Americans and world war 2

Buzz lightdecade · 06-09-2014 04:40PM #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 04:42PM

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

Buona Fortuna · 06-09-2014 04:44PM

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 04:44PM

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 04:46PM

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 04:49PM

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 04:50PM

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

Egginacup · 06-09-2014 04:53PM

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 04:53PM

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 04:55PM

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 04:56PM

"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 05:02PM

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 05:03PM

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 05:08PM

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 05:08PM

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

ancapailldorcha · 06-09-2014 05:10PM

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 05:13PM

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 05:14PM

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 05:21PM

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 05:24PM

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 05:25PM

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 05:44PM

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 05:49PM

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

Buona Fortuna · 06-09-2014 05:54PM

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 05:57PM

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 06:03PM

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 06:05PM

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 06:05PM

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 06:19PM

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

Iwasfrozen · 06-09-2014 06:20PM

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 06:31PM

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.

Americans and world war 2

Comments