What have the Yanks ever done for us?

Snickers Man

In another forum on another thread ( a discussion about the merits or lack of them) of US news anchor Bill O'Reilly somebody posted the following statement, which was met with approval by at least one other poster.

Fundamentally speaking, it's by the cash and blood and steel and technical ingenuity of the USA that our little bastion of peace & democracy in Western Europe has been kept safe this past 50 years and continues to be kept safe.

It's a familiar argument. The Americans saved our asses in WWII and kept the Soviet Union at bay too. So we should be grateful to them, help them in their military adventures by letting them use Shannon airport and not criticise them too harshly when they let loose with a little shock and awe on some Ayrabs because, hey, where would we be without them.

There is no shortage of lick spittles in this country eager to brown nose the Americans for all they are perceived to have done. But did they do it really?

If you look at who really did what in WWII the Americans only made a minor contribution. Most of the German fighting was done on the Eastern Front, 93% of their casualties were there, 80 % of their army was concentrated there and even on the Western Front, America had quite a bit of help from the British, Canadians, Australians and let's not forget the indigenous populations as well.

In fact, if you break it down:

there were six countries in Western Europe that were occupied by the Germans and who regained their independence at the end of the war.

Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg.

I will stand corrected but I don't think a single American soldier set foot in either Norway or Denmark during the war. (apart maybe from the odd one who might have been shot down over those territories).

The Americans barely entered into Holland at all. Apart from some airborne troops who captured a few bridges at Eindhoven and elsewhere during the failed Market Garden operation the bulk of the American army never made it that far north.

France, OK. They landed there in force on D-day but they had loads of allies as well. Probably the greater proportion of troops landing on D-Day were non American.

Belgium and Luxembourg. Now this is where the Americans came into their own. I think the Yanks were hte only ones who invaded Luxembourg and certainly, they were the main players in the Battle of the Bulge which took place mainly in Belgium.

So when the Americans and their toadies over here say that "Our blood, steel and treasure liberated you in WWII" bear in mind that the only place they can reeally claim sole credit for is Luxembourg. And perhaps Belgium.

A continent should be forever grateful.

Tchocky

Snickers Man wrote:

If you look at who really did what in WWII the Americans only made a minor contribution. Most of the German fighting was done on the Eastern Front, 93% of their casualties were there, 80 % of their army was concentrated there and even on the Western Front, America had quite a bit of help from the British, Canadians, Australians and let's not forget the indigenous populations as well.

Japan.

I will stand corrected but I don't think a single American soldier set foot in either Norway or Denmark during the war. (apart maybe from the odd one who might have been shot down over those territories).

the purpose of WW2 was not the direct liberation of Europe, it was the destruction of the German Army/regime. One follows the other, and it's a one-way street.
Norway - Hitler was paranoid about losing norway, even though it's military viability was questionable. Through operation Fortitude, the US spread disinformation enough to convince the Germans Norway was threatened, thereby keeping several divisions tied up there.
Denmark was never militarily important. On the Western Front, France was the battle that had to be won. That campaign focused on armies and troop concentrations, not national borders.

The Americans barely entered into Holland at all. Apart from some airborne troops who captured a few bridges at Eindhoven and elsewhere during the failed Market Garden operation the bulk of the American army never made it that far north.

yeah, they went through France, through to Aachen. Again, military operations are not based on national borders that are irrelevant to the fight.

France, OK. They landed there in force on D-day but they had loads of allies as well. Probably the greater proportion of troops landing on D-Day were non American.

Works out to about 40-50% US, the rest from the UK/Canada/Australia/Poland. The US still provided more troops than any other single country. And most of the ships that got the soldiers there. And most of the immense air superiority that allowed the invasion to succeed. Also, the US beaches were the most difficult to assault. Check out how far Omaha was from the British/Canadian beaches.

So when the Americans and their toadies over here say that "Our blood, steel and treasure liberated you in WWII" bear in mind that the only place they can reeally claim sole credit for is Luxembourg. And perhaps Belgium.

bollocks. The fight to defeat Germany was not structured around the borders of occupied countries.

brianthebard

RE-Norway. He wanted Norway cause his dream was to create a perfect Nordic race. He hoped to integrate the Scandanavian countries into the Reich after the war. Although because he didn't get this far its all a bit up in the air and open to question.

RE-What have the yanks done for us? Well, Marshall Aid?

Fratton Fred

I'm sure there are several Eastern European countries who would disagree. The US let Poland down by leaving it to the mercy of Russia.

Try reading some of the transcripts of the Yalta conference and you will see how the Americans really viewed Europe.

Also, the American strategy with regards to Nato, was more along the lines of containing a war within europe than preventing one.

brianthebard

You can't expect the US or any country to get involved in an organization like NATO for humanitarian reasons-they are looking after their own interests all the way. I'm not saying your not right, only that it should be expected.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

You can't expect the US or any country to get involved in an organization like NATO for humanitarian reasons-they are looking after their own interests all the way. I'm not saying your not right, only that it should be expected.

absolutely. But likewise not something we should be thankful for either.

silverharp

Without the US, britain would have lost in 1940, US oil and supplies were vital at all stages during the war. Their contribuion to global peace dimishes from the 1960's onwards, think of all the democatic regimes that have been toppled by the US, Iran before the Shah, Saddam was paid by the CIA at one stage, what's the term "blowback"

Dontico

The Russians won WW2 for Europe. Yet no one thanks them.

Fratton Fred

Dontico wrote:

The Russians won WW2 for Europe. Yet no one thanks them.

There's a load of factors as to why the allies won the war, the Russians are a major part but that is a different subject entirely.

Anyway, if you watch Only Fools and Horses, you will know that actually Uncle Albert won the war:D

TerrorFirmer

Dontico wrote:

The Russians won WW2 for Europe. Yet no one thanks them.

They brought communism to the bulk of eastern europe. The reason that war broke out in 1939, to guarantee Polands independance, amounted to nothing in 1945 as Poland was integrated into the block and anyone who presented a 'threat' to the regime was either arrested or executed. Western protests at this were entirely feeble, again, despite it being the reason that europe went to war. The European armies, although in military terms didn't do an awful lot in comparison during the final two years of the war in Europe, prevented any further western spread of communism. For some of the people of Eastern Europe, occupation under Soviet rule was worse then that of the Germans.

As for the direct 'what did the US do for europe' question, then an awful lot. Economic power saved Britain from defeat in both world wars, and overall were vital, if not completely necessary for the final victories. In the first world war, Americans played very little part in actual military operations, but the very fact that the manpower potenial was there, as well as the economic strength, made the germans realise it was fruitless to fight on. Although the situation was somewhat different in the second world war with the germans fighting until total collaspe the principle was the same. Britain would never have lasted without US aid, not to mention that d-day would have been impossible. And hence, considering that by 1944 it was entirely possible for the Soviet Union to defeat the Germany army by itself, alot more of Europe would have ended up in Soviet hands, or as puppet regimes.

By the time the US army invaded europe alongside its allies they were not fighting the Germany army. They were fighting pretty much prestige forces, that had a considerable bulk of second rate units that were either in training, injuries from the eastern front or similar. Had they wanted to take Holland, or press further east into in Germany, they could have done so. It would have been possbile to take Berlin. There were far more important objectives them being able to claim 'We liberated x and y', most namely the destruction of the armies that faced them in the field.

Zebra3

OP,

Who is the 'us' you refer to? Irish or European?

brianthebard wrote:

RE-Norway. He wanted Norway cause his dream was to create a perfect Nordic race. He hoped to integrate the Scandanavian countries into the Reich after the war. Although because he didn't get this far its all a bit up in the air and open to question.

The main reason for taking Norway was for its hard water (needed for any a-bomb).

dave2pvd

So basically the Americans out-manufactured the axis and not a moment too soon, preventing the iron curtain moving farther West.

Don't believe that O'Reilly represents all Americans. He represtents a portion of the minority. It is also worth noting that he amounts to a shock-jock, which explains why he has a tendency to exaggerate to make a point.

Snickers Man

brianthebard wrote:

RE-Norway. He wanted Norway cause his dream was to create a perfect Nordic race. He hoped to integrate the Scandanavian countries into the Reich after the war.

Actually, and this is not usually said out loud, the main reason Hitler invaded Norway was that Britain (and France) were just about to do exactly the same. Britain wanted to prevent or at least hinder iron ore exports from neutral Sweden to Germany.

Check out the dates of arrival of German and British armies in Norway and marvel at the synchronicity.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

Actually, and this is not usually said out loud, the main reason Hitler invaded Norway was that Britain (and France) were just about to do exactly the same. Britain wanted to prevent or at least hinder iron ore exports from neutral Sweden to Germany.

Check out the dates of arrival of German and British armies in Norway and marvel at the synchronicity.

as a side note, my Grandad served on HMS Forester which was heavily involved in the 2nd battle of Narvik.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

as a side note, my Grandad served on HMS Forester which was heavily involved in the 2nd battle of Narvik.

We don't know for certain but it is believed in our family that my grandad spent some time in Norway too. He had to go to some 'secret' destination that he couldn't tell my grandmother about, but she always believed it was Norway.

Nothing terribly cloak and dagger. He wasn't a James Bond, just a logistics guy.

He died later that summer, so we don't know for certain.

mountainyman

silverharp wrote:

what's the term "blowback"

It is a way of sharing a joint.

Why?

MM

brianthebard

Snickers Man wrote:

We don't know for certain but it is believed in our family that my grandad spent some time in Norway too. He had to go to some 'secret' destination that he couldn't tell my grandmother about, but she always believed it was Norway.

Nothing terribly cloak and dagger. He wasn't a James Bond, just a logistics guy.

He died later that summer, so we don't know for certain.

If you are interested try and get a look at British army records, at this stage they will all have been released from that period and you will be able to find out what he was doing.

philologos

Dontico wrote:

The Russians won WW2 for Europe. Yet no one thanks them.

True, watch Downfall I tell ya

purple'n'gold

brianthebard wrote:

RE-Norway. He wanted Norway cause his dream was to create a perfect Nordic race. He hoped to integrate the Scandanavian countries into the Reich after the war. Although because he didn't get this far its all a bit up in the air and open to question.

RE-What have the yanks done for us? Well, Marshall Aid?

I am open to correction on this, but I think we got something like the princely sum of £3 million in marshal aid money. The US ambassador to Ireland during WW2 couldn’t stand DeVelera and gave us a bad press whenever he could. I read about this in Tim Pat Coogans book, “Long fellow, long shadow” Dev actually had a mountain of turf stored right outside his residence in the phoenix park. It drove him nuts.

brianthebard

I thought this thread was about Western Europe, not just Ireland, so I wasn't really referring to Ireland in the post you quoted. But in fairness, why would Ireland deserve marshall aid after WWII, it was for reconstruction after the war (and obviously to keep the commie ideas down). Ireland wasn't involved in the war.

johnnyskeleton

What have the Americans done for Ireland? Supported our war of independence, and gave refuge to our hungry citizens during the famine.

What have the Americans done for Europe? Marshall Aid, political support, NATO.

What did the Americans do for Ireland in WWII? Nothing. Not a saussage.

What did the Americans do for Europe in WWII? That's debatable. On the one hand they did provide lots of military and economic support to the allies, on the other hand their motives were not altruistic and they could have conducted the war with a bit more concern for us than they did (e.g. Monte Casino, firebombings of German cities etc).

What have the Americans done for civilization in general? Good movies, breast implants, the internet, transatlantic flight, skyscrapers, bourbon, playboy magazine, fender stratocasters, microwaves, etc...

dave2pvd

Ah good. You were correct in not including Hardley Davidsons.

Snickers Man

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What have the Americans done for Ireland? Supported our war of independence, and gave refuge to our hungry citizens during the famine.

What have the Americans done for Europe? Marshall Aid, political support, NATO.

What did the Americans do for Ireland in WWII? Nothing. Not a saussage.

What did the Americans do for Europe in WWII? That's debatable. On the one hand they did provide lots of military and economic support to the allies, on the other hand their motives were not altruistic and they could have conducted the war with a bit more concern for us than they did (e.g. Monte Casino, firebombings of German cities etc).

What have the Americans done for civilization in general? Good movies, breast implants, the internet, transatlantic flight, skyscrapers, bourbon, playboy magazine, fender stratocasters, microwaves, etc...

Fair points. All credit where it is due. The nation that gave us Clint Eastwood, Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, Spencer Tracey, John McEnroe, to name but five, can't be all bad.

There is much to admire about the US. But the claim that its foreign policy is about bringing "freedom" to the rest of the world should be treated with a healthy degree of scepticism. And unfortunately, many of the arguments trotted out for its current adventures use a misrepresentation of past wars as justification for current ones.

that is why this thread belongs in the history forum. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Those who misrepresent history, likewise.

Zebra3

Snickers Man wrote:

But the claim that its foreign policy is about bringing "freedom" to the rest of the world should be treated with a healthy degree of scepticism.

Scepticism? More like outright contempt.

Nicaragua, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia for a start.

johnnyskeleton

Snickers Man wrote:

that is why this thread belongs in the history forum. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Those who misrepresent history, likewise.

That's what worries me. When George W is turfed out next year, will the world just say "hey america, you were pretty wasted for the last 8 years, but that's cool, let's be friends again"?

Which is why I think that they are just as entitled to remind us of the good things they've done as we are to remember the bad things they've done (and are still doing).

mossym

you're thinking too much in terms of manpower in terms of american contribution to ww2. The single most important factor in Dday, and thus the rest of the liberation of europe was landing the soldiers on the beach. The number of available landing craft at the time was pitiful The british shipyards would still be building the numbers required if the americans ahdn't have put their industrial force behind it. The same to a lesser extent can be said for medium and long range bombers. Froma soldiers point of view, the americans were more concerned with the japenese than the germans. in th einterest of fighting a united front, they agreed to adopt the main british aim of the tiem which was obviously germany before they focused on the japenese. Given that they contributed the single greatest number of soldiers, it's impresive to see that they went this way. Roosevelt risked the scorn of the american voting public who were frantic to see him defeat Japan. It took careful interaction with the american public to keep them on side, for his reelection obviously, but also to keep the industrial production up as their motivation was key here.

also, don't forget, hoever good montgomery was, it wasn't until the americans got involved in africa that they drove the axis out(including the french bizarrly). You might say that was africa, and of no use to europe, but if i recall correctly a lot of oil was coming from africa at the time..

Fratton Fred

mossym wrote:

Roosevelt risked the scorn of the american voting public who were frantic to see him defeat Japan. It took careful interaction with the american public to keep them on side, for his reelection obviously, but also to keep the industrial production up as their motivation was key here.

which was why Roosevelt persauded the Russians to join in the war against Japan, in return for territory and ports in the far east.

man1

Dontico wrote:

The Russians won WW2 for Europe. Yet no one thanks them.

You are right! If it wasnt for the brave russians who endured terrible hardships and millions of deaths, Germany wouldnt have been defeated.
The russians won it for europe.
The germans were mostly on the eastern front fighting so were extremely vunerable and left themselves open on the western front allowing the brits , yanks, canadians (who had just as big a part in the war as the US), polish, french and others to an easy victory on the western front.
The participation of the US has been exaggerated for years now.(mostly by themselves.)

Fratton Fred

man1 wrote:

You are right! If it wasnt for the brave russians who endured terrible hardships and millions of deaths, Germany wouldnt have been defeated.
The russians won it for europe.
The germans were mostly on the eastern front fighting so were extremely vunerable and left themselves open on the western front allowing the brits , yanks, canadians (who had just as big a part in the war as the US), polish, french and others to an easy victory on the western front.
The participation of the US has been exaggerated for years now.(mostly by themselves.)

one thing you shoould not discount though, is the speed at which the western front moved forward, thanks a lot to the yanks. If it had not and the Russians had gone through Germany, how far would they have gone and would they have gone back again? It could have changed European politics from what we saw over the last 60 years. Imagine the iron curtain somewhere around Belgium:eek:

dave2pvd

And if it wasn't for US resources (industry) propping up England, would England not have been overrun by the Nazi machine? I'll bet that there was a time when Hitler believed that England, as the last Western Front superpower in the war at the time was an easy target and ripe for the picking.

man1

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What have the Americans done for Ireland? Supported our war of independence, and gave refuge to our hungry citizens during the famine....

How???

man1

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What have the Americans done for civilization in general? Good movies, breast implants, the internet, transatlantic flight, skyscrapers, bourbon, playboy magazine, fender stratocasters, microwaves, etc...

The only good things that came out of america were frank sinatra, the sopranos, the simpsons, the whooper burger and thats about it.

csk

man1 wrote:

How???

I would think they were talking about the substantial amount of money raised in America for the Governement that more than likely went towards the war effort.

Fratton Fred

dave2pvd wrote:

And if it wasn't for US resources (industry) propping up England, would England not have been overrun by the Nazi machine? I'll bet that there was a time when Hitler believed that England, as the last Western Front superpower in the war at the time was an easy target and ripe for the picking.

If I recall corectly, the Americans did not give any support to Britain until after the Battle of Britain. Once the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe, the Germans turned their attention elsewhere for the time being. OK, if Hitler had another go, then it may have been different but initially the Yanks were no help at all.

mossym

Fratton Fred wrote:

If I recall corectly, the Americans did not give any support to Britain until after the Battle of Britain. Once the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe, the Germans turned their attention elsewhere for the time being. OK, if Hitler had another go, then it may have been different but initially the Yanks were no help at all.

i think the americans were "unoficially" giving support to the english before that, was the lease scheme in operation before the battle of britian? i'd need to go back and check my books for that

mossym

Fratton Fred wrote:

which was why Roosevelt persauded the Russians to join in the war against Japan, in return for territory and ports in the far east.

there was little persuasion needed there, if i remember correctly, hadn't they been fighting already over oil fields in south eastern russia?

Fratton Fred

mossym wrote:

i think the americans were "unoficially" giving support to the english before that, was the lease scheme in operation before the battle of britian? i'd need to go back and check my books for that

it was about the same time. Lease for land I think it was calld. It was only ships though and they only really got used in the Atlantic.

dave2pvd

Fratton Fred wrote:

If I recall corectly, the Americans did not give any support to Britain until after the Battle of Britain.

Kind of. The US did not 'enter the war' until after Pearl Harbour in '41, which was after the Battle of Britain. In other words they didn't declare war until that point.

The Lend-Lease Program started almost a year (?) before Pearl Harbour. Even before that, US warships were being provided to Britain. Not sure if they were ever paid for in any way; probably were.

So early on, the Americans were in the war one way or another.

It might be popular to denounce America right now. In fact, there's no 'might' involved! But it is surely incorrect to devalue the US contribution to the Allied victory to the extent that some of you have? Comments like "The russians won it for europe" are just ill-informed and foolish.

And who was it that suggested bourbon was a worthy offering to civilization as we know it? Come on, comments like that from the land of proper whiskey.

Fratton Fred

dave2pvd wrote:

Kind of. The US did not 'enter the war' until after Pearl Harbour in '41, which was after the Battle of Britain. In other words they didn't declare war until that point.

The Lend-Lease Program started almost a year (?) before Pearl Harbour. Even before that, US warships were being provided to Britain. Not sure if they were ever paid for in any way; probably were.

So early on, the Americans were in the war one way or another.

It might be popular to denounce America right now. In fact, there's no 'might' involved! But it is surely incorrect to devalue the US contribution to the Allied victory to the extent that some of you have? Comments like "The russians won it for europe" are just ill-informed and foolish.

And who was it that suggested bourbon was a worthy offering to civilization as we know it? Come on, comments like that from the land of proper whiskey.

you're Scottish

destroyers for bases happened in 1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement

Capt'n Midnight

mossym wrote:

i think the americans were "unoficially" giving support to the english before that, was the lease scheme in operation before the battle of britian? i'd need to go back and check my books for that

look at how they shafted sterling just after the war - gave the UK a loan that was only paid off a few months ago and then forced them to leave the gold standard , sterling value dropped 40% leaving the UK in the lurch till marshal aid arrived.

our currency was linked to sterling so we got shafted too

mossym

Fratton Fred wrote:

you're Scottish

destroyers for bases happened in 1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement

so given that, me thinks they were helping out before the battle of britain

spooiirt!!

You can ( rightfully) bash Bush and the Iraq war, but the US saved europe.

Germany was going to lose ww2 and the Soviet armies would have taken Germany, and German occupied Italy, France, Holland Etc.
Thankfully D-Day and the invasion of Italy prevented that. And D-Day would never have happened without the US.

So basically all of Europe would have had to live in Stalins wonderful socialist paradise.

mossym

also, lets not forget, Stalin was threatening to make peace with the germans if the allies didn't launch a second front against the germans. Even the fact that it was left until 1944 was a major arguement between stalin, roosevelt and churchhill. so, no americans, no russian fightback, germany retain western europe. no second front for hitler, who would then have been able to launch his full might on britain, who wouldn't have stood alone for ever. where do you think the germans would have come next?

Fratton Fred

mossym wrote:

so given that, me thinks they were helping out before the battle of britain

The Battle of Britain was between july and October 1940, the destroyers for land agreement wasn't signed until September 1940.

They helped with the Battle of the Atlantic, but not Britain.

mossym

Fratton Fred wrote:

The Battle of Britain was between july and October 1940, the destroyers for land agreement wasn't signed until September 1940.

They helped with the Battle of the Atlantic, but not Britain.

ah yes..pardon me..