We don't give the United States enough credit for WW2

CommuterIE

They saved Ireland in that conflict, and by all rights we should owe some of the trillions in cost for that war by the USA, I find it very dis ingenuousness that we have the nerve now to scrutinize their very action, when we had little to do with that massive conflict on our doorstep.

And gob****es will post here that the Brits could've won the war outright without USA help, so stupidity reigns

OhNoYouDidn't

CommuterIE wrote: »

They saved Ireland in that conflict, and by all rights we should owe some of the trillions in cost for that war by the USA, I find it very dis ingenuousness that we have the nerve now to scrutinize their very action, when we had little to do with that massive conflict on our doorstep.

And gob****es will post here that the Brits could've won the war outright without USA help, so stupidity reigns

Can someone translate this gibberish please?

anymore

CommuterIE wrote: »

They saved Ireland in that conflict, and by all rights we should owe some of the trillions in cost for that war by the USA, I find it very dis ingenuousness that we have the nerve now to scrutinize their very action, when we had little to do with that massive conflict on our doorstep.

And gob****es will post here that the Brits could've won the war outright without USA help, so stupidity reigns

The British, as far as i am aware, have never won a major war on theit own. Even in Waterloo, much of the credit must go to German Troops - ironic. The UK is also one of the major participants in the war who suffered amongst the lowest total casulaities of war.
The country to which the most credit of all must go for defeating the nazis is the Soviet Union. Without them and the enormous casualties they suffered, Europe would have been over run.

Overheal

This thread is so 1994

karma_

Thank the Soviet Union. Almost by themselves, yes they had some help in the west but even without that they would have won the war.

This, you would have learned had you picked up a history book about WW2 and not relied on what you saw in the movies.

dlofnep

The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. A history book wouldn't go astray. Their military gave more lives than any other nation. The US in comparison doesn't even come close.

karma_

dlofnep wrote: »

The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. A history book wouldn't go astray. Their military gave more lives than any other nation. The US in comparison doesn't even come close.

Nice graphic, and looking at the Chinese numbers there, when was the last time you heard anyone give even the slightest bit of credit to them in that conflict?

CommuterIE

dlofnep wrote: »

The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. A history book wouldn't go astray. Their military gave more lives than any other nation. The US in comparison doesn't even come close.

That is an absolutely stupid comparison and you know it!! DLOFNEP

That graph in no way represents military losses, of course more ****ing died in Russia due to Nazi occupation, are you treating people like idiots here with your stupid graph?? Is that it?

karma_

CommuterIE wrote: »

That is an absolutely stupid comparison and you know it!! DLOFNEP

That graph in no way represents military losses, of course more ****ing died in Russia due to Nazi occupation, are you treating people like idiots here with your stupid graph?? Is that it?

I don't think I've ever seen fact so casually brushed aside, and btw, those are military deaths, you probably don't want to see the civilian death toll.

LeixlipRed

You're confusing him their lads, he thought the Commies were the bad guys.

Latchy

It's so romantic of some to think the Americans walked it in WW2 and the main reason they let the Russians steamroll into Berlin was simply because after fighting a long costly war, they didn't have as many men as the russians had (3/1 against ) nor enough resources left or ready to carry on for another long conflict ,unless of course it ment another 2 or 3 years fighting with the russians at the cost of probaly more millions of lives ,same reason they dropped the bomb on Japan .

CommuterIE

karma_ wrote: »

I don't think I've ever seen fact so casually brushed aside, and btw, those are military deaths, you probably don't want to see the civilian death toll.

Ah no I don't, they'll probably match that graph

StupidLikeAFox

Im not a history buff at all but would like to think I have a basic knowledge, but China were the second highest casualties?? Im ashamed to say I didnt even know they were involved!

MrStuffins

CommuterIE wrote: »

That is an absolutely stupid comparison and you know it!! DLOFNEP

That graph in no way represents military losses, of course more ****ing died in Russia due to Nazi occupation, are you treating people like idiots here with your stupid graph?? Is that it?

Holy mother! It's like someone telling you cows don't exist and getting angry when you show them one!

CommuterIE

Latchy wrote: »

It's so romantic of some to think the Americans walked it in WW2 and the main reason they let the Russians steamroll into Berlin was simply because after fighting a long costly war, they didn't have as many men as the russians had (3/1 against ) nor enough resources left or ready to carry on for another long conflict ,unless of course it ment another 2 or 3 years fighting with the russians at the cost of probaly more millions of lives ,same reason they dropped the bomb on Japan .

They could've defeated the Russians in Germany and Russia if they wanted, but they were allies

dlofnep

CommuterIE wrote: »

That is an absolutely stupid comparison and you know it!! DLOFNEP

The only credit you're going to get from me in this thread is for spelling my name right. On everything else, you get an F.

It is a perfectly valid comparison. The Soviet Union gave the greatest effort to ending Nazi Germany, in both man-power, and industrial-power during World War 2. But yet, I don't see one thread from you praising them? Curious.

CommuterIE wrote: »

That graph in no way represents military losses

Er, yes it does. It's a graph of military losses in WW2.

CommuterIE wrote: »

, of course more ****ing died in Russia due to Nazi occupation, are you treating people like idiots here with your stupid graph?? Is that it?

I'm not sure if this question is rhetorical?

krissovo

The Russians had huge casualties as sending people out in human waves was their one tactic once Stalin eliminated the majority of the officer corps. Once Russia got a grip with modern tactics and weapons they were an effective force but they still would have had suicidal tactics as in a war of attrition with the Nazi's their military age population far outnumbered the Nazi's.

wes

Even if what the OP was saying was true (which it isn't), I fail to see how what happened during World War 2, has any bearing on the present day actions of the US government. The guys running the show now, are hardly the same guys who were running it back then.

Secondly, the US government certainly deserves scrutiny, as there economy for example going down the tubes, would have a huge negative effect on Ireland, so if someone in the US government is doing something stupid, then it make perfect sense that people in Ireland would comment on it.

BlitzKrieg

why is this in politics?

Da Shins Kelly

To be honest, if anything, they get more credit than they deserve.

karma_

ColHol wrote: »

Im not a history buff at all but would like to think I have a basic knowledge, but China were the second highest casualties?? Im ashamed to say I didnt even know they were involved!

They fought the Japanese for a lengthy time.

It's really no surprise a lot of people have this notion of the US waltzing into Europe and kicking ass, it's been rammed down our throats for 60 odd years by Hollywood and TV. How many films have been from an American perspective? Even Saving Private Ryan completely blanked out the British involvement, like it never even existed.

If anyone had a genuine interest in the subject they would be better off switching off the telly and walking to the nearest library, or even better, everything you need to know is available online.

anymore

CommuterIE wrote: »

That is an absolutely stupid comparison and you know it!! DLOFNEP

That graph in no way represents military losses, of course more ****ing died in Russia due to Nazi occupation, are you treating people like idiots here with your stupid graph?? Is that it?

When you can post a thread that is at least readable and understandable at the first attempt, then maybe you can criticise other poster's posts !

Latchy

CommuterIE wrote: »

They could've defeated the Russians in Germany and Russia if they wanted, but they were allies

They were allies in the sense of wanting to defeat Nazi germany however if General Patton had got his way he would have kept going over the Rhine into eastern Europe and drawn the cold war lines there and not later in Germany . Holding the Russian back would have being an entirley different matter ,most of the battle hardend front line troops /vets were battle weary .

dlofnep

RE: China - Their civilian to military casualty ratio is absolutely horrid. The Japanese treated them with utter contempt.

This graphic will give a better outline on civilian versus military deaths by country. (Those numbers are in millions btw)

amacachi

Chinese victims were mainly civilians. Reading about some of the stuff in South East Asia before and during WW2 is unsettling.

CommuterIE

dlofnep wrote: »

The only credit you're going to get from me in this thread is for spelling my name right. On everything else, you get an F.

It is a perfectly valid comparison. The Soviet Union gave the greatest effort to ending Nazi Germany, in both man-power, and industrial-power during World War 2. But yet, I don't see one thread from you praising them? Curious.



Er, yes it does. It's a graph of military losses in WW2.



I'm not sure if this question is rhetorical?

I'd say you are one to say the atomic bomb drops on Japan were wrong, am I right in that analysis?

BlitzKrieg

ColHol wrote: »

Im not a history buff at all but would like to think I have a basic knowledge, but China were the second highest casualties?? Im ashamed to say I didnt even know they were involved!

common knowledge of ww2 is somewhat innaccurate as most people draw the date it began as the date their part of the conflict began

so for europeans its september 1939

for the USA it was december 1941


but for China, world war 2 started in 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_World_War_II)

so there's two whole years of fighting that is airbrushed out of world war 2.

CommuterIE

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

common knowledge of ww2 is somewhat innaccurate as most people draw the date it began as the date their part of the conflict began

so for europeans its september 1939

for the USA it was december 1941


but for China, world war 2 started in 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_World_War_II)

so there's two whole years of fighting that is airbrushed out of world war 2.

Hardly airbrushed since the two years prior to WW2 on an "internal Chinese problem" hardly mattered

dlofnep

CommuterIE wrote: »

I'd say you are one to say the atomic bomb drops on Japan were wrong, am I right in that analysis?

You're not very good at this posting business, are you? This is your thread - try stick to the topic that you created. My views on hiroshima and nagasaki are not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

karma_

Latchy wrote: »

They were allies in the snse of wanting to defeat Nazi germany however if General Patton had got his way he would have kept going over the Rhine into eastern Europe and drawn the cold war lines there and not later in Germany . Holding the Russian back would have being an entirley different matter .

He was an interesting character to say the least. Believed he was the reincarnation of Alexander the Great, treated his men with utter contempt and proposed rearming the Germans immediately after the Allies got to Berlin in order to launch a full scale offensive against the Soviet Union.

Latchy

amacachi wrote: »

Chinese victims were mainly civilians. Reading about some of the stuff in South East Asia before and during WW2 is unsettling.

The Nanking Massacre alone would make one despair of humankind and the depths of depravity it can sink to although there are still conflicting arguments to this day as to how many civillians were massacred by the Japanese .

matthew8

The Soviet Union deserve massive credit for defeating the nazis that they don't get. I however think that the US don't get enough credit for their supplying of Russia and for their defeat of Japan and the North African campaign. It is an utter sham that Britain gets credit for winning the war. One thing I really hate is giving the French any credit at all though. What did they do that merited a large chunk of Germany. The Soviets were the best force in Europe and were able to launch massive attacks on massive fronts which even the best trained armies in Europe could not repel. The best thing about the Americans in world war 2 however was that they did not engage in shocking imperialism in Eastern Europe, unlike Britain and the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union stood alone against the Nazis they would have won, likewise with the Americans against the Japanese.

Basically the Americans defeated Japan almost single-handedly and helped out the Russians in Europe, while for the Russians it was vice-versa. Britain played a minor role in everything but fair play to them for holding the line.

KeithAFC

I thank all volunteers of the allies in ww2. Every one did their bit.

Latchy

karma_ wrote: »

He was an interesting character to say the least. Believed he was the reincarnation of Alexander the Great, treated his men with utter contempt and proposed rearming the Germans immediately after the Allies got to Berlin in order to launch a full scale offensive against the Soviet Union.

Yeah , he detested communism and that way of life more than anything but he was to Gung Ho for the high command at the time and the map of europe would look much different if he had being allowed his way but there's the logistics of what do you do with this vast mass of land and millions of people after you've taken it ? That's a helluva lot of policing to do .

I suppose if your going to be led into a full scale battle as such then best be led by a somebody who believes in what he's trying to achive ( or a nutcase) rather than somebody who's to cautious as many other American and British generals were .

KeithAFC

matthew8 wrote: »

The Soviet Union deserve massive credit for defeating the nazis that they don't get. I however think that the US don't get enough credit for their supplying of Russia and for their defeat of Japan and the North African campaign. It is an utter sham that Britain gets credit for winning the war. One thing I really hate is giving the French any credit at all though. What did they do that merited a large chunk of Germany. The Soviets were the best force in Europe and were able to launch massive attacks on massive fronts which even the best trained armies in Europe could not repel. The best thing about the Americans in world war 2 however was that they did not engage in shocking imperialism in Eastern Europe, unlike Britain and the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union stood alone against the Nazis they would have won, likewise with the Americans against the Japanese.

Basically the Americans defeated Japan almost single-handedly and helped out the Russians in Europe, while for the Russians it was vice-versa. Britain played a minor role in everything but fair play to them for holding the line.

Britain did a huge amount of work in the war. From bombing raids and the battle of Britain to D-Day. The SAS behind enemy lines taking out airfields was very important.

What about Norway and it's special unit which helped stop Hitler getting the nuclear bomb. A little bit of education needed here.

Jonny7

CommuterIE wrote: »

They saved Ireland in that conflict, and by all rights we should owe some of the trillions in cost for that war by the USA, I find it very dis ingenuousness that we have the nerve now to scrutinize their very action, when we had little to do with that massive conflict on our doorstep.

And gob****es will post here that the Brits could've won the war outright without USA help, so stupidity reigns

As many as 100,000 Irish servicemen and women (south) fought on the allied side against Hitler.

Including the North and those living in the UK the figure is much higher.

You also only have to look at the last names of many US soldiers buried in France so see how many were of Irish descent.

matthew8

KeithAFC wrote: »

Britain did a huge amount of work in the war. From bombing raids and the battle of Britain to D-Day. The SAS behind enemy lines taking out airfields was very important.

What about Norway and it's special unit which helped stop Hitler getting the nuclear bomb. A little bit of education needed here.

The Norwegian resistance don't get enough credit. They sunk a boat carrying some sort of special concentrated water to a German Nuclear lab in a Norwegian lake IIRC or something like that. I edited my post giving Britain some more credit for holding the line, but w/o Russia or America it was game, set and match even if they didn't have to fight Japan.

I don't think we in Ireland get enough credit for WW2. We helped supply Britain and also played a role in D-Day. The Nazis took our weather forecasts as well as the allies and we hadn't lied to them before so we trusted them. We gave them false weather reports for the 6th and gave Britain/America the all clear, which contributed to the absence of Nazi high-command in the region.

KeithAFC

matthew8 wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

Britain did a huge amount of work in the war. From bombing raids and the battle of Britain to D-Day. The SAS behind enemy lines taking out airfields was very important.

What about Norway and it's special unit which helped stop Hitler getting the nuclear bomb. A little bit of education needed here.

The Norwegian resistance don't get enough credit. They sunk a boat carrying some sort of special concentrated water to a German Nuclear lab in a Norwegian lake IIRC or something like that. I edited my post giving Britain some more credit for holding the line, but w/o Russia or America it was game, set and match even if they didn't have to fight Japan.

I don't think we in Ireland get enough credit for WW2. We helped supply Britain and also played a role in D-Day. The Nazis took our weather forecasts as well as the allies and we hadn't lied to them before so we trusted them. We gave them false weather reports for the 6th and gave Britain/America the all clear, which contributed to the absence of Nazi high-command in the region.

The British Empire was coming to an end by the time ww2 started. We lagged behind the USA in many departments and of course it helped boost the US economy after the war. Britain struggled for a good while after the war. Plus you must remember that the Nazis were closer to the UK to effect it. Unlike America. They did a lot of damage early on.

Jonny7

matthew8 wrote: »

The Soviets were the best force in Europe

Perhaps, during the later stages of the conflict but lets not forget that the Soviets just took warfare to an extreme, the likes of which the Germans had rarely witnessed elsewhere; ramming with T34 tanks, dogs with explosives on them, human wave attacks, Soviet commanders calling down artillery strikes on their own positions that were being overrun, machine-gunning their own troops who tried to retreat, etc

The bravest? probably, the best? not for the most part. Many just received a few days training, the friendly-fire and training accidents read like a horror story.

They also raped, murdered and massacred their way to Berlin, often encouraged by their own officers, even to the people of countries they were 'liberating'.

Unlimited manpower and severe weather played a major part.

indioblack

CommuterIE wrote: »

They saved Ireland in that conflict, and by all rights we should owe some of the trillions in cost for that war by the USA, I find it very dis ingenuousness that we have the nerve now to scrutinize their very action, when we had little to do with that massive conflict on our doorstep.

And gob****es will post here that the Brits could've won the war outright without USA help, so stupidity reigns

I would be interested to know how the US saved Ireland.
And who would suggest that Britain could have won the war on it's own?
It was at least prepared to fight the war on it's own.

matthew8

Jonny7 wrote: »

Perhaps, during the later stages of the conflict but lets not forget that the Soviets just took warfare to an extreme, the likes of which the Germans had rarely witnessed elsewhere; ramming with T34 tanks, dogs with explosives on them, human wave attacks, Soviet commanders calling down artillery strikes on their own positions that were being overrun, machine-gunning their own troops who tried to retreat, etc

The bravest? probably, the best? not for the most part. Many just received a few days training, the friendly-fire and training accidents read like a horror story.

They also raped, murdered and massacred their way to Berlin, often encouraged by their own officers, even to the people of countries they were 'liberating'.

Unlimited manpower and severe weather also played a major part.

I'm not questioning their brutality, ruthlessness or poor training (Funnily enough Call of Duty 2 gets this across well, training with soviets consists of shooting a few helmets and tossing potatoes in bathtubs for grenade throwing practise, while if you walk backwards in some levels you are shot, your officer can even shoot you in training) of Russian soldiers, but the t34 was the ideal balance between the Panthers armour and firepower and the Shermans speed and ease of production, often the t34 could be repaired using parts from a standard Russian vehicle while each German tank was unique and hard to repair. This was key at Kursk. The Russian war machine was churning out t34s, sturmoviks and rocket launchers at incredible rates, this coupled with their huge oil production made them the greatest force in Europe, capable of launching huge attacks across a front stretching 1000 miles. They of course had the natural advantage of being large, cold in the winter, muddy in the spring, and very dusty in the Summer, as well as the fact that every metre Germany advanced they faced a wider and wider front while losing men all the time.

indioblack

matthew8 wrote: »

The Soviet Union deserve massive credit for defeating the nazis that they don't get. I however think that the US don't get enough credit for their supplying of Russia and for their defeat of Japan and the North African campaign. It is an utter sham that Britain gets credit for winning the war. One thing I really hate is giving the French any credit at all though. What did they do that merited a large chunk of Germany. The Soviets were the best force in Europe and were able to launch massive attacks on massive fronts which even the best trained armies in Europe could not repel. The best thing about the Americans in world war 2 however was that they did not engage in shocking imperialism in Eastern Europe, unlike Britain and the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union stood alone against the Nazis they would have won, likewise with the Americans against the Japanese.

Basically the Americans defeated Japan almost single-handedly and helped out the Russians in Europe, while for the Russians it was vice-versa. Britain played a minor role in everything but fair play to them for holding the line.

The credit given to Britain was for being part of an alliance against the axis powers. Their role was not a sham.
A greater proportion of their population was involved, directly and indirectly, in the war than any other combatant nation involved.
Whilst The US army was rapidly increasing it's numbers towards the wars end, Britain was simply running out of manpower.
The war could not have been won without America and the USSR - but that is a poor excuse to denigrate Britain or France - they at least stood up to the mark.

matthew8

indioblack wrote: »

The credit given to Britain was for being part of an alliance against the axis powers. Their role was not a sham.
A greater proportion of their population was involved, directly and indirectly, in the war than any other combatant nation involved.
Whilst The US army was rapidly increasing it's numbers towards the wars end, Britain was simply running out of manpower.
The war could not have been won without America and the USSR - but that is a poor excuse to denigrate Britain or France - they at least stood up to the mark.

How did France stand up to the mark? Apart from some good defensive efforts agains the shoddy ramshackle Italians in the south it was a poor effort. I despise DeGaulle. After the Canadians had sacrificed themselves on Juno beach he had the audacity to call for Quebec independence and insult America after they liberated the entire south of France and were the most important army in the north.

Apart from a few hundred paratroopers at Cannes and a few hundred soldiers on D-Day they did little to win the war.

nesf

This is a historical issue not one relevant to this forum.

Locked.