of the Wehrmacht.

The US were important, but so was everyone else. The US gets no bragging rights over anyone else. We're paying our debts in cash, not blowjobs, stop acting as if we're the damsel in distress because we never were. (And I know that only applies to a few but it's enough of you.)

"Glory Seeker"? That's not a great choice of words. The US certainly wasn't in the war to prove anything other than that Japan wasn't about to invade just 'cause they bombed Hawaii. America just kept Britain alive long enough for the Russians to really start ploughing into Germany. Then of course the US started all that "Communist containment" crap....sigh. Yea, sure, Stalin did a lot of bad shit, but really, look at the Krushchev period. The Soviet Union was trying to end the Cold War, and it was the US who kept the momentum of the war going. Getting the US involved was a very unfortunate miscalculation for both the Japanese and the world.

[Checks Medal count] I will now temporarily hijack this thread to Congratulate Germany and all the other countries for their victories. Whoo let's hear it for all participants and olympians.

I now return this thread to it's original topic. :D

Hooray for Bode Miller! What a freaking jackass! "Like, dude, I majorly won gold medals in partying. So what if all my sponsors' money went down the drain, i let my country down and totally competed like a hack, and didn't win a single medal?! These were like so still the Bode Games!"

------------------

The Russian winter and poor strategy on the part of the Germans in the east -- going into the winter cold in Russia in the first place and, secondly, stretching their forces too thinly... also helped the Russians win the war of attrition on the eastern front.

"Glory Seeker"? That's not a great choice of words. The US certainly wasn't in the war to prove anything other than that Japan wasn't about to invade just 'cause they bombed Hawaii. America just kept Britain alive long enough for the Russians to really start ploughing into Germany. Then of course the US started all that "Communist containment" crap....sigh. Yea, sure, Stalin did a lot of bad shit, but really, look at the Krushchev period. The Soviet Union was trying to end the Cold War, and it was the US who kept the momentum of the war going. Getting the US involved was a very unfortunate miscalculation for both the Japanese and the world.

Exposing straight socialism as a failed economic structure is not an unfortunate development... rather a good one.

Straight socialism can only compete in a vacuum...

Strategic Bombing won the war. Period. Strategic bombing was the only thing keeping Germany from deploying it's super weapons. Without strategic bombing, the Germans would have gotten their Jet Aircraft off the ground in much more of a hurry, and would have wiped the sky clean of allied aircraft.

And who were the ones who did the daylight precision bombing raids? The Americans.

Were The Americans saviors? No. But Great Britain lacked the manpower and material to invade Europe and liberate France. With Germany being able to shift their forces towards the east, and fielding their advanced vehicles of war, Germany would have been able to force a stalemate with the Russians.

And there is that whole thing with Japan, but I'll leave that be for now.

(person has been getting his-her history from Taliban scholars, apparently)

Well, not exactly. It is an entirely plausible point that racist sentiments played some role in the decision to hit Japan with the A- bomb. Maybe not a huge role, but some at least


a) The reason we dropped the bombS in Japan was to avoid a protracted invasion in Japan which likely would have resulted in seven- or even eight-figure losses. So it really saved a whole lot of human life.


Thats a fallacy again. That 'million' figure was plucked out of the air by Stimson and Byrnes after the war ended to justify the abhorrent after-effects of the bombings, as public opinion in the United States began to question the neccessity of dropping it. Hell, even MacArthur was against it! /off topic

With regard to the Nucs being droped on japan i think that it was evil. If the US had warned Japan that the US was going to drop them, then i think Japan would have been far more eager to surrender. The US could have also sent some footage of the test Nucs to prove its destructive power. But the US didnt warn Japan and two cities were blown to smitherienes.
RULE BRITANIA

I go with the First poster, but i have another thing to add.

What about the french, the poles, the yugoslavs and every other resistance group in ww2. They go unsung for destroying infastructure and causing chaos in the lions den.

I didn't know, until the other day, That the americans were not going to liberate paris, until the uprising started and many french pleaded to save them. Not taking paris would have been the biggest military faliure ever - at least hitler gave stalingrad a go.

But i do indeed hate the movies portaying america as the only country that dared to save little ol europe from nazis. It really annoys me, historically incorrect, arrogant and just because they have the movie sets. What about the various movies about stalingrad, Das Boat, or any french, german, italian movie.



And who were the ones who did the daylight precision bombing raids? The Americans. QUOTE]

For the record, daylight bombing was a military faliure, Thats why the americans lost many more planes than the RAF util they switched to night.

I also agree with Yttiria.

For the soviets lend lease was useless, the tanks froze and the weapons were not suited to the use they were put to.

[QUOTE]Exposing straight socialism as a failed economic structure is not an unfortunate development

Socialist economys are not what caused it to fail. The fact of running the worlds largest nation which more than half of its population are farmers and it has been decimated by the hardest fighting in history is a hard task indeed. I'd like to see you do better.

I have to say that if america didn't join then not much would ahve happened.

The eastern front would have kept rolling in russian favour.
Europe would have been conquered but an invasion of england nearly impossible because of defences/geography.
Britian would have kept it's SOE and Commando raids going and increased them.
Resistance in france would have kept on going.

America was a major player in WW2, but it is indeed inaccurate to think that it was the only or most signifcent player. Without Britian, America would have been able to launch its invasion of Western Europe and Britain held out for a very long time. America also ignored British advice when attacking Omaha beach. The canvas duck bags that Britian invented to carry Tanks ashore were given to all the allied attacking force, but they were specificly advised not to use them much more than 5 miles off shore as they would overturn in the size of the waves much outside that range. However at Omaha beach they did use them aproximately 8 miles offshore. As a result the tanks all sank and Omaha was one of the bloodiest battles of the war in Europe, which the Americans only won through force of numbers. It is also important to remember the USSR in the conquest of Europe, which Hollywood often forgets due to the cold war. They were the ones (according to current estimates) to have lost the most in the war. An estimate of 40 million losses in both civilians and millitary during WW2 were Russian. Also we should remember that during WW2 the US suffered practially zero civilian casulaties.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that Russia was our ally. That often gets overlooked, what with Cold War ill feeling. Effectively, Russia beat the Third Reich. Didn't need an Allied invasion of France, that only speeded things up. And also it would have been unfair to let the Red Army do all the work - they suffered terrible casualties as it was...

With regard to the Nucs being droped on japan i think that it was evil. If the US had warned Japan that the US was going to drop them, then i think Japan would have been far more eager to surrender. The US could have also sent some footage of the test Nucs to prove its destructive power. But the US didnt warn Japan and two cities were blown to smitherienes.
RULE BRITANIA

Actually they were warned. Just not with what type of bomb and where.

*Waits and begins countdown for yet another "Hiroshima" thread.

Actually they were warned. Just not with what type of bomb and where.

And the US was right not to warn them fully (from the US pov).

It could have failed miserably. The military still weren't fully sure it would work every time. That would have emboldened the Japanese hardliners by showing the US was bluffing and possibly weaker and more scared then it claimed to be.

Had the US told them a demo would take place, there was every chance that the Japanese would have moved POW's into the test area. Bad PR.

It would have been a waste of a bomb. Even after H+Nag. there was only one or possibly two A- bombs left that were ready to go.

Warning them would probably have backfired.

Its the only point in history where people came together regardless of politics and all the bullshit to save humanity from a dark evil...who played what role is not important, the important thing is that everyone did their job and won the war, and everyone had a equally horrid fight to do it.

The people of our generation have no idea what that means.

I noticed no one has really mentioned Italy, but then Italy failed to subdue a small set of islands called Malta. The Italians were pretty much useless.

Untrue. The Italians had the best canteen food of any WWII army. ;)

Well, in that case, you owed a debt to the French, without whom your revolution wouldn't have got off the ground.

What's also interesting (although may inadvertently be pandering to stereotype here) is that the Americans really don't seem to like the French. And vice versa. How things have changed....

Why is Finland always put as an Axis power?

That still stumps me...

Wasn't Finland neutral?

Wasn't Finland neutral?

nope.

Wasn't Finland neutral?

Finland did support the invasion of Russia and alowed Germans to use it as a spring board for operation Barbarossa.

They basicly accepted an invitiation from the Nazi's to join their 'empire'

They were probably 'invited' in a way that made it impossible to say 'no'

With regard to the Nucs being droped on japan i think that it was evil. If the US had warned Japan that the US was going to drop them, then i think Japan would have been far more eager to surrender. The US could have also sent some footage of the test Nucs to prove its destructive power. But the US didnt warn Japan and two cities were blown to smitherienes.
RULE BRITANIA

Yes they did. Thats what the Potsdam decoloration was.

Finland did support the invasion of Russia and alowed Germans to use it as a spring board for operation Barbarossa.

Basically it was a combination of fear of the Germans and hatred of the USSR that led to the alliance. Lesser of two evils as it were.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that Russia was our ally. That often gets overlooked, what with Cold War ill feeling. Effectively, Russia beat the Third Reich. Didn't need an Allied invasion of France, that only speeded things up. And also it would have been unfair to let the Red Army do all the work - they suffered terrible casualties as it was...

I dont think the Soviets could have won it alone. If it became clear to the Germans that the Allies wanted to sit back and let the Russians deal with the Germans on their own, then they would have pulled Case 3 (the large division of Panzer tanks they kept in Calis) away from France and to defend Germany on the Eastern front. The fact was, such a large German presence was in the West that the German forces in the east were depleated. It is the old addage of he who tries to be strong everywhere, is weak everywhere.

Seeing as another post developed into an argument on whether America 'saved' Europe (and more specifically the UK) in World War II, I thought it should have its own thread.

As a Briton, it is quite frustrating to hear Americans claim that they 'saved us in WWII', a claim that is arrogant in the extreme and ignores much of history. It is also frustrating to see Hollywood portray America as either the only Allied power in the entire war (Saving Private Ryan) or claim that even when America wasn't fighting, it was still the Americans winning the war for Britain (Pearl Harbor and the American RAF pilot who seemed to shoot down the entire Luftwaffe). We mustn't forget either, of course, the film about the submarine, U-571, that completely and utterly changed history without any sense of embarrassment, claiming it was Americans who recovered the Enigma machine for the Allies and stamping all over the graves of the British sailors who had died when they recovered the machine months before America even entered the war. The line in Pearl Harbor when the Naval Base is finally attacked, "World War Two has just started!" has got to be one of the most annoying lines in cinema history to a non-American audience.

Now, I realise that Hollywood would claim that it is allowed to take liberties with its stories as they are primarily written for an American audience and do not claim to be history books, but I feel this is irresponsible in an age when many people do get much of their understanding about the world from cinema.

So, my little Hollywood rant aside, I'm interested to see what people really think of America's role in the war. Personally I believe that had America not joined the European war, in the short term Britain would have remained the only free power in Europe (the country had already beaten back Hitler's attempts to invade and he had turned his attention East). As the Germans were defeated in the East, the Russians would have swept through Europe and it would have been incredibly hard to stop them continuing their drive and occupying the entire mainland. The fate of Britain would be questionable, and, quite frankly, would be a pure guess. Russia might have successfully invaded, or Britain might once again have beaten back a far superior enemy.

Ultimately, I believe that a WW2 without America would have led to a Russian Europe and a question mark over Britain. Where many Americans are wrong, however, is to claim that this means 'America saved Europe' - it could be the opposite. Had Britain not fought on and defeated Hitler, America would not have had the necessary Ally need to launch a counter attack and along with British forces and the freedom fighters of occupied European nations and push the Germans back.

I’ve written too much; you all know the arguments, so what do you think?

Well, in a sense even if the US wasnt needed in the war they did save europe from russian domination(at least some of it), I certainly agree that russia would have eventually beaten germany on thier own. However japan was also in the war, and probably would have retained superiority in the pacific. I think its more accurate to say that america saved europe during the aftermath of ww2, through aid for the european economies and infrastructure that had been utterly decimated in the face of total war, along with US insistence of free or at least non-communist states. American films are rediculous and generally idiotic, though I dont think saving private ryan tried to say that the US was the only one fighting germany(it just happened to be about american soldiers in order to better appeal to the audience).

I can almost guarantee you that the Soviets wouldn't have cared much even if the entire garnison of the atlantic wall was moved to the Eastern Front.

Wouldn't have stopped them either

And who were the ones who did the daylight precision bombing raids? The Americans.

For the record, daylight bombing was a military faliure, Thats why the americans lost many more planes than the RAF util they switched to night.

It's just a case of paying your money and taking your choice on day-time versus night-time bombing. Neither was hugely successful when they were first attempted, but with later innovations, for example pathfinders, area bombing, thousand bomber raids etc. and mustang fighters as escorts, for day time bombing, the combination of the two helped to weaken German industry particularly in bombing of oil refineries later in the war and in diverting huge amounts of german industry to air defence. One advantage the night bombers did have over the American bombers is that they traded defennsive armaments for an increased bomb load including the later tallboy and grand slam 12 and 22 thousand lb bombs for bunker busting.

Wrong, Britain actually plays mediator between the EU and US.

I agree. A very important role, too.

For an interesting what-if Europe under nazi rule, read Robert Harris´ Fatherland.

It relates an interesting detail seemingly overlooked in this debate: What if there would have been no invasion in the West, but rather stagnant fighting in the East, giving the nazis enough time to develop the bomb?

A scary thought. They were very close - but their design was never going to work. But with their impressive military focussed on the Eastern Front, and all the resources of Europe at their disposal, who's to say how things might have turned out. Europe might be flying swastikas today. *shudder*

I fully agree with you there! The US didn't save shit, they only did everything to look good! :mad:
The Aliies could've done it very well on their own, as they were already nearly there, but then the US saw it's chance to get maximum rep with minimum effort by jumping into it :mad:
Some other much more disgusting thing is their drop of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Other than portrayed by them, this was *far* from neccessary to end the war. Research (also documented by the BBC not too far ago) has shown that peace negotiations were already well underway *before* the bomb. There even was a submarine with delegates on the way to Germany to sign a peace treaty, but it was shot down along the way, most probably by US forces so they have an excuse to use the bomb.
The absolutely *only* reason why they dropped the bomb is to show off, to show all others how much better they are. Those were only "worthless" non-Americans they slaughtered there, so they didn't give a damn. They chose the Japanese for this because they were mad they got their asses handed on a platter in Pearl Harbour (which just was because of their own inability).

Don't forget that America became so powerful by bleeding the Empire and other European allies dry with its 'lend-lease' agreements. Those two wars were pretty good for the States, considereing the relatively small casualty number, and how its affected their position in the world today. everyone else was a loser...

The Allies didn't care, they were getting whopped by the Krauts. Just like Poland, Finland was forgotten. Sure, its not nearly as powerful as Russia, but it sure is a nice place. Molotiv coctails were invented here.


Finland? Nah: the petrol bomb goes back at least as far as the SCW, where it was probably invented.

With regard to the Nucs being droped on japan i think that it was evil. If the US had warned Japan that the US was going to drop them, then i think Japan would have been far more eager to surrender. The US could have also sent some footage of the test Nucs to prove its destructive power. But the US didnt warn Japan and two cities were blown to smitherienes.
RULE BRITANIA

Please, how are we supposed to convince the States to surrender their independance and rejoin the Empire with statements like this? True, Brittania does rule, but we can't tell people that. Element of surprise, what? :D

who played what role is not important, the important thing is that everyone did their job and won the war.

Apart from those who didn't

And the US was right not to warn them fully (from the US pov).



Heh, I doubt ANYONE would believe their enemy if their enemy gave them a call saying "Hey, weve got this bomb that can annihilate whole cities in an instant, do you want to surrender now?"

tallboy and grand slam 12 and 22 thousand lb bombs for bunker busting.

Interesting note, has anyone ever READ The Dambusters? Specifically the bit about the V3 guns?

Big Bertha's bigger sisters. Scary.

It is the old addage of he who tries to be strong everywhere, is weak everywhere.

Makes you tremble to think what would have happened if Hitler hadn't been in charge and a military genius had been. The Nazis had excellent equipment at their disposal.

I dont think the Soviets could have won it alone. If it became clear to the Germans that the Allies wanted to sit back and let the Russians deal with the Germans on their own, then they would have pulled Case 3 (the large division of Panzer tanks they kept in Calis) away from France and to defend Germany on the Eastern front. The fact was, such a large German presence was in the West that the German forces in the east were depleated. It is the old addage of he who tries to be strong everywhere, is weak everywhere.

True, but if the Nazis had withdrawn their Panzers and weakened the French defenses, then Britain would have popped back over with another expeditionary force :P Also, the Russians had overwhelming numbers, especially with tank divisions. The T-34 may have been inferior to the Tiger and Panzers, but quantity will wear down quality any day. Hitlers addiction to building super weapons was a fatal flaw - he should have kept his factories churning out proven successes....

And here are the Front Lines as of D-Day. As you can see, the Germans have already been driven out of Russia in parts, and are on the retreat.
http://www.ornebridgehead.org/Photos/Map_Europe.GIF

And this is a link to "Operation Bagration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration)" - which is what the Soviets were doing while the Allies were fiddling about in Normandy.
That's exactly right. By the time of Operation Bagration, Germany had no hope. The war could have been won by Russia alone. Sure, it would have taken longer and costed more lives, but it could have been done. But thanks to the USA and Britain, many lives were spared. However, they were not crucial to victory.

Heh, I doubt ANYONE would believe their enemy if their enemy gave them a call saying "Hey, weve got this bomb that can annihilate whole cities in an instant, do you want to surrender now?"



Interesting note, has anyone ever READ The Dambusters? Specifically the bit about the V3 guns?

Big Bertha's bigger sisters. Scary.

Yes, we did that in History. Wasn't the V3 emplacement destroyed by earthquake bombs designed to spin in descent so they bored into the earth before detonation? Another Barnes Wallis success I believe

V3 guns were a fearsome concept - but flawed. The Ottomans tried that when they were besieging Constantinople in 1453 I believe. And enormous cannon, which when it came down to it, couldn't hit anything .... even the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, hehe! The V3 would also have been a target for sabotage, and naval bombardment. So, a fearsome theory, but not much actual use, IMO. A glass cannon - much like the Tirpitz

The colonists were all Europeans. European governemnts finaced the expeditions. The French (Europeans) supported you when you rebelled against British control. Had the Europeans not colonised America, America would not exist as it does now. It would be a nation of the natvies, rather like Japan. Eventually they would make contact with the west on a large scale and after a long time model their governmental style on Europes (much the same way Japan did).

This is so ridiculous that I don't know where to start. With this logic, thank goodness for Hitler because he is largely responsible for modern-day Europe. Yes, he killed a few million Jews, but consider that debt repaid because of his dramatic effect on creating your current nations.

To the point of the thread, I don't like the polarized argument. America thoroughly avoided the war (almost for too long) so it wasn't a glory hound. It also required help from the rest of the allies so it wasn't a savior. It was a war that couldn't have been one without the cooperation of the allies. No savior, no glory hound.

Seeing as another post developed into an argument on whether America 'saved' Europe (and more specifically the UK) in World War II, I thought it should have its own thread.

As a Briton, it is quite frustrating to hear Americans claim that they 'saved us in WWII', a claim that is arrogant in the extreme and ignores much of history. It is also frustrating to see Hollywood portray America as either the only Allied power in the entire war (Saving Private Ryan) or claim that even when America wasn't fighting, it was still the Americans winning the war for Britain (Pearl Harbor and the American RAF pilot who seemed to shoot down the entire Luftwaffe). We mustn't forget either, of course, the film about the submarine, U-571, that completely and utterly changed history without any sense of embarrassment, claiming it was Americans who recovered the Enigma machine for the Allies and stamping all over the graves of the British sailors who had died when they recovered the machine months before America even entered the war. The line in Pearl Harbor when the Naval Base is finally attacked, "World War Two has just started!" has got to be one of the most annoying lines in cinema history to a non-American audience.

Now, I realise that Hollywood would claim that it is allowed to take liberties with its stories as they are primarily written for an American audience and do not claim to be history books, but I feel this is irresponsible in an age when many people do get much of their understanding about the world from cinema.

So, my little Hollywood rant aside, I'm interested to see what people really think of America's role in the war. Personally I believe that had America not joined the European war, in the short term Britain would have remained the only free power in Europe (the country had already beaten back Hitler's attempts to invade and he had turned his attention East). As the Germans were defeated in the East, the Russians would have swept through Europe and it would have been incredibly hard to stop them continuing their drive and occupying the entire mainland. The fate of Britain would be questionable, and, quite frankly, would be a pure guess. Russia might have successfully invaded, or Britain might once again have beaten back a far superior enemy.

Ultimately, I believe that a WW2 without America would have led to a Russian Europe and a question mark over Britain. Where many Americans are wrong, however, is to claim that this means 'America saved Europe' - it could be the opposite. Had Britain not fought on and defeated Hitler, America would not have had the necessary Ally need to launch a counter attack and along with British forces and the freedom fighters of occupied European nations and push the Germans back.

I’ve written too much; you all know the arguments, so what do you think?


OK a couple of points

-Saving private Ryan, didn't claim that america was fighting alone. The story line had to do with Two parts of the Campaign that were American. Omaha Beach and the 101st Airborne Division landing behind enemy lines. You can't attack that movie because of it.

-U-571 was false, plain and simple, it was a made up story with no real value, but if you watch the end credits, they talk about when and where the Enigma machines were recovered(mostly by british destroys, thanks guys. Then again I could be wrong and be confusing it with a Show on the History channel or something.

-Pearl Harbor was another horrible movie, don't forget after that american pilot shot down all those germans, he returned to the states, made it to Hawaii, in time to shoot down a bunch of jap fighters as well. And then to add icing to the cake he flew on the Doolittle raid. Yeah fucking right, I hate fictional characters like that, oh and the fact Ben Affleck played him only made things worse, I don't like Affleck.

-That line in Pearl Harbor that said "WWII just started" is innaccurate in a historical sense, but it just started for the Americans, remember this was an American Movie(a very bad one) made for an American Audience. And in a sense, WWII just went even more Global than it had before 1941 (since that was about the time the Japanese started attacking BRITISH possesions in SE Asia) So that tied the Pacific into the War in Europe making it a true WORLD WAR

-Someone mentioned that the biggest Allied Guns at Midway was a british Battleship, well like it or not, they didn't fire at any enemy forces if they were even there. (gonna do some checking on that) Midway was fought and Decided by American Aircraft and a whole shit load of luck on our side.


-And in a sense the United States was saving britain before it entered the war, they prevented the British Isles from Starving and running out of equipment with our constant atlantic Convoys, or sending equipment into Canada that was then sent across the Atlantic to Britain. You can't discount how much that helped the British War Effort.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/btl_mid.htm

and I also checked the Official US navy historical society's American Order of Battle at Midway, there was no British ships there.

During World War II, England was driven into the Sea. The BEF was crumbling under the German military, and could not have withstood much longer had the United States not assisted them in North Africa and Europe. Had we not entered the war, you would be speaking German now. Did the Brits fight bravely? Yes! Tobruk, Dunkirk, Sword Beach, all were brave British fights. But without the American attack at Pont Du Hoc, Omaha Beach, and Utah, or even the Canadian attack at Juno, it wouldnt have succeeded. Actually, the invasion was a plan of the Americans. Britain wouldnt have been strong enough to launch the assault on its own because the industry was shot after the Battle of Britain, and their military was recovering still. But the Germans would have greatly outnumbered the British forces who might have invaded.

Without the Americans, the war would have been lost.

I would suggest that the Soviet Union saved Britain from Germany, and the USA had a major role in saving Britain from the Soviet Union. At the time of the Normandy landings the Soviet Union was racing towards Germany and whilst Britain is likely to have been able to land in France against a crippled Germany, it is likely they would be trying to stop France becoming part of the Soviet Empire along with with all Germany.

The question of gratitude seems a non-issue as the USA (sensibly) entered through self interest). It is rare a country would do otherwise.

Who among you have read War And Remembrance?

The question of gratitude seems a non-issue as the USA (sensibly) entered through self interest). It is rare a country would do otherwise.

Self interest? We were attacked Oxfordland. That was why we got involved in WWII. To top it all of, Germany and Itally declared war on us a couple of days later dragging us into the European theater of war.

Get your facts straight

http://www.combinedfleet.com/btl_mid.htm

and I also checked the Official US navy historical society's American Order of Battle at Midway, there was no British ships there.

Already been established :)

Self interest? We were attacked Oxfordland. That was why we got involved in WWII. To top it all of, Germany and Itally declared war on us a couple of days later dragging us into the European theater of war.

Get your facts straight

What overtly hostile military moves did either Germany or Italy make towards the United States to draw them into the European theater?

What overtly hostile military moves did either Germany or Italy make towards the United States to draw them into the European theater?

*points to statement about Italy and Germany declaring war on the US*

*points to statement about Italy and Germany declaring war on the US*

I restate my question: What overtly hostile military moves did either Germany or Italy make towards the United States to draw them into the European theater?

Of course it was in the United States' self interest to do so- saying anything else is foolish. It doesn't detract from what they did- but don't kid yourself by saying it was purely done so out of the goodness of their hearts.

Self interest? We were attacked Oxfordland. That was why we got involved in WWII. To top it all of, Germany and Itally declared war on us a couple of days later dragging us into the European theater of war.

Get your facts straight

:confused:

A misunderstanding perhaps.

I was not suggesting that the USA was an aggressor, this is clearly not the case and I am aware of the idiotic decisions of Italy and Germany in declaring war on the USA. Would you not agree that fighting a war when you are attacked and other countries declare war on you was in your interest?

Already been established :)


didn't read the whole thread. ::shrugs::

We were fighting for 2 years prior to the French coming to assist us.

The irony of that statement just floored me. What year did you think WWII began in?

I restate my question: What overtly hostile military moves did either Germany or Italy make towards the United States to draw them into the European theater?

Of course it was in the United States' self interest to do so- saying anything else is foolish. It doesn't detract from what they did- but don't kid yourself by saying it was purely done so out of the goodness of their hearts.

Declaring war is a fairly aggressive act, I am sure you would agree. It is generally frowned upon at the dinner table, no? By lining themselves up with Japan it meant the same side that bombed Pearl Harbour was fighting in North Africa, Europe and in Asia.

I would suggest that the main interest the USA had in Europe was not defeating Hitler, as that was already being performed, but defeating the Soviet Union. Would we agree on that I assume?

This is so ridiculous that I don't know where to start. With this logic, thank goodness for Hitler because he is largely responsible for modern-day Europe. Yes, he killed a few million Jews, but consider that debt repaid because of his dramatic effect on creating your current nations.

He didnt send any colonists anywhere or do anything like Europe did to America. Are you basicly saying that America would be the country it is now if the Europeans had not colonised it.

I restate my question: What overtly hostile military moves did either Germany or Italy make towards the United States to draw them into the European theater?

None however because they didn't didn't prevent them from declaring war on us. They did it because of the Tripartite Treaty they signed with Japan.

Of course it was in the United States' self interest to do so- saying anything else is foolish. It doesn't detract from what they did- but don't kid yourself by saying it was purely done so out of the goodness of their hearts.

We were more than willing to stay out of the shooting conflict in Europe. Germany and Italy didn't have to declare war on us but they did on December 10th I believe. When they did that, US declared war on both nations.

The irony of that statement just floored me. What year did you think WWII began in?

Depends on what historian you want to believe.

As for the Revolutionary War, it began in 1775. Independence was declared 1 year later and after the battle of Saratoga in 1777 did the French realize we have a shot at winning this and supported the American Cause. Followed by Spain and the Netherlands.

I restate my question: What overtly hostile military moves did either Germany or Italy make towards the United States to draw them into the European theater?

Of course it was in the United States' self interest to do so- saying anything else is foolish. It doesn't detract from what they did- but don't kid yourself by saying it was purely done so out of the goodness of their hearts.


There are two ways to declare war, by conducting the attack, or being allied to the person who made the attack.

Germany and Italy was choice number 2.

Anyway, I think the basis of this thread is shaky. Yes America does glorify its actions in media, but there are examples of British AND russian army being glorified. In a bridge too far, the majority of the forces were british, with a company of American capturing and building a bridge, that's about it. And in Enemy at the gates, No americans at all. America isn't considered the savior because it was dominant, it was considered the savior for being a part of 3 out of about 4 of the fronts. Europe, Africa, and the pacific islands being where it was, the exception being the russian front. w/o britain, no normandy, w/o russia, I think someone in the thread said that there were 4 times the number of germans in the russian front, meaning that you'd have 4 to five times more germans fighting the british and americans. while they deserve extreme honorable mention for being in longer, and taking on more people in the case of russia, America made the greatest effect by being on the most fronts.

:confused:

A misunderstanding perhaps.

I was not suggesting that the USA was an aggressor, this is clearly not the case and I am aware of the idiotic decisions of Italy and Germany in declaring war on the USA. Would you not agree that fighting a war when you are attacked and other countries declare war on you was in your interest?

If a country attacks me unprovokely I'll do everything I can to defend it. It wasn't motivated out of self-interest but out of survival.

Depends on what historian you want to believe.

As for the Revolutionary War, it began in 1775. Independence was declared 1 year later and after the battle of Saratoga in 1777 did the French realize we have a shot at winning this and supported the American Cause. Followed by Spain and the Netherlands.

And the irony in your original statement is still going right over your head eh?

If a country attacks me unprovokely I'll do everything I can to defend it. It wasn't motivated out of self-interest but out of survival.

Survival isn't in your self-interest?

He didnt send any colonists anywhere or do anything like Europe did to America. Are you basicly saying that America would be the country it is now if the Europeans had not colonised it.

So what? Those colonists left Europe to get away from, hrmmm, Europe. Again, that line of thinking makes Europe responsible for the whole world since they had at least an equal effect on every other country of the world.

Nevermind. I'll thank Britain. Thank you, Great Britian, for not having the military power to oppress Americans anymore.

Im sure it was Midway(got a cold and lack of sleep so my brain is running on basic functions only so i maybe wrong on Midway), i know that in one of Americas battles in the Pacific, a British Battleship was their.

The only British battleships in the pacific theatre in the entire of the war where the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales, sunk of Malaya 1941.

Anyway, the feeling of the opening post generally concurs with what I think about the war. The "We saved your ass!" bit really pisses me off, it's like coming to this country and urinating on the graves of the war dead.

And the irony in your original statement is still going right over your head eh?

There is no Irony. We didn't want any part of the shooting campaign in Europe. We were dragged into it when Germany and Italy declared war on us. If they hadn't, we would've been fighting only the Japanese in the Pacific.

So where's the Irony in what I said?

Survival isn't in your self-interest?

Everyone does their best to survive so yea I guess you could call it self-interest but that wouldn't be the word I'd use.

Everyone does their best to survive so yea I guess you could call it self-interest

:confused:

Yes, I agree.

but that wouldn't be the word I'd use.

Then I will put our disagreement down to you disliking my choice of words. That I can live with.

So what? Those colonists left Europe to get away from, hrmmm, Europe. Again, that line of thinking makes Europe responsible for the whole world since they had at least an equal effect on every other country of the world.

Nevermind. I'll thank Britain. Thank you, Great Britian, for not having the military power to oppress Americans anymore.

Erm Britian did have the power. They would have won. Two flaws though

A. They didnt take you seriously, their mistake

B. The French helped you out in your last dying hours.

There is no Irony. We didn't want any part of the shooting campaign in Europe. We were dragged into it when Germany and Italy declared war on us. If they hadn't, we would've been fighting only the Japanese in the Pacific.

Perhaps, though I am not sure.

Would the US adminsitration have been content to see the Soviet Union 'liberate' France, the whole of Germany, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, leaving Western Europe consisting of Ireland, Britain and Iberia? It would seem unlikely. Throw in China (as was reasonable then) and you have one powerblock emerging as the global superpower and it was not the US or capitalist.

Erm Britian did have the power. They would have won. Two flaws though

A. They didnt take you seriously, their mistake

B. The French helped you out in your last dying hours.

Dying hours? It took the victory at Saratoga to bring the French in. We have survived for 2 years prior to it so what is this dying hours nonsense?

Erm Britian did have the power. They would have won. Two flaws though

A. They didnt take you seriously, their mistake

B. The French helped you out in your last dying hours.

Ha. That's amusing and quite revisionist. Our last dying hours? It's possible the US would have lost the war for independence by hardly assured. The French helped because they thought we would win and they wanted to have a good relationship with the new country.

Regardless, we did win and a claim that we should thank the country we declared independence from and were forced to fight a war for that independence is about as ridiculous as they come.

Perhaps, though I am not sure.

Would the US adminsitration have been content to see the Soviet Union 'liberate' France, the whole of Germany, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, leaving Western Europe consisting of Ireland, Britain and Iberia? It would seem unlikely. Throw in China (as was reasonable then) and you have one powerblock emerging as the global superpower and it was not the US or capitalist.

The point is, we were not attacked by Germany and Italy. Our original declaration of war was against Japan and only japan. This made China our ally in the fight against Japan. Woops! Did I mention China was an Ally to the US in WW II?

Hitler didn't have to declare war. We may have gotten involved in Europe anyway. I do not know if we would've or not. Churchill wasn't happy that we only declared war on Japan. It'll depend on what the people wanted. The people didn't want to get involved in a war but 12/7/41 changed that and we took it by the horns and drove Japan back.

I think you seem to underestimate the achievement of winning the war of independence.

Those fighting for it had to compete with loyalists, even those fighting for independence generally regarded themselves as actually being British, and ensure that the French did fight for rather than against you.

On the side of the fighters for independence was the military and political incompetence of the British, and that they were more concerned with India at the time.

At this time it was a handful of colonies fighting a global super-power. That is not glorying in being British, in fact it exemplifies that nature of the defeat for the British.

It has been argued, and I would agree with it, that a major mistake of the British Government is that they were used to ruling over an impoverished population, including in Britain.

The American colonies on the other hand were affluent and lightly taxed. Essentially they were in a position to be interested in political ideas rather than filling their bellies. This was perhaps unprecedented in British history and so the British Government had no understanding of what the situation was.

First of all, let me congratulate the OP on this thread. I can agree with most of what has been said in the 1st post.

I have taken the liberty to put the following quotes in a topicalized order to make reading easier.

Why is Finland always put as an Axis power?
That still stumps me...

(…posts in between…)

That's the thing, I never hear Finland as having done anything besides protecting itself from Russia.
I have certainly never seen any history book which said "And Finland was offered to join the Axis forces".
Not to mention that I have never seen any detailed information that tells us of how Finland supported Germany.
And I will support any Finn who says that Finland was not an axis power.

My grandfather who fought on the Russian front had Finnish skiing instructors, so there’s at least his account of how Finland and Germany worked together as allies.
And the FAF had German-built Me109s.

For an interesting what-if Europe under nazi rule, read Robert Harris´ Fatherland.
It relates an interesting detail seemingly overlooked in this debate: What if there would have been no invasion in the West, but rather stagnant fighting in the East, giving the nazis enough time to develop the bomb?
That actually is a good read as well a nice movie adaptation starring Rudger Hauer. The story is a murder mystery thriller set against this alternate history background.

A scary thought. They were very close - but their design was never going to work. But with their impressive military focussed on the Eastern Front, and all the resources of Europe at their disposal, who's to say how things might have turned out. Europe might be flying swastikas today. *shudder*

It's funny you said that. The Torino Winter Olympics 2006 - featuring the torch relay thing introduced by Hitler and the stadium used for opening and closing ceremony - built by Muscollini.

Now, I’m really glad that these Olympics have not taken place in an alternate Europe! Although the following post which I consider most inappropriate apparently shows that some people cling to the past a little bit too tightly…

I see the spirit of Herr Hitler is still alive and well in "modern" Germany.
Arschtritt gefällig, alter Mann? (http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/thefinger.gif)

Makes you tremble to think what would have happened if Hitler hadn't been in charge and a military genius had been. The Nazis had excellent equipment at their disposal.

(…posts in between…)

True, but if the Nazis had withdrawn their Panzers and weakened the French defenses, then Britain would have popped back over with another expeditionary force :P Also, the Russians had overwhelming numbers, especially with tank divisions. The T-34 may have been inferior to the Tiger and Panzers, but quantity will wear down quality any day. Hitlers addiction to building super weapons was a fatal flaw - he should have kept his factories churning out proven successes....

While the T-34 was better than most German tanks (except for the Panthers which are said to be inspired by the Russian tank, Tigers I/II and many of the tankhunter-panzers) superior numbers of a simple design will always win over few numbers of a superior design. So, I’ll agree with you.

I noticed no one has really mentioned Italy, but then Italy failed to subdue a small set of islands called Malta. The Italians were pretty much useless.
That, and the disaster in the Balkans lead to the infamous question “What’s the difference between a German and an Italian tank? While the German tank had 4 forward and 2 reverse gears, the Italian tank had two forward and 4 reverse gears!” (I’m joking, a’ight?)

Strategic Bombing won the war. Period. Strategic bombing was the only thing keeping Germany from deploying it's super weapons. Without strategic bombing, the Germans would have gotten their Jet Aircraft off the ground in much more of a hurry, and would have wiped the sky clean of allied aircraft.

And who were the ones who did the daylight precision bombing raids? The Americans.
(…)
True only to a certain extend because Speer managed to increase productivity (although quantity was chosen over quality in many cases) in the latter years of the war by decentralizing production sites and putting them in places the allies couldn’t or didn’t destroy. That, and the immense use of slave labor. Of course, in comparison to what the allies churned out and with their superior numbers the German defeat was only a matter of time.

The point is, we were not attacked by Germany and Italy. Our original declaration of war was against Japan and only japan. This made China our ally in the fight against Japan. Woops! Did I mention China was an Ally to the US in WW II?

Hitler didn't have to declare war. We may have gotten involved in Europe anyway. I do not know if we would've or not. Churchill wasn't happy that we only declared war on Japan. It'll depend on what the people wanted. The people didn't want to get involved in a war but 12/7/41 changed that and we took it by the horns and drove Japan back.

I see, that makes your position far clearer.

I was well aware that China had already been fighting Japan. Indeed, one irony is that whilst some Europeans are disgusted at Americans for thinking of WWII starting in 1941 rather than 1939, Asians could well be disgusted at Europeans for considering WWII to start in 1939 rather than 1937.

At the latter stages of the war though, I would suggest that countries started to look at were looking past the end of the war, and it would be odd if they dod not. China were also fighting on the same side as the Soviet Union, and if Communist China were going to ally with the Soviet Union or the USA in peace time, it is reasonable to assume the former was more likely.

The American colonies on the other hand were affluent and lightly taxed. Essentially they were in a position to be interested in political ideas rather than filling their bellies. This was perhaps unprecedented in British history and so the British Government had no understanding of what the situation was.

Lightly taxed? We had a tax on everything. The Revolutionary War was a tax revolt.

Lightly taxed? We had a tax on everything. The Revolutionary War was a tax revolt.

That is the history version for children.

Taxes in the US were far lighter than in Britain at the time and the population were better off. Furthermore, on independence the American Government had to raise taxes to pay for their own military.

Surely having fought for political ideals rather than over tax is something you can be proud of?

That is the history version for children.

Actually no it wasn't just for children :rolleyes:

Taxes in the US were far lighter than in Britain at the time and the population were better off.

Sugar Tax
Tea Tax
Stamp Tax

Townshend Acts

Do you want me to list everything?

The Americans accepted Soviet assistance. Does that make them communists?


Economic ideologies and alliances are not the same thing.

Lightly taxed? We had a tax on everything. The Revolutionary War was a tax revolt.

The Revolutionary war was about power and resource control. Just like every other war. Taxes were a pretext.

Actually no it wasn't just for children :rolleyes:



Sugar Tax
Tea Tax
Stamp Tax

Townshend Acts

Do you want me to list everything?

I did not deny there were taxes, I said they were not heavy compared to others in Britain or indeed in America later.

Actually no it wasn't just for children :rolleyes:



Sugar Tax
Tea Tax
Stamp Tax

Townshend Acts

Do you want me to list everything?
You might also want to mention the rates and compare them to the british rates before making such an assumption.

I did not deny there were taxes, I said they were not heavy compared to others in Britain or indeed in America later.

The only reason we had taxes was because the British monarchy wanted us to bear the brunt of repayment for the 7 years War despite the fact that we did not have representation in Parliment.

I'm guessing this would be the way wrong time to make a joke about Paris and trees lining the streets?

The only reason we had taxes was because the British monarchy wanted us to bear the brunt of repayment for the 7 years War despite the fact that we did not have representation in Parliment.

You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing the Brits were the goodies and the Americans were baddies.

It is true that taxes were raised on account of the war with France. However, in itself would not seem unreasonable. The colonists regarded themselves as British and would not have wanted to be ruled by the French. As for 'bearing the brunt', well bearing some yes, but then again the Americans paid more tax when they had to pay for their own military defence.

"despite the fact that we did not have representation in Parliment."

Yes, this I agree with. However, a thirst for self determination was almost unheard if in a time when people were more concerned with living. Bear in mind the British has little in the way of representation. Ballot box democracy did not happen in Britain either.

Clearly the British Government were crass in their handling in the colonists, indeed we can see they repeated their mistakes on a non-regular basis after that.

To the British Government the American demands must have seemed outragous. The colonists were wealthier than the rest of the Empire (including Britain), yet gave little money to the Government, a fortune had been spent defending them and now they were refusing to help pay for it. As for representation, well, who was represented in Parliment?

That is not how we see it now, and you can be proud of what the colonists fought for, but to depict it as simple as oppressive British taxation seems misguided to me.

I'm guessing this would be the way wrong time to make a joke about Paris and trees lining the streets?

:)

I think the USSR was the most important of the Allied Powers. Sure, it relied heavily on Western aid, but they carried the European war on their shoulders.

Yes.

USA, Britain, and the USSR were the saviors of Europe.

If Hitler had not declared war on the US, we would not have entered into the war in Europe. By the same token, if Japan didn't attack the United States, it would've been longer before we had to take on Japan.

So no, we weren't glory seeking. We were literally dragged into WWII kicking and screaming.
Not quite. FDR wanted to get into the war and he did it by baiting the Japanese.

I tend more towards the view that America was a Saviour in WWII. In terms of US foreign policy, it was her most righteous hour. Obviously, I don't give all the credit to America. USSR, Britain, Canada, India, Brazil, etc...

Not quite. FDR wanted to get into the war and he did it by baiting the Japanese.

I tend more towards the view that America was a Saviour in WWII. In terms of US foreign policy, it was her most righteous hour. Obviously, I don't give all the credit to America. USSR, Britain, Canada, India, Brazil, etc...

I am glad you mentioned India, it tends to be missed out.

Not quite. FDR wanted to get into the war and he did it by baiting the Japanese.

We back to that conspiracy again?

I tend more towards the view that America was a Saviour in WWII.

US played a part in saving Europe but we weren't the sole savior of Europe.

In terms of US foreign policy, it was her most righteous hour. Obviously, I don't give all the credit to America. USSR, Britain, Canada, India, Brazil, etc...

Most people forget about the other nations that were involved in it. I'm glad to see your not one of them.

Without the USA, Europe would have fallen to either Germany or Russia. Even Britain would have eventually fell. To be fair, I doubt that we could have won without Britain or Russia either. Britain gave us a base to invade Europe from, plus the considerable assistance of the RAF. Russia engaged Germany in a brutal ground war on the East, and without them, we would have faced a huge Nazi army.

I agree that Hollywood too often ignores the British and Russian contribution, but the people who say they could have won without the US have their heads in the sand.

Which reminds me; Norway.

As a Briton, it is quite frustrating to hear Americans claim that they 'saved us in WWII', a claim that is arrogant in the extreme and ignores much of history. It is also frustrating to see Hollywood portray America as either the only Allied power in the entire war (Saving Private Ryan) or claim that even when America wasn't fighting, it was still the Americans winning the war for Britain (Pearl Harbor and the American RAF pilot who seemed to shoot down the entire Luftwaffe). We mustn't forget either, of course, the film about the submarine, U-571, that completely and utterly changed history without any sense of embarrassment, claiming it was Americans who recovered the Enigma machine for the Allies and stamping all over the graves of the British sailors who had died when they recovered the machine months before America even entered the war. The line in Pearl Harbor when the Naval Base is finally attacked, "World War Two has just started!" has got to be one of the most annoying lines in cinema history to a non-American audience.


Let them have the glory. If they want to bask in false admirations, allow them to wrinkle their skin. Only the true heroes are payed true respect, and the false idols of hollywood quickly idolize a contradictory role.

WW1: Last minute invasion by the Americans. Only quickened our victory.
WW2: Invaded again, but only because they want the cake of the action.

And I'm not sure whether I'd rather be speaking english because the americans so called 'saved us' or I'd by speaking in a language spoke by a more respectable people.

Vielen Dank meine Amerikanisch Freunde!

Oh so Britain was just a lump of land to launch our ever so brave american heroes off to fight the jerrys.

Brilliant

No one will know what might have happened if the US hadn't entered the war in Europe, but I speculate the following:

1. Germany would have consolidated its forces against the USSR and the war would have gone on for a much longer time.

2. The UK would have defended the island against repetetive German air raids.

3. The war in the Pacific would have lasted for a much longer time - The Russians would have devoted more manpower to the Germans, freeing up more Japanese power to combat the Americans.

4. After the German army wore down the Russians, a cease-fire in the east would have led to an invasion of the UK, which would probably have been won by the German army.

Granted these are all speculations, but without the US reinforcing the British in Europe, there would have been little opposition to a German army with new oil resources in Africa and the Caucuses.

Britain and Empire against Germany, USSR and Japan would have involved Britain being destroyed. That is why it is Britains proudest moment. Australia and India looked like becoming part of Japan and Britain could have been ruled from Berlin, yet depite the evident foolishness and the offer of a settlement, the war continued anyway.

It was the war against the USSR that destroyed Germany. That Germany felt confident to invade the USSR whilst still at war with Britain demonstrates how they did not consider Britain to be that great a threat.

No one will know what might have happened if the US hadn't entered the war in Europe, but I speculate the following:

1. Germany would have consolidated its forces against the USSR and the war would have gone on for a much longer time.

2. The UK would have defended the island against repetetive German air raids.

3. The war in the Pacific would have lasted for a much longer time - The Russians would have devoted more manpower to the Germans, freeing up more Japanese power to combat the Americans.

4. After the German army wore down the Russians, a cease-fire in the east would have led to an invasion of the UK, which would probably have been won by the German army.

Granted these are all speculations, but without the US reinforcing the British in Europe, there would have been little opposition to a German army with new oil resources in Africa and the Caucuses.


I can see no evidence that Germany would have been the victor in Europe rather than the USSR. By the time the Allies landed in the West, the Russians were well on their way.

We cannot be sure, but I see the most likely outcome as a Soviet Empire taking in most, if not all of Europe.

I could well imagine Russia signing a cease-fire with Japan. And then:

1. Germany invades Russia in Spring/summer/autumn learning from past mistakes. Russian army defends and a stalemate situation is established.

2. Adolf Hitler offers a chance for peace with the UK if it recognises the land it is occupying. The UK refuses and the war continues.

3. Churchill or Hitler is assassinated. If Germany, european war ends. If UK, we exit the war with a harsh surrender to germany like the treaty of versailles.

4. Japs win war against Americans.

Perhaps, but there are, as I imagine you would agree, many ifs there. Either way, the one that worked was tragic and about the best we could hope for. What a terrible period.

It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the Germans did invade. How well the home guard would have performed. Probably not very. And if the auxiliers would have been as effective as they appeared in their practices. After all britian was the only country to set up a resistance network up before the invasion force hit the ground. That, and the difficulties inherent in maintaning an invasion force over the channel, could possibly have given the regular forces enough help to push the Nazis back onto their beach heads. Well, it's unlikely, especially with the prospect of Nazi air superiority, but it's worth thinking about.

The germans would ahve had a hard time invading britain. Really hard. The geography of the area is awful for mass movement of forces - dense forests, awful weather, small towns, no motorways. An official defence force.

I don't think that trying to fight an african, eastern, anti-partisan front, occupation and a british blitzkreig would have worked at all.

Which reminds me; Norway.

Ahh Norway. One of Britians Biggest blunders.

Im sure it was Midway(got a cold and lack of sleep so my brain is running on basic functions only so i maybe wrong on Midway), i know that in one of Americas battles in the Pacific, a British Battleship was their.
You are thinking about the HMS Prince of Wales, which was a huge Battleship, but it had the crap blown out of it and it sunk either in 41 or 42, by Japanese bombers!

savior, although it depends on what you mean by savior.

if someone drastically cut down the length of a horirble war, i would consider them a savior.

3. The war in the Pacific would have lasted for a much longer time - The Russians would have devoted more manpower to the Germans, freeing up more Japanese power to combat the Americans.
The Russians never declared war on Japan until the war in the Pacific was almost over, and then never really engaged them except to sieze certain islands held by the Japanese which were fairly close to the Russian mainland.

The Russians never declared war on Japan until the war in the Pacific was almost over, and then never really engaged them except to sieze certain islands held by the Japanese which were fairly close to the Russian mainland.
That and Manchuria. Don't forget Manchuria: it came late, but they kicked the Japanese all over the place.

Britain did assist America in the pacific as we had interests in Asia (Singapore etc), and at the battle of Midway, the biggest guns of any ship there belonged to a British Battleship.
Yes, but in Midway no battleship fired on another ship so that is completely pointless. It was American Dauntless Dive Bombers that did all of the damage to the enemy carriers. (The American Torpedo bombers didn't even score a hit.)

Guatacanal was USMC and US Army to a smaller extent.

Leyte Gulf, Tarawa, Wake, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the Mariana Turkey Shoot were all Amercan efforts. Without America, the war is lost in the Pacific.

What you're all forgetting is the fact that America was the "arsenal of democracy". Our military role was important, yes, as was the role of all the allies, but in the end what most mattered was the fact that America pumped out enough food and weapons to feed and arm the allies. Even before the war, "lend-and-lease" helped keep Britain alive, and during the war American grain shipments to Murmansk prevented Soviet starvation.

Without US in asia, china may not have lasted, since island hopping would have been a breeze for the Japs. Then when Japan controlled China, India, Pacific, and Manchuria they would probably go into siberia, thus distracting the Russian Siberian reinforcements which were entirely crucial to key Russian victories. Who knows what would happen then. While I cannot find a definate position about how I feel about US support in Europe, without a doubt it was neccesary in the Pacific theatre.

The US's role in WWII was to be FDR's stepping stone to dictater.

Britain loses without the US because it was the US Navy's DEs, DDs, and CVEs that really turned the tide of the U-boat war. Not to mention the Liberty Ships. Without this, the wolfpacks starve Britain.

Without US in asia, china may not have lasted, since island hopping would have been a breeze for the Japs. Then when Japan controlled China, India, Pacific, and Manchuria they would probably go into siberia, thus distracting the Russian Siberian reinforcements which were entirely crucial to key Russian victories. Who knows what would happen then. While I cannot find a definate position about how I feel about US support in Europe, without a doubt it was neccesary in the Pacific theatre.
America had nothing to do with that. The Soviets had already fought the Japanese and won at Khalkhyn Gol in 1939. The Japanese were not adequately prepared to mount an offensive, and could not possibly have conquered a sizable portion of Siberia in the event. They had been there in the Civil War, and knew that they could not maintain a presence.
The Battle of Moscow started in October 1941. As you know, America entered the war in December. In the duration (and don't forget that America got major whoopass around that time), Stalin had managed to withdraw Soviet troops from Siberia and into Moscow, being sure that the Japanese would not attack. If anyhing, it was perhaps the Japanese planning to attack the US rather than any US military action that made the Soviets not care about the Japanese.

America had nothing to do with that. The Soviets had already fought the Japanese and won at Khalkhyn Gol in 1939. The Japanese were not adequately prepared to mount an offensive, and could not possibly have conquered a sizable portion of Siberia in the event. They had been there in the Civil War, and knew that they could not maintain a presence.
The Battle of Moscow started in October 1941. As you know, America entered the war in December. In the duration (and don't forget that America got major whoopass around that time), Stalin had managed to withdraw Soviet troops from Siberia and into Moscow, being sure that the Japanese would not attack. If anyhing, it was perhaps the Japanese planning to attack the US rather than any US military action that made the Soviets not care about the Japanese.
Well I understand that the Japanese would not be able to conquer a sizeable amount of territory, it would be more of a war of attrition. And their signature was on the anti-comminterm pact so Germany would have nudged them in to Russia if they conquered China and had no-one else to fight.

The US's role in WWII was to be FDR's stepping stone to dictater.

huh?

The point is, we were not attacked by Germany and Italy.

Do some research, will you?

...And now our mighty battleships will steam the bounding main
And remember the name of that good Reuben James.

Do some research, will you?

We were attacked by Italy? When did that happen?

And here are the Front Lines as of D-Day. As you can see, the Germans have already been driven out of Russia in parts, and are on the retreat.

A few things
1 The only reason they we're running was becasue half their army was waiting for US.
2 If you're right we saved you from Stalin who was just as bad.
3 We didn't enter for glory but for ourselvs and for you but we sure as hell want glory now!

We were attacked by Italy? When did that happen?

So you acknowledge that you were attacked by Germany?

So you acknowledge that you were attacked by Germany?

No I asked when did Italy attack us! Are you going to dodge the question?

Does anybody here actually study history?

WWII began in 1937 when Japan invaded China, the first conflict that became part of the contiguous war known as WWII. The second aspect of this war opened in 1939 when Britain and France declared war on Germany over the occupation of Poland. The third aspect occurred when Germany, having defeated France and nullified Britain, invaded Russia. These conflicts became a World War when Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, unifying all of the conflicts into a single one.

Japan had exactly one chance to win the Pacific War: to knock the US out of the war before the US could effectively mobilize. The difference between the economic capacities of the US and Japan was such that once the US fully geared up, Japan was incapable of winning the war. After Midway, Japan had lost their chance, and the defeat of the Japanese Empire was inevitable.

Europe was somewhat more complex. After Dunkerque, Britain no longer had the capacity to attack continental Europe, particularly not while also fighting bthe Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain. However, Operation Barbarossa ensured the defeat of Germany; like the Pacific War, Germany could only defeat Russia if it successfully knocked the Soviet Government out of commission within the first two years of the campaign. When they were stopped before Moscow and bogged down at Stalingrad, Germany's defeat also became an economic inevitability.

The US's operations in Europe, in partnership with those of the British Empire, had no effect on the ultimate outcome of WWII in Europe. What they did do was prevent Soviet hegemony over the entire continent - thus we had the restoration of the Third Republic in France, rather than the First People's Republic.

The US did not want to be involved in WWII. But they were, in the end, solely responsible for the defeat of Japan and contributed greatly to the defeat of Germany and Italy, and all but solely responsible for the Iron Curtain coming down over Germany, and not the English Channel.

No I asked when did Italy attack us! Are you going to dodge the question?

I think he means that since you only asked" when did Italy attack?", that it implies you acknowledge that Germany attacked the United States.

No I asked when did Italy attack us! Are you going to dodge the question?

Be a darling and point out to me where I claimed that Italy attacked the US, would you?

No I asked when did Italy attack us! Are you going to dodge the question?
Decloration of war comes to mind.

Decloration of war comes to mind.

There would be a marked difference between 'declaring war' and then not doing anything, and 'declaring war' and then launching a military attack.... just to make that wee distinction. ;)

None the less it is an act of hostility.

Any reason why everyone is still dancing around the issue of the Reuben James?

Decloration of war comes to mind.

They only declared war. They never attacked us nor did we them.

Any reason why everyone is still dancing around the issue of the Reuben James?
Reuben James was sunk in Oct 1941 and with no response from the Us.

Germany didn't declare war on the US and vice versa until Dec of 1941.

Surely the right time for US 'anger' would have been back in October, no?

Reuben James was sunk in Oct 1941 and with no response from the Us.

Germany didn't declare war on the US and vice versa until Dec of 1941.

Surely the right time for US 'anger' would have been back in October, no?

A US Ship was sunk by Japan in a river in China. No outrage over that either.

No single country "won" World War II. In case any of you havent heard, it was the Allies against the Axis powers. Without any one of the nations in the alliance, it would have failed, or at leats thousands more would have been killed.
On another note, and it is just my opinion, but I have these ideals:

Russian won the European Theatre

Britian won the North African and western European Theatre

America won the Pacific theatre

They only declared war. They never attacked us nor did we them.
Operation Husky comes to mind...

Operation Husky comes to mind...

Of 1943? What about prior to that?

Surely the right time for US 'anger' would have been back in October, no?

The US had already been expressing its 'anger' through laying the foundations of the lend-lease operation and by escorting convoys across the Atlantic: the US wanted to avoid a shooting war, but the administration was not afraid of clearly favouring one side over the other.

Rueben James: DD-245:

Sunk by a U-boat on October 31, 1941 while escorting a convoy to the Nation of Great Britain.

It was not the first ship to be torpedoed either but it was the first one to be lost.

Rueben James: DD-245:

Sunk by a U-boat on October 31, 1941 while escorting a convoy to the Nation of Great Britain.

It was not the first ship to be torpedoed either but it was the first one to be lost.

(Aside from the fact that 'Great Britain' hasn't been a nation since 1800)

So are we in agreement that Germany carried out an attack on US forces (and thus the US) prior to the declaration of war?

Of 1943? What about prior to that?
North Africa, if we got troops over there by the end of 42 by some magic or another...

(Aside from the fact that 'Great Britain' hasn't been a nation since 1800)

So are we in agreement that Germany carried out an attack on US forces (and thus the US) prior to the declaration of war?

Yep but you also have to look at the circumstances surrounding it. unrestricted submarine warfare and an American ship escorting a convoy across the sea to the UK.

North Africa, if we got troops over there by the end of 42 by some magic or another...

You were too busy fighting the French to worry about the Germans then.

Yep but you also have to look at the circumstances surrounding it. unrestricted submarine warfare and an American ship escorting a convoy across the sea to the UK.

I fail to see quite what you are implying here.

(Honestly: not just a goading statement).

North Africa, if we got troops over there by the end of 42 by some magic or another...

Actually we did get troops over there during 1942. Why do you think the US Navy was having a hard time pulling ships free for operations in the Pacific?

While of course we cannot discount the British or Soviet role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, we must remember it is doubtful that either would have been capable of defeating nazi germany, alone, or combined with the other. Without the material aid provided by the US, it would seem probable that the Germans would have been able to eventually defeat the British in North Africa, cutting the Suez canal and the British lifeline to the rest of the Empire (and therefore the British resource base). If a fully isolationist US had gone to the extreme measure of banning export to any of the belligerents (as some of the primary America firsters had proposed) it is likely that Great Britain would have fallen. It is highly unlikely that Great Britain would have been able to invade Europe without the support of the US. It is also unlikely that the British would have been able to hold the eastern possessions of their Empire in the event of an attack by the Japanese, who, unhindered by virtue of a non-aggression pact signed with the isolationist government of the US, would have been free to turn their fleet against Australia and India.

On the other side of Europe the Soviet Union was also in a rather rough spot. I believe it was Zhukov who said that without the material aid the USSR received from the US in 1942, the Soviet Union would have collapsed, the Germans could have taken Moscow and secured themselves on the continent. Beyond that, the immense loss of Soviet lives and equipment was far more the fault of Soviet incompetence than a measure of the Soviet dedication and effort to defeating Nazi Germany. Twenty million civilians would not have been killed had Stalin withdrawn the civilian population eastward before the German offensive began, and far fewer Soviet soldiers would have been killed had Stalin actually permitted his officers to plan for, and adapt to the German style of Blitzkrieg warfare before the German attack began, as opposed to having officers shot who were concerned about the threat from Germany.

Anyways, if the US was indeed glory hunting in Europe, we would have taken Czechoslovakia, Austria and probably even made it to Berlin before the Soviets, instead we didn't, we stayed at the agreed upon border and let the Soviets take these objectives.

I fail to see quite what you are implying here.

(Honestly: not just a goading statement).

I believe your honesty here.

What I'm getting at is the Germans didn't care what warship belonged to which nation. They wanted to get to the convoy and will sink any warship to get to it.

The United States already knew this. That is why they did nothing when it was sunk. They knew what the odds were when they sent the ships out to escort it. Why do you think the other torpedo incidents got ignored as well.

I believe your honesty here.

What I'm getting at is the Germans didn't care what warship belonged to which nation. They wanted to get to the convoy and will sink any warship to get to it.

Yes, but nonetheless it constituted an attack on the US - that is undeniable. The very attitude held by the commanders of the wolfpacks ensured this.

Yes, but nonetheless it constituted an attack on the US - that is undeniable. The very attitude held by the commanders of the wolfpacks ensured this.

And it was that tactic that saved Admiral Dornetz's life at his trial.

The American armed forces didn’t defeat the Third Reich; it was the American economy that did it. At the end of the war, the Soviets had around 665,000 motor vehicles, of which 427,000 where Western. Many of those being the Dodge 2.5 Ton trucks, which carried the 13,000,000 pairs of winter boots for the Soviets, and the 5,000,000 tons of agriculture products, which was enough to feed an Soviet Army of 10,000,000 every day of the war. Then think of the 540,000 tons of rails, which the Soviets used to lay more rail line then they had between 1928 and 1939. Let us not speak of the High Grade petroleum need to fuel the Soviet Air Fleet.

In short, it was the Soviet soldier and their overwhelming tenacity, fed, transported, and armed by the American economy, who ended the Third Reich a thousand years early.


Kind of pushy for a first post. Sorry >_>

The American armed forces didn’t defeat the Third Reich; it was the American economy that did it. At the end of the war, the Soviets had around 665,000 motor vehicles, of which 427,000 where Western. Many of those being the Dodge 2.5 Ton trucks, which carried the 13,000,000 pairs of winter boots for the Soviets, and the 5,000,000 tons of agriculture products, which was enough to feed an Soviet Army of 10,000,000 every day of the war. Then think of the 540,000 tons of rails, which the Soviets used to lay more rail line then they had between 1928 and 1939. Let us not speak of the High Grade petroleum need to fuel the Soviet Air Fleet.

In short, it was the Soviet soldier and their overwhelming tenacity, fed, transported, and armed by the American economy, who ended the Third Reich a thousand years early.


Kind of pushy for a first post. Sorry >_>

Just curious, where did you get these stats?

Seeing as another post developed into an argument on whether America 'saved' Europe (and more specifically the UK) in World War II, I thought it should have its own thread.

As a Briton, it is quite frustrating to hear Americans claim that they 'saved us in WWII', a claim that is arrogant in the extreme and ignores much of history. It is also frustrating to see Hollywood portray America as either the only Allied power in the entire war (Saving Private Ryan) or claim that even when America wasn't fighting, it was still the Americans winning the war for Britain (Pearl Harbor and the American RAF pilot who seemed to shoot down the entire Luftwaffe). We mustn't forget either, of course, the film about the submarine, U-571, that completely and utterly changed history without any sense of embarrassment, claiming it was Americans who recovered the Enigma machine for the Allies and stamping all over the graves of the British sailors who had died when they recovered the machine months before America even entered the war. The line in Pearl Harbor when the Naval Base is finally attacked, "World War Two has just started!" has got to be one of the most annoying lines in cinema history to a non-American audience.

Now, I realise that Hollywood would claim that it is allowed to take liberties with its stories as they are primarily written for an American audience and do not claim to be history books, but I feel this is irresponsible in an age when many people do get much of their understanding about the world from cinema.

So, my little Hollywood rant aside, I'm interested to see what people really think of America's role in the war. Personally I believe that had America not joined the European war, in the short term Britain would have remained the only free power in Europe (the country had already beaten back Hitler's attempts to invade and he had turned his attention East). As the Germans were defeated in the East, the Russians would have swept through Europe and it would have been incredibly hard to stop them continuing their drive and occupying the entire mainland. The fate of Britain would be questionable, and, quite frankly, would be a pure guess. Russia might have successfully invaded, or Britain might once again have beaten back a far superior enemy.

Ultimately, I believe that a WW2 without America would have led to a Russian Europe and a question mark over Britain. Where many Americans are wrong, however, is to claim that this means 'America saved Europe' - it could be the opposite. Had Britain not fought on and defeated Hitler, America would not have had the necessary Ally need to launch a counter attack and along with British forces and the freedom fighters of occupied European nations and push the Germans back.

I’ve written too much; you all know the arguments, so what do you think?


you make good points,but as an american,who's father died on omaha beach..i can just say....
i dont know...who does?

we did..all of us..the russians and brits(a couple of frenchman..lol)and indians and lots of people...stopped nazism..and that is a good thing...so maybe we should celebrate that?

we could argue the freedom ships and convoys saved britain,we could argue the french resistance tied down army groups that could have been better used elsewhere,,,,whatr we cant argue is,...men from all over...gave their lives to defend all of us from fascism and nazism..agree?

thats what i care to remember...men like my dad..dying for some one else...stupid..yes..noble..absolutely.

i do see your point about american films glorifying the us guys...true..but we did sacrifice quite a bit.

we would have had too ,eventually in my opinion,nazi germany would not have been content with europe and africa.

but do not all countries glorify the men/women that die for the country?
propoganda films...from every country comes to mind.

maybe i am romantic..ww2 was the last ....good war...where men fought to save a philoshphy of freedom,and german soldiers fought for honor and the country...however decieved they were..you cant blame the average german soldier.

i just think the question is flame...we could go on ad infinitum about sacrifice and

John Keegan's The Second World War and Albert Weeks Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II. It a little latte over here for me to look in my other histories .

The second one seem to be titled a little bias, but it didn't seem to favoring one side, for what it was.

Seeing as another post developed into an argument on whether America 'saved' Europe (and more specifically the UK) in World War II, I thought it should have its own thread.

As a Briton, it is quite frustrating to hear Americans claim that they 'saved us in WWII', a claim that is arrogant in the extreme and ignores much of history. It is also frustrating to see Hollywood portray America as either the only Allied power in the entire war (Saving Private Ryan) or claim that even when America wasn't fighting, it was still the Americans winning the war for Britain (Pearl Harbor and the American RAF pilot who seemed to shoot down the entire Luftwaffe). We mustn't forget either, of course, the film about the submarine, U-571, that completely and utterly changed history without any sense of embarrassment, claiming it was Americans who recovered the Enigma machine for the Allies and stamping all over the graves of the British sailors who had died when they recovered the machine months before America even entered the war. The line in Pearl Harbor when the Naval Base is finally attacked, "World War Two has just started!" has got to be one of the most annoying lines in cinema history to a non-American audience.

Now, I realise that Hollywood would claim that it is allowed to take liberties with its stories as they are primarily written for an American audience and do not claim to be history books, but I feel this is irresponsible in an age when many people do get much of their understanding about the world from cinema.

So, my little Hollywood rant aside, I'm interested to see what people really think of America's role in the war. Personally I believe that had America not joined the European war, in the short term Britain would have remained the only free power in Europe (the country had already beaten back Hitler's attempts to invade and he had turned his attention East). As the Germans were defeated in the East, the Russians would have swept through Europe and it would have been incredibly hard to stop them continuing their drive and occupying the entire mainland. The fate of Britain would be questionable, and, quite frankly, would be a pure guess. Russia might have successfully invaded, or Britain might once again have beaten back a far superior enemy.

Ultimately, I believe that a WW2 without America would have led to a Russian Europe and a question mark over Britain. Where many Americans are wrong, however, is to claim that this means 'America saved Europe' - it could be the opposite. Had Britain not fought on and defeated Hitler, America would not have had the necessary Ally need to launch a counter attack and along with British forces and the freedom fighters of occupied European nations and push the Germans back.

I’ve written too much; you all know the arguments, so what do you think?


you make good points,but as an american,who's father died on omaha beach..i can just say....
i dont know...who does?

we did..all of us..the russians and brits(a couple of frenchman..lol)and indians and lots of people...stopped nazism..and that is a good thing...so maybe we should celebrate that?

we could argue the freedom ships and convoys saved britain,we could argue the french resistance tied down army groups that could have been better used elsewhere,,,,whatr we cant argue is,...men from all over...gave their lives to defend all of us from fascism and nazism..agree?

thats what i care to remember...men like my dad..dying for some one else...stupid..yes..noble..absolutely.

i do see your point about american films glorifying the us guys...true..but we did sacrifice quite a bit.

we would have had too ,eventually in my opinion,nazi germany would not have been content with europe and africa.

but do not all countries glorify the men/women that die for the country?
propoganda films...from every country comes to mind.

maybe i am romantic..ww2 was the last ....good war...where men fought to save a philoshphy of freedom,and german soldiers fought for honor and the country...however decieved they were..you cant blame the average german soldier.

i just think the question is flame...we could go on ad infinitum about sacrifice and who did more to save the "world" from the nazis.

yes..i am sorry you feel like americans take credit for ww2...but in large part we did...iam not going to argue point by point...but we would have had to eventually...so it was in our best interest to have you guys get beat up a bit..then step in...ever been in a fight with someone bigger and stronger?
i have...if he tussles first with someone besides me..i am happy...cause he is tired and not 100%...then i kick him in the nuts..lol...but really...how many brits were on the beach on d-day?
how many americans died on the beach versus brits..that will answer your question poste haste.
keep in mind we sailed across thousands of miles of u boat infested water just to get there!

look that up,and you answer your own question..ok.

it does make me a tad mad that you will write off the sacrifices of our fathers/sons..to make a stupid point about how you can denigrate us....grrrr...maybe i am wrong...hope so!

Won the 1st round yes but did not win the 2nd round. And the view isnt black and white. Every historian I've read on World War II puts Finland in with the Axis because of their association with them. They accepted aide to help fight the Russians so the historians are correct to put them in with the axis powers.
There you go claiming victory.
I'm not claiming that Finland wasn't with the Axis.
There merely was nothing they could do to avoid the Winter War and the Continutation War.

North Africa, if we got troops over there by the end of 42 by some magic or another...

What? US troops were in North Africa by early '42. Battle of Kasserine Pass was the first major battle to involve them, I believe.

So are we in agreement that Germany carried out an attack on US forces (and thus the US) prior to the declaration of war?

Yeah, I suppose that is fair enough and could be seen as a direct attack, I was more looking at it as a precursor to a declaration- a la Pearl Harbour, or the Luisitania.
But from your perspective, yeah, I'd agree with that.

While of course we cannot discount the British or Soviet role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, we must remember it is doubtful that either would have been capable of defeating nazi germany, alone, or combined with the other. Without the material aid provided by the US, it would seem probable that the Germans would have been able to eventually defeat the British in North Africa, cutting the Suez canal and the British lifeline to the rest of the Empire (and therefore the British resource base). If a fully isolationist US had gone to the extreme measure of banning export to any of the belligerents (as some of the primary America firsters had proposed) it is likely that Great Britain would have fallen. It is highly unlikely that Great Britain would have been able to invade Europe without the support of the US. It is also unlikely that the British would have been able to hold the eastern possessions of their Empire in the event of an attack by the Japanese, who, unhindered by virtue of a non-aggression pact signed with the isolationist government of the US, would have been free to turn their fleet against Australia and India.

While I agree that it was unlikly Britan could have invaded Europe alone, it is not impossible. A conscription policy throught the entrie commonwealth would have been highly unpopular, but would have produced more troops than just the British mainland troops. And while even then it would have been difficult for Britain to invade, it is exceptionally doubtful that a German invasion plan would have been sucessfull. Britain won the battle of Britan all by itself and thus with air superiority and a strong navy, it was doubtful that the Germans would have been able to launch a sucessful invasion. However the Americans were in the main more interested in avoiding political damage by loosing their troops, since they rejected Churchillls plan of an invasion of the German coast and hitting Berlin hard and quick, ending the war faster but with possibly higher casulties.

Well I understand that the Japanese would not be able to conquer a sizeable amount of territory, it would be more of a war of attrition. And their signature was on the anti-comminterm pact so Germany would have nudged them in to Russia if they conquered China and had no-one else to fight.
Actually, Japan had conquered 80% of what was attractive in China itself. Their concern was that the remaining Nationalists were blocking their way to India (the real new objective), whereas Mao was more annoying than anything. Many of the Nationalists were trapped in the extreme south.
Again, America was not around to help much. In fact, I hear that China did not even declare war on Japan until the US went to war.
If you are to look at the dates, you'll see that they couldn't possibly be connected with the Soviets.

In fact, I hear that China did not even declare war on Japan until the US went to war.

Well, the KMT and the Communists formed a loose alliance to fight the Japanese but they would have 'declared war' if thats what you want to call it- after the Marco Polo Bridge incident - I think that was 1937.

You are thinking about the HMS Prince of Wales, which was a huge Battleship, but it had the crap blown out of it and it sunk either in 41 or 42, by Japanese bombers!


I know there was a battleship supporting one of the US operations(i'v seen the documents) and it wasn't 'officially' there but was there.

Well, the KMT and the Communists formed a loose alliance to fight the Japanese but they would have 'declared war' if thats what you want to call it- after the Marco Polo Bridge incident - I think that was 1937.
No, they didn't. They did not want to lose American help by taking it as far as the Americans were not prepared to go. Nor did Americans want to go beligerant. So, American help was received by an ally who pretended not to be at war with anybody (even though they kept moving their capital more and more to the south).

No, they didn't.

So you're stating that the KMT/Communists (lets call them 'China') didn't fight a war with Japan? Or are you merely splitting hairs like "Vietnam was never a war becuase it was never official"?

Because if you'll notice I said, 'declared war' if thats what you want to call it. The technical term used was a "policy of resistance".

That ok now?

we could argue the freedom ships and convoys saved britain,we could argue the french resistance tied down army groups that could have been better used elsewhere,,,,whatr we cant argue is,...men from all over...gave their lives to defend all of us from fascism and nazism..agree?

i just think the question is flame...we could go on ad infinitum about sacrifice and who did more to save the "world" from the nazis.

yes..i am sorry you feel like americans take credit for ww2...but really...how many brits were on the beach on d-day?
how many americans died on the beach versus brits..that will answer your question poste haste.

look that up,and you answer your own question..ok.

it does make me a tad mad that you will write off the sacrifices of our fathers/sons..to make a stupid point about how you can denigrate us....grrrr...maybe i am wrong...hope so!

With respect, I think that is totally unfair and completely unjustified. I did not make the opening post 'just to denigrate' American's; far from it, I do not believe I made a single anti-American point. In fact, if you read the post, I quite clearly lay down the uncertainty that I believe would have hung over the fate of Europe had America not entered the war. I did not claim America was irrelevant; I simply challenged the view that America was the sole reason for victory.

If anything, I would say that statements such as 'who lost more men at D-Day' do far more to denigrate the memories of the brave men who fought in the war.

I do not take the view that we should not challenge positions and perceived attitudes if someone died in that incident; if we did, then Governments would be able to do pretty much whatever they liked without fear of criticism. Should we not question the legitimacy of Iraq because people have died there? Should we not question how well our governments protected us before 9/11 and 7/7 because to do so would denigrate the memories of those who lost their lives? Personally, I believe that it is possible to discuss these things while maintaining an air of respect for those who died.

It is naive to think that history is just pure 'fact'. The emphasis we place on certain events, whether person X doing something is important or irrelevant, what might have happened if things had been different; all of these things are open to interpretation. It is perhaps inevitable that nations will place a greater importance on their own role, I do not dispute this; what I was highlighting was the offence that can be caused when a nation appears to be claiming all the credit. We would all cry foul play if a person reached a great position due to the assistance of a friend and then kicked that friend away; why is it not right to cry foul play when this happens with history?

As this is about WW2, i was watching a documentary about the Home Guard and it turns out they were trained by Basque fighters from the Spanish civil war and a Communist revolutionary!, something i never knew.

As this is about WW2, i was watching a documentary about the Home Guard and it turns out they were trained by Basque fighters from the Spanish civil war and a Communist revolutionary!, something i never knew.

Yeah i saw that too, begs the question of what would have happened if the Hitler and launched Operation Sealion and invaded the home island.

So you're stating that the KMT/Communists (lets call them 'China') didn't fight a war with Japan? Or are you merely splitting hairs like "Vietnam was never a war becuase it was never official"?

Because if you'll notice I said, . The technical term used was a "policy of resistance".

That ok now?
You jumped to conclusions over what I would be implying, instead of taking my words for what they were.
I was refering to the fact that China - the KMT gvt. - was a state which could declare war. It didn't. Not because war was not fought (I'm not that much of an idiot), but because the American public would not approve of war against Japan (in any case, not over China). Of course, this was merely about the diplomatic gesture of "declaring war".

The American help, which was only enough not have the Japanese declare war regardless, did not prevent the Chinese from losing and losing. When war broke, the Americans even procrastinated the KMT objective by having them fight battles America needed more than they did (with consequences in 1949).
And, if the topic was American help for the KMT, what about the immense backing they received from the USSR? Stalin ignored and even rejected Mao until 1943 or so.

Yeah i saw that too, begs the question of what would have happened if the Hitler and launched Operation Sealion and invaded the home island.

His army would have been destroyed in the channel. Not having air or naval superiority.

I have to say that to a degree I also agree with the initial poster. But to a degree.

Militarily (as in providing soldiers etc to fight), Britain did not 'need' the States to survive, and Russia could have militarily defeated Germany without D-Day. Though D-Day certainly sped up the end of the war. Without a western Front it could have lasted years longer. another year or 2? Who knows, but it was certainly better ending earlier than later. also, without D-Day Europe would have been entirely a puppet of the Soviet Union, rather than just Eastern Europe.

Oh, and D-day did require the Americans.

North Africa was essentially over (as in Germany couldnt have won there) before Torch. Torch was just the final blow, which almost certainly sped up the defeat of the Germans did. Again, far preferable to it stretching out for longer.

What Britain certainly relied on was the economic and industrial help of America. Britain could have probably provided weapons for all its armed forces, but it would have taken longer to do so, and to bring them up to a better standard, but Britain could not have provided enough food or many other vital goods without America's support. Basically Britain could have survived with America just remaining "the Arsenal Of Democracy", but without that it was completely screwed. And without that same help Russia would have been harder pressed. Less sure on whether it relied on it though, but it certainly helped.

Current American films are irritating though, as is the attitude of having come across and "saved" us Brits. By the time America joined militarily the war in Europe had pretty much been lost by the Germans. Current films and tv things(Excepting maybe Enemy at the Gates) are always about Yanks, and rarely feature Brits or anyone else (Band of Brothers had a grand total of about 3 Brits actually shown in combat, and they came across as stupid twits). They are mentioned in Saving Private Ryan, but again they sort of dismiss the British effort (talking about Caen, totally misunderstanding the point of the battel around there). In the most recent film I can think of that featured Brits in a major way, A Bridge Too Far (and thats from the 70s), the Americans also had a very important role (featuring both 101 and 82 airborne, both given large amounts of time on screen. Dont have a problem with that, as they were just as vital a part of the operation as any other). Britain no longer having much of a cinema industry means we have little way of redressing the balance (as we did in the 40s-60s. Lots of black and white films about the British war effort) with films about British soldiers, and Russia obviously has the problem of being in completely foreign languages so any film they make is unlikely to be shown in the States (though, as I said Enemy at the Gates does go a bit of the way to redress the balance, as they did provide most of the effort in the european war).

Oh, and in the Pacific war America was completely vital, but their involvemtn was sort of inevitable there, as the Japanese felt they needed to attack America to give them any chance.

Oh, and the idea set up in Fatherland was a load of rubbish. As far as I can remember, it is set as if D-Day fails. Some how after that Germany defeats Russia almost totally, and then develops the Atom bomb (which it was not really anywhere near for a number of reasons. Scientists sabotaging themselves. Working with wrong ideas about how things worked etc). If D-Day had failed the most likely result would have been either Russia defeating Germany mostly on its own, or Berlin (and/or maybe other German cities) being a big hole, as the atom bombs had initially been developed in response to fears about Germany's atomic programme. All that doesnt mean it wasnt an interesting read though.

Britain: Stood stalvart against the evil german empire, providing vital help to the alliance. Without Great Britain, the germans wouldn't have had a enemy to the west, which would certainly have spelled doom for the everyone else, since they only had to focus on the soviets, if that was the case.

USSR: The ones who lured the germans into a trap, making them believe they were fighting a lesser enemy. The soviet forces were the driving force behind the allied victory.

USA: The clean-up crew. The scattered forces they provided with in Europe, were only there to finish the few survivors the british troops might have missed. The Japanese were defeated by american hands, sure, but that was what you would expect from an ally, wouldn't you?

I was refering to the fact that China - the KMT gvt. - was a state which could declare war. It didn't. Not because war was not fought (I'm not that much of an idiot), but because the American public would not approve of war against Japan (in any case, not over China).

Maybe. But I am more inclined to believe that it was because Chiang Kai Sheik didn't have full control over the entire country and even his own govt. for many many years. Not to mention the fact that the Civil War had been going on since 1929, the Japanese were seen by the KMT as a side issue- idiotically.

CKS felt it was more prudent to nullify the Communist threat before moving towards the 'external' threat of Japan. The KMT were more distracted by Mao then by Manchuoku.

As important as US/Western help became in later years, CKS got his priorities wrong by allowing the Japanese to waltz into China-proper unchecked, but this ws down to his diverting of resources to fight the Communists and being tied up there instead of up North.

I think the reason why debates like these come up is that the tone of filmmaking and storytelling about WWII has changed, particularly in Hollywood. It used to be that either WWII films focused almost entirely upon the activities of one nation, and about reasonably small units or else if they had a large scope there was the sense of "The Allies". Good examples of this are "The Longest Day", "A Bridge Too Far" "The Eagle Has Landed" "Is Paris Burning" "The Bridge on the River Kwai" "The Devil's Brigade" "The Great Escape". Where artistic license was used it nevertheless didn't alter the fact that it was an allied effort.

Something else: the films I mentioned above were all made to a large extent during a time when the military advisors you might have for the film would actually have been WWII vets if you wanted such. It was still a time that was real to people. I remember reading about how Anthony Hopkins playing (then) Lieutenant-Colonel John Frost actually talked to the real John Frost about the battle for Arnhem, getting advice on how to play the actual man.

By now, however, all WWII vets are very old. I was talking to a young woman a few months ago who had no idea whether Hitler had been leader of Germany in WWII or WWI. Winston who? FDR? Didn't he have an affair with Marilyn Munroe?

When we debate this stuff here we might be forgetting that at the end of the day filmakers are just trying to make a buck and could care less about historical accuracy. I think it's a shame, but there it is.

Maybe. But I am more inclined to believe that it was because Chiang Kai Sheik didn't have full control over the entire country and even his own govt. for many many years. Not to mention the fact that the Civil War had been going on since 1929, the Japanese were seen by the KMT as a side issue- idiotically.

CKS felt it was more prudent to nullify the Communist threat before moving towards the 'external' threat of Japan. The KMT were more distracted by Mao then by Manchuoku.

As important as US/Western help became in later years, CKS got his priorities wrong by allowing the Japanese to waltz into China-proper unchecked, but this ws down to his diverting of resources to fight the Communists and being tied up there instead of up North.
All your points are excellent, but I was referring strictly to what US aid meant for China. My view was that help received was limited, and aimed at doing as much as could be done without going to war.
I was replying originally to a remark about whether American help for the Chinese kept the Japanese out of the USSR. That scenario is completely innacurate.

All your points are excellent, but I was referring strictly to what US aid meant for China. My view was that help received was limited, and aimed at doing as much as could be done without going to war.
I was replying originally to a remark about whether American help for the Chinese kept the Japanese out of the USSR. That scenario is completely innacurate.

Oh right right right. Fair enough, some crossed wires there!
In agreement with you then, and your previous point regarding the 'diplomatic technicality of declaring war'. :)

There you go claiming victory.

Excuse me?

I'm not claiming that Finland wasn't with the Axis.
There merely was nothing they could do to avoid the Winter War and the Continutation War.

Then why were you argueing with me about Finland being in the Axis camp?

Seeing as another post developed into an argument on whether America 'saved' Europe (and more specifically the UK) in World War II, I thought it should have its own thread.

As a Briton, it is quite frustrating to hear Americans claim that they 'saved us in WWII', a claim that is arrogant in the extreme and ignores much of history.

No intelligent American will claim that "We won teh war!!!11one" or anything, but as a brit, surely you can understand that if not for direct American intervention, England would surely have been invaded.
However, my personal regret, was that we couldnt do anything, (or didnt rather) to prevent, or minimize the Blitz.

No one underestimates "The Tommies" contribution WW2.




Ultimately, I believe that a WW2 without America would have led to a Russian Europe and a question mark over Britain. Where many Americans are wrong, however, is to claim that this means 'America saved Europe' - it could be the opposite. Had Britain not fought on and defeated Hitler, America would not have had the necessary Ally need to launch a counter attack and along with British forces and the freedom fighters of occupied European nations and push the Germans back.

I’ve written too much; you all know the arguments, so what do you think?[/QUOTE]


Sadly, No one listened to Churchill before he was PM, until it was too late, and did not prepare England sufficiently militarily.
If they had, Britian may not have needed D-Day to essentially draw attention away from invasion.
England did indeed repel such an effort already, but certainly couldnt have done so alone for long.

Europe, however, would probably have been won back eventually by Russia, but I have to imagine if the cost in human lives, and simple money would have been too great for one nation to pay.

The South Pacific, however...that was mostly the US.
We had some help, sure, and frankly, no one nation can win a world war alone, but in the south pacific, the US navy got to shine, and instituted the "forward deployment" concept to this day.

In the end, it was an Allied effort, and no one nation won it by themselves.
All nations that could help, did, except the spineless northern ones, who chose "Neutrality".

Britain: Stood stalvart against the evil german empire, providing vital help to the alliance. Without Great Britain, the germans wouldn't have had a enemy to the west, which would certainly have spelled doom for the everyone else, since they only had to focus on the soviets, if that was the case.

Overgeneralization

USSR: The ones who lured the germans into a trap, making them believe they were fighting a lesser enemy. The soviet forces were the driving force behind the allied victory.

Historically inaccurate.

USA: The clean-up crew. The scattered forces they provided with in Europe, were only there to finish the few survivors the british troops might have missed. The Japanese were defeated by american hands, sure, but that was what you would expect from an ally, wouldn't you?

Not even close to anything resembling the truth.

USA, Britain, and the USSR were the saviors of Europe.

If Hitler had not declared war on the US, we would not have entered into the war in Europe. By the same token, if Japan didn't attack the United States, it would've been longer before we had to take on Japan.

So no, we weren't glory seeking. We were literally dragged into WWII kicking and screaming.

I think america was just butting in again and should of never been in Europe r even on the map. They made the natives extinct

I think america was just butting in again and should of never been in Europe r even on the map. They made the natives extinct


You think America was just "butting in" after being attacked by Japan, in an act of open warfare?

Go play.

1 The only reason they we're running was becasue half their army was waiting for US.
Do us a favour and read the thread, okay?
In June 1944, when the western front was opened, the number of German divisions on the Russian front totalled 181 which was 55 percent of the total. One hundred and twenty divisions (36 percent) were tied down in German occupied territories and the remaining 26 divisions (8 percent) were engaged on all other fronts. When the US and British armies landed in France and started to advance German divisions were taken from the occupied territories — not from the Eastern Front. Twelve German divisions alone were pinned down in Yugoslavia where the People’s Liberation Army of Marshall Tito was fighting the Nazi occupation.
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/1226su.html

2 If you're right we saved you from Stalin who was just as bad.
That is true.

3 We didn't enter for glory but for ourselvs and for you but we sure as hell want glory now!
That is partly true as well. The Allied leadership never gave two shits about the Germans and "liberating" them until the country was defeated.

I think america was just butting in again and should of never been in Europe r even on the map. They made the natives extinct

extinct means no longer existing
Native Americans still live their lives much in the same way their ancestors did.
Europe put us on the map. We didn't come from nowhere

Overgeneralization



Historically inaccurate.



Not even close to anything resembling the truth.

Hush, my dear, the people on the balcony can hear you.

Hush, my dear, the people on the balcony can hear you.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

As a Briton, it is quite frustrating to hear Americans claim that they 'saved us in WWII', a claim that is arrogant in the extreme and ignores much of history.

I completely agree...however, it is also quite frustrating to hear various Europeans claim, in various terms, that "Russia won WWII" and that American (hell, even British) involvement was no more than some historical footnote, rather than it's own epic chapter in history.

It is also frustrating to see Hollywood portray America as either the only Allied power in the entire war (Saving Private Ryan) or claim that even when America wasn't fighting, it was still the Americans winning the war for Britain (Pearl Harbor and the American RAF pilot who seemed to shoot down the entire Luftwaffe). We mustn't forget either, of course, the film about the submarine, U-571, that completely and utterly changed history without any sense of embarrassment, claiming it was Americans who recovered the Enigma machine for the Allies and stamping all over the graves of the British sailors who had died when they recovered the machine months before America even entered the war. The line in Pearl Harbor when the Naval Base is finally attacked, "World War Two has just started!" has got to be one of the most annoying lines in cinema history to a non-American audience.

Now, I realise that Hollywood would claim that it is allowed to take liberties with its stories as they are primarily written for an American audience and do not claim to be history books, but I feel this is irresponsible in an age when many people do get much of their understanding about the world from cinema.

You'll get no argument from me...Hollywood sucks. :p

However...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750/

...so you can't argue that our movies always focus on American soldiers. ;)


So, my little Hollywood rant aside, I'm interested to see what people really think of America's role in the war. Personally I believe that had America not joined the European war, in the short term Britain would have remained the only free power in Europe (the country had already beaten back Hitler's attempts to invade and he had turned his attention East).

I agree with you here.

As the Germans were defeated in the East, the Russians would have swept through Europe and it would have been incredibly hard to stop them continuing their drive and occupying the entire mainland. The fate of Britain would be questionable, and, quite frankly, would be a pure guess. Russia might have successfully invaded, or Britain might once again have beaten back a far superior enemy.

This is where we differ in opinion. While Japan was not in a position to launch a major offensive against Russia (hence the non-aggression pact), without American action against Japan, it is my opinion that it was only a matter of time until Russia had two enemies to deal with instead of one.

Even if Japan never went to war with Russia, American supplies still helped to keep Britain on it's feet despite extreme loss of tonnage to German U-boats, as well as supplying the Russian war-machine with much needed food, logistical supplies and equipment.

Had it boiled down to a simple matter of Germany vs. Russia, it is hard for me to pick a winner, especially if Russia lacks any American material assistance.

Also, we must remember that without American help, Italy would never have left the war. If Britain (likely) could not launch an invasion of France on it's own, it certainly could not invade Italy.

Ultimately, I believe that a WW2 without America would have led to a Russian Europe and a question mark over Britain.

As I said, without American material assistance, I think you very well might be able to replace 'Russian' with 'German' in that sentence.

Some stats on U.S. aide to Russia can be found below, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_Lease

Where many Americans are wrong, however, is to claim that this means 'America saved Europe' - it could be the opposite. Had Britain not fought on and defeated Hitler, America would not have had the necessary Ally need to launch a counter attack and along with British forces and the freedom fighters of occupied European nations and push the Germans back.

I would argue that we could have ferried men from Alaska into Russia, then via rail to the Eastern front.

Some Americans make the association to communism, and claim we "saved" Europe, but that's not what the soldiers on the front lines were fighting for. They were fighting for their homelands, and to stop a vicious enemy.

In that respect, America DID save Europe.

And, of course, so did Britain...and Russia...and a whole lot of other nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II

They ALL did their part. :)

I think america was just butting in again and should of never been in Europe r even on the map. They made the natives extinct

I suggest you go back and learn your history. We didn't butt in. We were dragged in by Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Native Americans still live their lives much in the same way their ancestors did.


Umm..no..they dont.

At all.

200 years ago, there were about 6 million of em...now..about 600,000.

Hush, my dear, the people on the balcony can hear you.

uh?

Sorry I will not stay silent when ignorant pipsqueks open their mouths spouting inaccurate items.

...but that's not what the soldiers on the front lines were fighting for. They were fighting for their homelands, and to stop a vicious enemy...
On all sides.

Umm..no..they dont.

At all.

200 years ago, there were about 6 million of em...now..about 600,000.

But they are still not extinct.

amen

On all sides.

Yep.

On all sides.

Too true. :)

We were fighting for 2 years prior to the French coming to assist us.

We were fighting for four years before the US came to 'free' us from the germans. If the US han't done that, we would now be speaking either german or russian. The russians have freed us, if Hitler hadn't starte operation barbarossa, he would have pwned your asses with the millions of troops he wasted in the east.

But they are still not extinct.


No, they are not extinct.

But their way of live is nothing like that of thier ancestors.

We were fighting for four years before the US came to 'free' us from the germans.

Try two years.

If the US han't done that, we would now be speaking either german or russian.

More likely Russian since they were driving the Germans back to Berlin prior to the D-Day invasion of June 1944.

The russians have freed us, if Hitler hadn't starte operation barbarossa, he would have pwned your asses with the millions of troops he wasted in the east.

Oh brother. A few things:

1) The Germans didn't have the ship capacity to transport troops to the United States.

2) No long range fighters or bombers.

3) They still had the Royal Navy to contend with as well.

4) The United States is to big to conquor with just one nation.

No, they are not extinct.

But their way of live is nothing like that of thier ancestors.

There I will agree with you.

Right i'll just say this(i dont know if it's been said before,but if it has...meh)...

The Allies needed each other equally to accomplish the defeat of the Nazi's and Japanese, and without the cooperation things may not be what they are today.

IMO:
America provided most of the industrial facilities.

Britain provided most of the technology.

Russia provided most of the man power.

All of these factors combined made it possible to defeat the enemy.

Try two years.



More likely Russian since they were driving the Germans back to Berlin prior to the D-Day invasion of June 1944.



Oh brother. A few things:

1) The Germans didn't have the ship capacity to transport troops to the United States.

2) No long range fighters or bombers.

3) They still had the Royal Navy to contend with as well.

4) The United States is to big to conquor with just one nation.
The germans had plans and proto types of both bombers and fighters that could reach the US from bases in Europe, and don't forget if the UK had surrendered all UK world wide bases would be open to the germans.
They also has a two stage V2 under developement that could hit the US from Europe.Hence the post war US space programme.
And the Uk could always have come to terms with Hitler as that was what he wanted from the start.

The germans had plans and proto types of both bombers and fighters that could reach the US from bases in Europe, and don't forget if the UK had surrendered all UK world wide bases would be open to the germans.

Yes I know but he said nothing about a British Surrender so that is why I stated what I stated. And there is no gaurentee that the British Military would've surrendered either.

They also has a two stage V2 under developement that could hit the US from Europe.Hence the post war US space programme.

They did employ the V2 rocket late in the war and yea you are right about that.

And the Uk could always have come to terms with Hitler as that was what he wanted from the start.

Possible but not likely.