Americans and world war 2

Buzz lightdecade · 06-09-2014 3:40pm #1

I get the impression a lot of Americans think they won world war 2, in the sense that they were the most important ally in defeating Germany. If any one country beat Germany it wold be Russia, they were by far the most important ally in defeating Germany.

TwoShedsJackson · 06-09-2014 3:42pm

What about Brazil? They declared war on Germany in 1942.

Buona Fortuna · 06-09-2014 3:44pm

Buzz lightdecade wrote: »

I get the impression a lot of Americans think they won world war 2, in the sense that they were the most important ally in defeating Germany. If any one country beat Germany it wold be Russia, they were by far the most important ally in defeating Germany.

Maybe, but would the USSR have survived without all the American equipment and supplies?

Without a second front would the war have ended as quickly, and if it dragged on would Germany have had time to develop the Atom Bomb?

Hercule Poirot · 06-09-2014 3:44pm

The Americans like to think that if they hadn't turned up then we would all be speaking German right now - they were an important factor in "winning" WWII but not the only factor.

Hitler's desicion to fight the war on two fronts is what ultimately resulted in their defeat.

One might say the most important ally was Poland as they sacrificed the most (highest % of population killed during WWII) - I think the British had the most impact with the Enigma machine.

Buzz lightdecade · 06-09-2014 3:46pm

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Maybe, but would the USSR have survived without all the American equipment and supplies?

Without a second front would the war have ended as quickly, and if it dragged on would Germany have had time to develop the Atom Bomb?

Obviously it would have taken longer to defeat Germany without American assistance, but when I hear Americans say "we won world war 2", I cringe.

Buzz lightdecade · 06-09-2014 3:49pm

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

The Americans like to think that if they hadn't turned up then we would all be speaking German right now - they were an important factor in "winning" WWII but not the only factor.

Hitler's desicion to fight the war on two fronts is what ultimately resulted in their defeat.

His decision to override his generals and economists decisions lost them the war in my opinion. I might be in the minority with this opinion, but I think Germany could have defeated Russia without Hitler's interference and better preparation for dealing with the freezing conditions in the east.

longhalloween · 06-09-2014 3:50pm

Ah let them have their moment. It's the last war they actually won...

Egginacup · 06-09-2014 3:53pm

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Maybe, but would the USSR have survived without all the American equipment and supplies?

Without a second front would the war have ended as quickly, and if it dragged on would Germany have had time to develop the Atom Bomb?

Let's not forget Prescott Bush, George W's grandpa who made millions selling fuel and armaments to the Nazis who then used it killing his own countrymen.

LiveIsLife · 06-09-2014 3:53pm

Buzz lightdecade wrote: »

His decision to override his generals and economists decisions lost them the war in my opinion. I might be in the minority with this opinion, but I think Germany could have defeated Russia without Hitler's interference and better preparation for dealing with the freezing conditions in the east.

I dunno, who's to say really? Would they have been so gung ho and shocked first France and then Russia if they listened to the generals? He made stupid decisions later in the war but would Germany have been in a position to make such decisions if not for him?

ScumLord · 06-09-2014 3:55pm

There's only one man responsible for ending WW2, Adolf Hitler. If the Germans had a slightly less loopy guy in charge that knew when to stay out of military affairs we'd probably be living in a very different Europe today.

Anyone loopy enough to start a world war is probably too loopy to win it.

06-09-2014 3:56pm

"Oh, an English boy huh? You know, we saved your ass in World War II. "
"Yeah, well, we saved *your* arse in World War III."
http://www.11points.com/images/lisaswedding/worldwar3.jpg

Egginacup · 06-09-2014 4:02pm

Buzz lightdecade wrote: »

His decision to override his generals and economists decisions lost them the war in my opinion. I might be in the minority with this opinion, but I think Germany could have defeated Russia without Hitler's interference and better preparation for dealing with the freezing conditions in the east.

During the siege of Leningrad Russian doctors developed a method of extracting vitamin c from pine needles to sustain the starving population. The Russians also insisted and succeeded in maintaining musical radio broadcast to help ease peoples' misery even as the panzers and stukas were slaughtering man, woman and child.

You can't defeat this kind of spirit. And why would you want to.

ScumLord · 06-09-2014 4:03pm

The Americans benefited hugely from WW2 as well. The were selling weapons and ammo to Europe at a massive scale, they spent most the war profiteering off the deaths of millions.

LiveIsLife · 06-09-2014 4:08pm

ScumLord wrote: »

The Americans benefited hugely from WW2 as well. The were selling weapons and ammo to Europe at a massive scale, they spent most the war profiteering off the deaths of millions.

To be honest, what do you want them to do? Make themselves poor for the sake of it?

Sunnyisland · 06-09-2014 4:08pm

Another thinly veiled who do the Americans think they are thread :-)

ancapailldorcha · 06-09-2014 4:10pm

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Maybe, but would the USSR have survived without all the American equipment and supplies?

Without a second front would the war have ended as quickly, and if it dragged on would Germany have had time to develop the Atom Bomb?

It's been argued with a fair degree of merit that if Hitler hadn't been so obsessed with taking Stalingrad, then Russia would have fallen.

Wibbs · 06-09-2014 4:13pm

Egginacup wrote: »

During the siege of Leningrad Russian doctors developed a method of extracting vitamin c from pine needles to sustain the starving population. The Russians also insisted and succeeded in maintaining musical radio broadcast to help ease peoples' misery even as the panzers and stukas were slaughtering man, woman and child.

You can't defeat this kind of spirit. And why would you want to.

Actually the Germans could have. Their biggest mistake was their racism and not just on moral grounds. When they invaded Russia there were millions of Russians who hated the ruling class in the Kremlin and for good reason. Stalin was a complete bastard and killed more of his own people than Hitler ever did. If the Nazi's had welcomed them into the Reich as allies and citizens of the new Germania they could well have defeated Stalin and his cronies(that's how Rome tended to operate. Much smarter). Even without that help the Germans were at one point in sight of Moscow and Stalin was about to run away on a train.

Before that, he should have ignored Britain. Her armies were zero threat as was demonstrated when the German army routed both the British and French forces(who had more men and tanks) in the battle of France. In on the ground fighting the German army was pretty much unbeatable in its day. The Battle of Britain was a waste of time, men and materiel for Germany. They could never have won it. Better to isolate the UK, build more U Boats and starve them to the negotiation table. Or just ignore them.

Santa Cruz · 06-09-2014 4:14pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually the Germans could have. Their biggest mistake was their racism and not just on moral grounds. When they invaded Russia there were millions of Russians who hated the ruling class in the Kremlin and for good reason. Stalin was a complete bastard and killed more of his own people than Hitler ever did. If the Nazi's had welcomed them into the Reich as allies and citizens of the new Germania they could well have defeated Stalin and his cronies(that's how Rome tended to operate. Much smarter). Even without that help the Germans were at one point in sight of Moscow and Stalin was about to run away on a train.

Before that, he should have ignored Britain. Her armies were zero threat as was demonstrated when the German army routed both the British and French forces(who had more men and tanks) in the battle of France. In on the ground fighting the German army was pretty much unbeatable in its day. The Battle of Britain was a waste of time, men and materiel for Germany. They could never have won it. Better to isolate the UK, build more U Boats and starve them to the negotiation table. Or just ignore them.

But then they would have to face the might of the Irish Air Corp

Sunnyisland · 06-09-2014 4:21pm

Ya **** it, the Americans shouldn't have gotten involved in the war, should have left the Europeans to fight it out themselves,I am sure we be all grand now.I am delighted the Americans got involved and helped us yes us to get rid of the nazis, I am glad once again that there there to try and stop Putin approach in getting back into Europe proper,Let's face it without American support Europe military would be another walkover for whoever.
__________________
Attitudes are contagious ,Are yours worth catching ?

Dam, forgot to go to the gym today.........that's eight years in a row now.

sabat · 06-09-2014 4:24pm

The real delusion lies with the British who, despite nominally being on the winning side, lost more than any other country in that war and yet even 60 years later they won't shut up about it.

wnolan1992 · 06-09-2014 4:25pm

Britain could probably have been defeated if the retreating troops from Dunkirk were slaughtered instead of been given time to reinforce and evacuate.

Americans act that way because the Allies won. The British act the same way, with talk of how they endured the Blitz and Battle of Britain, etc. The French will tell tales of the Resistance. Russians will tell tales of Stalingrad and the eventual push to Berlin. Everyone wants to portray themselves as being more important to the overall outcome than they actually are, it's just human nature.

Micky Dolenz · 06-09-2014 4:44pm

Dunkirk was an epic fcuk up by the German hierarchy. Not saying it would have won the war but it would have hurt the allies big time, strategically and morally.

The States hand was forced when it came to join the war. Japan and later Germany, declared war on the US first.

csallmighty · 06-09-2014 4:49pm

They beat Japan too with very little help compared to the war in Europe

Buona Fortuna · 06-09-2014 4:54pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's been argued with a fair degree of merit that if Hitler hadn't been so obsessed with taking Stalingrad, then Russia would have fallen.

Maybe, maybe maybe. By then USSR had moved their means of production East out of the Germans way. They were also able to utilise their eastern divisions (good seasoned troops) after deciding that Japan was no longer a threat.

Wibbs wrote: »

Before that, he should have ignored Britain. Her armies were zero threat as was demonstrated when the German army routed both the British and French forces(who had more men and tanks) in the battle of France. In on the ground fighting the German army was pretty much unbeatable in its day. The Battle of Britain was a waste of time, men and materiel for Germany. They could never have won it. Better to isolate the UK, build more U Boats and starve them to the negotiation table. Or just ignore them.

Yes. Without the Battle of Britain it would have been very difficult for Churchill to keep Britain in the war at all. Who's to say that with increasing hardships and no sign of any actual war progress Halifax and the rest of the doves could gain the upper hand?

tritium · 06-09-2014 4:57pm

Who knows, with so many mistakes in retrospect it almost looks like Germany was trying to lose at times.

As for Japan, much less of a long term threat in so many ways. Though to best but without the scope that the Nazis had

Billy86 · 06-09-2014 5:03pm

It was a joint effort obviously, but the Soviets could have won the war without the rest of the Allies more readily than the rest of the Allies could have won it without them. Before the D Day landings they had pushed Germany right back out of Russia and were quite rapidly forcing them back into their own territory. By the end of the year they likely would have been knocking on the door of the German borders on their own.

Buona Fortuna · 06-09-2014 5:05pm

tritium wrote: »

Who knows, with so many mistakes in retrospect it almost looks like Germany was trying to lose at times.

As for Japan, much less of a long term threat in so many ways. Though to best but without the scope that the Nazis had

Sometimes a war is about who makes the least amount of serious mistakes. Look at Britain and the Prince of Wales and Repulse or Singapore itself, the Norway fiasco. Everyone made plenty of mistakes.

dr.bollocko · 06-09-2014 5:05pm

Japan had a million troops committed to a ground war in China too. Madness. The amount of naval ****ups that gave America control of the seas.

Churchill said his biggest fear was not aerial bombardment but the u-boat threat to his sea based supply line. Yet Hitler under-invested in his naval forces and did very small amounts of damage to the merchant navy.

bodice ripper · 06-09-2014 5:19pm

at least the americans aren't telling themselves they were neutral...

Iwasfrozen · 06-09-2014 5:20pm

Buzz lightdecade wrote: »

I get the impression a lot of Americans think they won world war 2, in the sense that they were the most important ally in defeating Germany. If any one country beat Germany it wold be Russia, they were by far the most important ally in defeating Germany.

Russia would not have won the war without American help though.

RZoran · 06-09-2014 5:31pm

Patriotism shocker! The Russians like to forget the parts about cooperating with the Germans while carving up Eastern European countries like Poland before the Germans back stabbed them. The neutrality pact they signed with the Japanese while the Japanese were attacking and occupying their neighbors. The tons of equipment and material that the US and British provided that helped them actually fight the war. The Brits like to forget about Munich Agreement. The French about how much collusion went on with the Germans once they were occupied. Chinese like to forget that the Americans didn't f*ck them over when they wouldn't agree to the Japanese expansion into their neighbors territory which basically brought about Pearl Harbor. So the idea that only the Americans wear rose-tinted glasses when it comes to WWII or anything is a load of nonsense. Then it is kind of obvious why views are even more skewed given the history between the countries after the war.

Buzz lightdecade · 06-09-2014 5:46pm

RZoran wrote: »

Patriotism shocker! The Russians like to forget the parts about cooperating with the Germans while carving up Eastern European countries like Poland before the Germans back stabbed them. The neutrality pact they signed with the Japanese while the Japanese were attacking and occupying their neighbors. The tons of equipment and material that the US and British provided that helped them actually fight the war. The Brits like to forget about Munich Agreement. The French about how much collusion went on with the Germans once they were occupied. Chinese like to forget that the Americans didn't f*ck them over when they wouldn't agree to the Japanese expansion into their neighbors territory which basically brought about Pearl Harbor. So the idea that only the Americans wear rose-tinted glasses when it comes to WWII or anything is a load of nonsense. Then it is kind of obvious why views are even more skewed given the history between the countries after the war.

Can you clarify who thinks only the Americans wear rose tinted glasses?

tritium · 06-09-2014 5:46pm

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Sometimes a war is about who makes the least amount of serious mistakes. Look at Britain and the Prince of Wales and Repulse or Singapore itself, the Norway fiasco. Everyone made plenty of mistakes.

Oh I don't disagree, and most wars have their share of fiascos that get polished up as heroism afterwards, but the Nazis have a pretty solid back catalogue of screw ups, hell even the final solution was one- a nation that loved the super weapon drove away many of the minds that might have given them the ultimate super weapon

archer22 · 06-09-2014 5:47pm

I dont think its accurate to say Germany started World War two.The German attack on Poland was a regional war.It was Britain and France declaring war on Germany that made it into a world war as it expanded the conflict to western Europe and dragged their world wide empires into it.
As for could Germany have defeated Russia?..almost certainly if Barbarossa had not been delayed.Mussolini's stupid pointless attack on Greece messed everything up.When the Greeks started beating the Italian's Hitler postponed Barbarossa and went to the aid of Italy.If Barbarosa had started on time the Germans would more than likely have achieved their objectives in Russia before the brutal winter set in.As it was they were only 20 miles short of Moscow.
Hitler's war losing mistakes were accepting Italy as an ally and showing loyalty to it when it got into trouble.In contrast to the Italians who later on were happy to abandon and even declare war on Germany when they saw it would be to their advantage.

wnolan1992 · 06-09-2014 6:03pm

I reckon we should just blame the entire thing on Britain.

If they hadn't declared war in 1914, Germany would have stayed neutral and WW1 would have been a localised conflict between Austria and the Serbs. Then you wouldn't have had the ridiculous Treaty of Versailles which led to the rise of Hitler and then to WWII and then the Cold War and all the associated proxy wars.

F*ck sake Britain!

:P

RZoran · 06-09-2014 6:03pm

Buzz lightdecade wrote: »

Can you clarify who thinks only the Americans wear rose tinted glasses?

Go look in a mirror

Buzz lightdecade wrote: »

I get the impression a lot of Americans think they won world war 2, in the sense that they were the most important ally in defeating Germany. If any one country beat Germany it wold be Russia, they were by far the most important ally in defeating Germany.

UCDVet · 06-09-2014 6:45pm

I don't think most Americans really have an informed opinion on anything about WW2. That's not meant to be an insult, I just don't think the average American knows much about the topic. What they do know, they know from movies....and that's pretty much a pile of b.s.

Still, if you look at it from a political/economic perspective, it's hard to argue that they didn't 'come out on top'. They emerged as a world power and went on to become the dominate military superpower. I think they spend something like 8x as much money on their military than the next country? I don't remember, but it is staggering.

Buzz lightdecade · 06-09-2014 6:48pm

RZoran wrote: »

Go look in a mirror

My post implies I beleve many Americans wear rose tinted glasses. When did I say no other nationalities wear rose tinted glasses?

creolebelle · 06-09-2014 6:54pm

Well we helped. WW II was kind of our last "noble" war. The way my grand parents talked about it made it sound thrilling and romantic.

wendell borton · 06-09-2014 6:55pm

Santa Cruz wrote: »

But then they would have to face the might of the Irish Air Corp

The corp did have a few hurricanes and even a spitfire to be fair back then, what have we got today three bisjets.

wnolan1992 · 06-09-2014 6:57pm

creolebelle wrote: »

Well we helped. WW II was kind of our last "noble" war. The way my grand parents talked about it made it sound thrilling and romantic.

Yeah, slaughtering a generation of young men for the sins of their government. How romantic! Makes you feel all gooey inside doesn't it?

duckcfc · 06-09-2014 6:58pm

Who gives a flying **** about who won. Its who created the warbin the first place is what we should be worrying about because their behind every war that rages through this planet today and have caused nearly all the wars going back to the 1700s. The Rothschild family! Everyone from Stalin, hiltler and to the present day bush and Obama are just all puppets for this family. Its time this banking family where took down and the banking system that holds us all in debt be finished with. Will it ever happen, not in a million years because its gone to far to be changed

Sunnyisland · 06-09-2014 7:01pm

duckcfc wrote: »

Who gives a flying **** about who won. Its who created the warbin the first place is what we should be worrying about because their behind every war that rages through this planet today and have caused nearly all the wars going back to the 1700s. The Rothschild family! Everyone from Stalin, hiltler and to the present day bush and Obama are just all puppets for this family. Its time this banking family where took down and the banking system that holds us all in debt be finished with. Will it ever happen, not in a million years because its gone to far to be changed

I knew it was the bankers and we have an elite squadron of them right here...

Buona Fortuna · 06-09-2014 7:04pm

creolebelle wrote: »

Well we helped. WW II was kind of our last "noble" war. The way my grand parents talked about it made it sound thrilling and romantic.

Hummm I think the only "noble" war was the American Civil War - absolute carnage.

dukeraoul · 06-09-2014 7:06pm

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't think most Americans really have an informed opinion on anything about WW2. That's not meant to be an insult, I just don't think the average American knows much about the topic. What they do know, they know from movies....and that's pretty much a pile of b.s.

Still, if you look at it from a political/economic perspective, it's hard to argue that they didn't 'come out on top'. They emerged as a world power and went on to become the dominate military superpower. I think they spend something like 8x as much money on their military than the next country? I don't remember, but it is staggering.

Ha...fairly funny comment considering many of us have grandfathers/ uncles who actually fought in the war. Thats a lot more than most Irish can say!

Iwasfrozen · 06-09-2014 7:09pm

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't think most Americans really have an informed opinion on anything about WW2. That's not meant to be an insult, I just don't think the average American knows much about the topic. What they do know, they know from movies....and that's pretty much a pile of b.s.

Still, if you look at it from a political/economic perspective, it's hard to argue that they didn't 'come out on top'. They emerged as a world power and went on to become the dominate military superpower. I think they spend something like 8x as much money on their military than the next country? I don't remember, but it is staggering.

Yeah but it's really not that much as a % of their gdp.

RZoran · 06-09-2014 7:09pm

Buzz lightdecade wrote: »

My post implies I beleve many Americans wear rose tinted glasses. When did I say no other nationalities wear rose tinted glasses?

You really trying to play semantics? You win! I am sure this is not just some American bashing attempt.

UCDVet · 06-09-2014 7:20pm

dukeraoul wrote: »

Ha...fairly funny comment considering many of us have grandfathers/ uncles who actually fought in the war. Thats a lot more than most Irish can say!

I don't mean any disrespect but...I'd argue people who were in the war would be less likely to have an objective opinion. Nobody wants to say, 'Yeah, I was shot, lots of my friends died - but when you look at it from a larger perspective, we played a small role'

Or worse, 'Our being there didn't help much at all'

I'm not saying that's true, but I'm saying nobody wants to think that. Everyone wants to think they are fighting for a noble cause, that they are making the world a better place, that what they are doing, must be done, and that it matters.

Also, let's not forget, there was an overwhelming large amount of propaganda going around, on all sides of the war. I wouldn't expect an enlisted man to be privy to any more vital information than anyone else, but I would expect them to be exposed to a lot more pro-their-country/pro-their-army propaganda than regular citizens.

After WW2 you had the cold war. Not exactly a time for free and open exchanges of information and ideas. So, of course, it was all very 'Ra Ra Go America!'.

That covers old people who were alive around the time (the number of living WW2 vets is quite small these days). Aside from them and children of the time, you've got kids who learned about WW2 entirely from books in US public schools. That's what most American's understanding of WWII is all about.

According to this, and lots of other sources
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368482/How-ignorant-Americans-An-alarming-number-U-S-citizens-dont-know-basic-facts-country.html

Americans aren't very keen on history at all.

Again, not trying to be disrespectful, just sharing my experience

Irish Guitarist · 06-09-2014 7:22pm

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that it was won almost single-handedly by Winston Churchill who was born in America. There was a great film made about it which was amazingly accurate. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0359078/

creolebelle · 06-09-2014 7:24pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Yeah, slaughtering a generation of young men for the sins of their government. How romantic! Makes you feel all gooey inside doesn't it?

That's not what I meant. That's the way my grand parents described it. The war had a profound effect on their lives. Both my grand fathers were very proud to serve their country. You can't deny that society doesn't add a romantic element to war, well here in the states we do. Look at films like pear harbor, from here to eternity, atonement, etc.

creolebelle · 06-09-2014 7:28pm

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Hummm I think the only "noble" war was the American Civil War - absolute carnage.

Yes. It was a necessary one though sometimes it seems like it never ended

Americans and world war 2

Comments