Americans and world war 2

wnolan1992

creolebelle wrote: »

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 give 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.

Oh I wasn't trying to have a pop at you personally, I get that on an individual level there's a desire to feel like you were fighting for what's right and all the associated feelings with that. And there's no doubt that Hitler was an evil f*ck that needed to be stopped.

But from an objective point of view, around 60+ million people died in WWII. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say probably 95% of those were just guys fighting for their country. The vilification of Axis soldiers in popular culture to this day is rather sickening to me when, realistically, they were just being told "Defend your position. Attack this town. Desert and you'll be shot.", so I find it hard to look on WWII with any sense of "Aw, the greatest generation!" sentiment.

Governments make all the decisions. Ordinary men and women just trying to feed their family or defend their country pay the price for those decisions.

retalivity

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

Well done, We are now post-godwin.

UCDVet

retalivity wrote: »

Well done, We are now post-godwin.

Does godwin apply in a WW2 thread?

Buzz lightdecade

RZoran wrote: »

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

That's not semantics at all. It's pointing out your claim of what I said is simply false. I actually do believe other nationalities have "rose tinted glasses" in certain areas. So try to read people's posts properly and not add your own imaginary elements.

dr.bollocko

RZoran wrote: »

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

They don't let us post pictures. Semantics are all we get to play with.

Micky Dolenz

If Japan hadn't attacked, it would have been interesting to see how long if ever the US would have jumped in. The supply lines to Europe and Russia were regularly attacked by German U boats.

It was only ever going to be a matter of time before they were directly involved.

frostyjacks

America only played a support role in WWII. Germany v Russia was the main act. Same for Britain, by the time of D Day the Wermacht was on it's last legs.

Iwasfrozen

frostyjacks wrote: »

America only played a support role in WWII. Germany v Russia was the main act. Same for Britain, by the time of D Day the Wermacht was on it's last legs.

This is true but if it hadn't been for the lend-lease programme the Soviets would have fallen long before D-day.

Frank Lee Midere

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If Japan hadn't attacked, it would have been interesting to see how long if ever the US would have jumped in. The supply lines to Europe and Russia were regularly attacked by German U boats.

It was only ever going to be a matter of time before they were directly involved.

But. They didn't get involved until the japanese attacked. And then Germany declared war.

It boils my piss when American right wing TV or radio shows rant about Neville Chamberlin. How Chamberlin was an appeaser. How Nasser, Hussein etc. are hitlers and we don't want another Chamberlin. Chamberlin went to war 2 years and 3 months before the US. The US not only had to be attacked by Japan it had to wait three days before Germany declared war on it. War was declared on Japan on that "day of infamy". If wiser heads, in Germany had prevailed, the US would never have gone to war. Congress didn't want war. If it did it would have declared war prior to 1941. The senate didn't want war. If it did it would have declared war before 1941.

The Nazis look liked they had won by 1941.

Instead nazi Germany had to declare war against the US.

Skylinehead

wnolan1992 wrote: »

But from an objective point of view, around 60+ million people died in WWII. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say probably 95% of those were just guys fighting for their country.

It's actually worse than that - 66% odd of those 60+ million weren't even fighting, they were civilians.

The vilification of Axis soldiers in popular culture to this day is rather sickening to me when, realistically, they were just being told "Defend your position. Attack this town. Desert and you'll be shot.", so I find it hard to look on WWII with any sense of "Aw, the greatest generation!" sentiment.

Agree with this. Most Wehrmacht soldiers were no different to their British/US counterparts. There were war crimes committed, absolutely, but the majority of those were at the hands of the SS.

Tony EH

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.

Unfortunately for Hitler, he couldn't afford to ignore them.

Hitler would have much preferred if Britain and France had stayed out of it altogether. He didn't give a tinkers cuss about either country. But once they had dragged themselves into the war, he could hardly have proceeded with plan A (Russia) without trying to deal with the west first.

It would have been a disaster, or at least a quicker disaster than what actually occurred.

As for U-Boats, Germany simply didn't have enough resources to build enough U-Boats to deal a knockout blow to Britain. As history stands, the Uboatwaffe didn't even come remotely close to seriously harming Britain in the war, despite the Churchillian propaganda.

Tony EH

wnolan1992 wrote: »

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

The Germans were never, at any time during the war, close to a total defeat of Britain.

Egginacup

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.

Why don't you speak to the mothers and children and uncles and friends of those who were bulldozed and killed in horrific conditions?

Not a single Russian woman would trade her child for some horsesh1t notion of a new democracy that some fool, thousands of miles away, stated that it was for her best interest.

Tony EH

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

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

Yeh, but let's not pretend that they were absolutely dying to get involved in any case.

Tony EH

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.

There's no merit in that argument.

Hitler wasn't obsessed with taking Stalingrad, he was targeting the oilfields of the Caucasus. The problem is that Stalingrad had to be taken and, more importantly held, in order for that to happen.

There's ONE chance (and a slim one) for a German victory in Russia and that's in 1941, with the complete collapse of Russian political system, her industry and her entire army.

Once her factories are moved East, the winter sets in and they have the time to regroup, it's buggered.

The bottom line is that Hitler was simply wrong when he said that all you had to do was "kick the door in and the whole rotten edifice would come crumbling down".

Micky Dolenz

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh, but let's not pretend that they were absolutely dying to get involved in any case.

I don't know. They were making a lot of money from the side lines and it was a war a million miles from home.

Tony EH

dr.bollocko wrote: »

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.

Churchill was one of the biggest bull****ters in British politics, and that's saying something.

His nonsense regarding the U-Boats simply isn't supported by the facts. The U-Boats achieved their monthly target tonnage only twice, before the Americans got involved in the war. Once they were in, all bets were off.

The U-Boat war was practically over in 1941. From then on they were a horrible menace, but in no means a threat to Britain as a whole.

Tony EH

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I don't know. They were making a lot of money from the side lines and it was a war a million miles from home.

Yes, but the prestige, power and world status that a successful end to another world war would provide much more than that.

Especially to a country that would be untouched by it, looking at a Europe that would be utterly destroyed by it.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

Russia had practically defeated the Germans by 1943. After Kursk, there is no way forward for the Germans.

American lend lease really only makes a significant impact in the battles of 1944, by which time Germany is going nowhere but home.

80& of Wehrmacht casualties occurred on the eastern front.

The war in Europe would have been longer without US help, but it's a defeat for Germany nonetheless.

Tony EH

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.

One could argue that the allies made far more mistakes than the Axis did.

However, the economic and numerical strength was with the allies. They could afford their mistakes. The Axis powers couldn't.

Tony EH

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.

There's nothing noble about war. Any war. Regardless of how it's sold.

Tony EH

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

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

Bugger all noble about that war either.

coolhull

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

So it was the Jews who started WW2?

wes

Playing down the Soviet Unions contribution to the ending the 2nd World War, was down to the cold war surely. I guess Putin antics today don't help either. While the US was instrumental in the defeat of the Nazi (and the British), but so was the Soviet Union.

I think regardless of the various wrong doing of the Soviet Union, the fact is that they played a huge part in putting an end to Nazism and paid a heavy toll for it. Millions of Soviets died at the hands of the Nazi's. So credit where credit is due.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is true but if it hadn't been for the lend-lease programme the Soviets would have fallen long before D-day.

Russia won her most important victories, Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, before Lend Lease became a major factor.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

Russia had practically defeated the Germans by 1943. After Kursk, there is no way forward for the Germans.

American lend lease really only makes a significant impact in the battles of 1944, by which time Germany is going nowhere but home.

80& of Wehrmacht casualties occurred on the eastern front.

The war in Europe would have been longer without US help, but it's a defeat for Germany nonetheless.

Here's a quote from Georgy Zhukov that contradicts what you're claiming.

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance." - Zhukov

If any man knew the extent of Russia's military capabilities it was him.

Tony EH wrote: »

Russia won her most important victories, Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, before Lend Lease became a major factor.

The first lend lease delivery was made in 1941 when Russia was very much on the back foot.

Tony EH

Yeh, I'm aware of Zhukov's post war quote, but it means nothing and it always gets rolled out in conversations about Lend Lease.

The fact is that Russia won her major battles against the Germans with her own and largely her own equipment.

Lend Lease makes an impact in the battles of 1944, like Bagration. But before then it's not essential to her victory over the Germans and by 1943 the game is up.

Hotfail.com

Santa Cruz wrote: »

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

Probably one of the funniest posts I've ever seen on here.

Well done, Santa Cruz.

Great thread btw, learned loads. I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable when it comes to WWII but it's great to see people who know what they're on about share their knowledge

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh, I'm aware of Zhukov's post war quote, but it means nothing and it always gets rolled out in conversations about Lend Lease.

The fact is that Russia won her major battles against the Germans with her own and largely her own equipment.

Lend Lease makes an impact in the battles of 1944, like Bagration. But before then it's not essential to her victory over the Germans and by 1943 the game is up.

It's a quote from a senior Russian general who said Russia would have lost the war without American aid, I would say it pretty much ends the argument unless you presume to know more about Russia's WWII military capabilities than a senior general at the time?

The first land lease delivery was made in 1941, while Russia was still on the back foot. You claim it was not needed to turn the war around, Zhukov disagreed and likely had a better idea than you do.

Tony EH

It's a quote from a Russian official, in a post war environment, more concerned with the politics of the day.

The fact remains that Lend Lease DID NOT have a significant effect until the later battles of the war, by which time the Russians had already inflicted enormous defeats upon the Germans.

Lend Lease accounts for just 15% of the entire equipment Russia used during the war and that's an over estimate. The bulk of which comes after 1944.

Lend Lease helps shorten the war, but it does not win it.

Colinf1212

Just google the topic and it's been brought up countless times like Jesus Christ. Didn't even give the topic that's brought up constantly your own twist, just a couple of sentences.

What an anti-intellectual board.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

It's a quote from a Russian official, in a post war environment, more concerned with the politics of the day.

The fact remains that Lend Lease DID NOT have a significant effect until the later battles of the war, by which time the Russians had already inflicted enormous defeats upon the Germans.

Lend Lease accounts for just 15% of the entire equipment Russia used during the war and that's an over estimate. The bulk of which comes after 1944.

Lend Lease helps shorten the war, but it does not win it.

It's post war quote from a senior Russian general who was notoriously unafraid of Stalin but also had his respect for his tendency to speak his mind when others in his position would shut up.

During the cold war the prevailing party line in Russia was that American assistance was not needed to defeat Germany, Zhukov is in this quote dismissing that misconception and affirming that American aid was pivotal to the Russian campaign even saying they could not have continued the war without it.

The first lend lease was made in 1941 when Russia was very much on the back foot. You claim that the lend lease had no affect on the war but Zhukov says different and frankly he would have a better idea than you would.

If you want to claim that a man who was famous for speaking his mind was actually lieing for the sake of politics (even more unlikely considering this was the opposite of the party line) then that's fine but then the burden of proof is on you. You can't just contradict him and expect me to agree.

Iwasfrozen

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Just google the topic and it's been brought up countless times like Jesus Christ. Didn't even give the topic that's brought up constantly your own twist, just a couple of sentences.

What an anti-intellectual board.

Well Colin on this anti-intellectual board we cherish proper grammar.

Reindeer

The ignorance in this thread is stunning even by AH standards.

RoyalCelt

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

that's actually the smartest thing I've read in a long time about the world wars. Truly intelligent people who could of won it for the Germans wouldn't start it in the first place.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's post war quote from a senior Russian general who was notoriously unafraid of Stalin but also had his respect for his tendency to speak his mind when others in his position would shut up.

During the cold war the prevailing party line in Russia was that American assistance was not needed to defeat Germany, Zhukov is in this quote dismissing that misconception and affirming that American aid was pivotal to the Russian campaign even saying they could not have continued the war without it.

The first lend lease was made in 1941 when Russia was very much on the back foot. You claim that the lend lease had no affect on the war but Zhukov says different and frankly he would have a better idea than you would.

If you want to claim that a man who was famous for speaking his mind was actually lieing for the sake of politics (even more unlikely considering this was the opposite of the party line) then that's fine but then the burden of proof is on you. You can't just contradict him and expect me to agree.

None of that is here or there.

Zhukov was an astute man and realised that the post war situation was very precarious to say the least and didn't want to see a situation where his country was involved in another disastrous series of events with a former ally. Zhukov was very much in favor of cooperation with the west. Something that a lot of Communist hardliners were set against to varying degrees.

But, the Lend Lease arguments is always set out in the same old terms. The overzealous on either side always say the same thing. On the one hand you have people saying that it meant nothing at all, and on the other you have people saying it meant the difference.

Both sides are not supported by history.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

None of that is here or there.

Zhukov was an astute man and realised that the post war situation was very precarious to say the least and didn't want to see a situation where his country was involved in another disastrous series of events with a former ally. Zhukov was very much in favor of cooperation with the west. Something that a lot of Communist hardliners were set against to varying degrees.

But, the Lend Lease arguments is always set out in the same old terms. The overzealous on either side always say the same thing. On the one hand you have people saying that it meant nothing at all, and on the other you have people saying it meant the difference.

Both sides are not supported by history.

The first lend lease was made in 1941 when Russia was very much on the back foot. You claim that the lend lease had no affect on the war but Zhukov says differently.

If you're going to contradict him fine but then burden of proof rests on you.

Tony EH

The first lend lease was actually supplied by Britain and made no effect on Russia's defeat of the Germans outside of Moscow.

Throughout 1942, there was a steady supply, but none of this had the effect that the supplies of 1944-45 had.

Lend Lease up until 1944 had no significant impact on Russia's ability to wage war against the Germans.

Colinf1212

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well Colin on this anti-intellectual board we cherish proper grammar.

No sure thing as proper grammar conformist.

Micky Dolenz

Reindeer wrote: »

The ignorance in this thread is stunning even by AH standards.

Care to elaborate or is that you done?

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

The first lend lease was actually supplied by Britain and made no effect on Russia's defeat of the Germans outside of Moscow.

Throughout 1942, there was a steady supply, but none of this had the effect that the supplies of 1944-45 had.

Lend Lease up until 1944 had no significant impact on Russia's ability to wage war against the Germans.

You see that's just contradiction. You say the lend lease programme had no effect on the post 1941 turn around, Zhukov said it did and since you disagree with him the burden of proof rests on you.

Tony EH

It's not contradiction at all.

Russia would have won their victories in 1941, 42 and 43 with or without Lend Lease.

It didn't have any significant impact on the course of the the Russian war with Germany until 1944.

Zebra3

bodice ripper wrote: »

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

Even though they were neutral.

Difference between Ireland and the US, was the US got attacked and decided to join the war.

RoyalCelt

Zebra3 wrote: »

Even though they were neutral.

Difference between Ireland and the US, was the US got attacked and decided to join the war.

I wonder if the Americans would have joined the war if the Japanese didn't attack them. It's nt as black and white as most people think. I reckon they would have happily stayed out if they could. A German controlled EU would be ok with them. But if that ever happened I wonder if Hitler would have pushed on to the US.

Buona Fortuna

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

But. They didn't get involved until the japanese attacked. And then Germany declared war.

It boils my piss when American right wing TV or radio shows rant about Neville Chamberlin. How Chamberlin was an appeaser. How Nasser, Hussein etc. are hitlers and we don't want another Chamberlin. Chamberlin went to war 2 years and 3 months before the US. The US not only had to be attacked by Japan it had to wait three days before Germany declared war on it. War was declared on Japan on that "day of infamy". If wiser heads, in Germany had prevailed, the US would never have gone to war. Congress didn't want war. If it did it would have declared war prior to 1941. The senate didn't want war. If it did it would have declared war before 1941.

The Nazis look liked they had won by 1941.

Instead nazi Germany had to declare war against the US.

Exactly. Chamberlain had seen WW1 and was determined not to have another war. He's labelled as an appeaser, in some texts a coward but no one these days is saying "Lets go stick it to Putin for messing with the Ukraine".

I havn't seen any arguments about the treatment of Iran. Sanctions and diplomacy - the sanctions being relaxed as we believe Iran is playing ball.

Jawgap

The whole USSR Lend-Lease debate was given a good airing recently in the military history forum.....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057163420

I don't propose that myself and @tonyEH rehash our discussion etc

The 'big' mistake on the part of the Germans was to declare war on the US in the wake of Pearl Harbour - if they'd kept their mouths shut it's quite likely the US would have pursued a 'Japan first' policy instead of being persuaded to follow a 'Germany first' policy by Churchill.

In the end it all worked out, but the Yanks made some monumental cock-ups along the way and were stopped from making even bigger ones by the British - such as the proposed landings in France in 1942/43 when, arguably, the Wehrmacht was at the height of the its powers.

Manic Moran

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

But. They didn't get involved until the japanese attacked. And then Germany declared war.

It boils my piss when American right wing TV or radio shows rant about Neville Chamberlin. How Chamberlin was an appeaser. How Nasser, Hussein etc. are hitlers and we don't want another Chamberlin. Chamberlin went to war 2 years and 3 months before the US. The US not only had to be attacked by Japan it had to wait three days before Germany declared war on it. War was declared on Japan on that "day of infamy". If wiser heads, in Germany had prevailed, the US would never have gone to war. Congress didn't want war. If it did it would have declared war prior to 1941. The senate didn't want war. If it did it would have declared war before 1941.

The Nazis look liked they had won by 1941.

Instead nazi Germany had to declare war against the US.

It is certainly true that formal declarations and active combat had to wait, due to the isolationist movement in the US, until the US was attacked. But the US administration pulled the trigger to move to a war footing nearly two years before hostilities. A nation with a smaller army than Romania, and which had all of a hundred tanks (mainly obsolete) in its inventory when the war kicked off did not become The Arsenal of Democracy overnight just because the Japanese attacked. The move to a war economy is probably the single biggest, most complicated, and underrated achievement by the US government of the war years, and is routinely ignored.

Manic Moran

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.

It was over by December 1941. After the Germans failed to take Moscow (itself a more political than practical objective), things were only going to get better for the Russians.

(iPad, so no easy multi-quote function)

Manic Moran

dr.bollocko wrote: »

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.

They sank 14 million tons of shipping, and nearly 3,000 ships. Hardly insignificant, especially when one considers that much of that tally occurred in a fairly short time space, before the allies sorted out their anti u-boat capabilities.

gandalf

It could also be said if Russia had taken a different stance in 1939 WW2 might have been avoided. Instead on dividing up the "spoils" in the Von Ribbentrop pact. They could have made a stand.

I am in no doubt that the Russians contributed in a major way to the defeat of Nazi Germany but they must also bear responsibility for jumping into bed with them in the attack and division of Poland.