Did the US win the Second World War for the Europeans?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Apparently we were not very popular back then also.

That comes off sounding anti-American, actually.

"Not very popular"? Or maybe, we just had something (WEALTH!!) that a couple of very ambitious, imperialist countries wanted to fuckin' STEAL from us after murdering us. Hey?

You make it sound as though apart from just being prosperous and enviable, we had done something wrong to "deserve" being hated and targeted.

What a despicable take on the subject.


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

1 - Saying "if not for the US, that war might have been lost" doesn't always imply that the statement means the US shouldered the entire load. Just that they were a critical portion of a huge team of nations.

Exactly. Before anyone jumps on me, this is what I meant to say.
Just like the keystone doesn't hold up the entire bridge, but the bridge could NOT stand without it.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Yeah, I do indeed believe that Europe was on the ropes, and if America had not sent its people and its resources, Europe would be one big Germany right now, probably duking it out with Russia or China just like we ended up doing. Or maybe Hitler'd have managed to take Russia too after another decade of wearing them down.

The world as we know it today would not exist. Germany would not have stopped in Europe. They would have conquered the entire world. You do know (hopefully) that German submarines were patrolling off of the major North American cities preying upon anything that would float. Had Germany developed the bomb before the US did, you got to know that their V2 (or V3, etc, etc, etc) rockets would have delivered their payload to NYC and all other major North American cities. Japan's desire to dominate the Pacific did the whole world (at least the free democratic society we westerners value) a favor by waking up America before it was too late. America's isolationist policies may have worked in the 19th century. But it was out of date by the time the 20th century was in full swing.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

It's very very clear that Germany was psychotically murderous, and yes, would not have had any compunctions about leveling a city like New York. (I mean, didn't they try to level LONDON?!)

So it's true what you say, there is no end to the avaricious ambition of a nation like that, and no end to the evil that it would do to further its own ends.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[NelKel 0]

Jeffrey,

Which branch of the US service did you serve?

_________________________________________

Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Red herring. Irrelevant.

I have to have served in the U.S. armed forces (during WWII?!) in order to answer this question?

Why haven't you asked any other American who has opined that England/Europe needed the U.S. in order to win WWII?


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[miked10270 0]

You lot have all banded together and are posting this stuff purely to wind up Kallend & I ...

Aren't you!...

Aren't you? ...

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Dolph 0]

Quote

But's it Eurocentric, not world centric possibly:

I'd ask this question - If the US wasn't involved at all in WW2 on the Eastern front, do you think the Russians could have had as strong an effect in the Western front? (would the Japanese have been able to neutralize the Russians from the other side?)

I still go with a team effort, with the US having a huge piece of the pie - one of the very primary and necessary players, crucial to the outcome.

I agree - it's a Eurocentric view of the war, totally neglecting the fighting that took place in the pacific for instance which was extremely fierce and where the US definitely (at very least initially) had harder circumstances to handle than their opponent.

If the US hadn't been involved at all in any way in the European theatre, the Germans would have beaten the Russians. They'd run out of raw material and equipment and wouldn't have had the opportunity to move much of their industrial complex away from the front. It's worth mentioning that US civilian sailors took big risks here to get the supplies to the Russians, losing men and ships along the way.

There's no doubt the world would be a much different place had the US elected to continue on an isolationalist path during WWII and after. The US has been and still is Europe's strongest ally and while there have been differences in the past, it's still our strongest ally, sharing similar views on human rights, democracy, equality and so forth.

It sort of pisses me off that people on both sides of the Atlantic whine about the few differences we have and create an us vs them situation. The US is Europe's little brother who's grown up to be much more powerful than its older brother. Europeans gotta accept that, and stop bitching. The US gotta be graceful about their newfound position and respect that their older brother has been there, done that through history for a very long time.

When the stuff hits the fan in a big way the next time, I'm confident we'll fight side by side again.

[Dolph 0]

Quote

It's very very clear that Germany was psychotically murderous, and yes, would not have had any compunctions about leveling a city like New York. (I mean, didn't they try to level LONDON?!)

So it's true what you say, there is no end to the avaricious ambition of a nation like that, and no end to the evil that it would do to further its own ends.

-Jeffrey

They did try to break the British morale by bombing Lodong. A massive blunder from their side, allowing the British air force to get a breather and come back from near obliteration.

On the other hand, if you call them psycho killers for this, consider the British and American raids later in the war. Admittedly, the US did much to attempt to target primarily military targets but that's pretty hard when you're carpet bombing.

Consider the case of the bombing of Dreseden. It was done to destroy communication facilities, trains taking troops to the east and so forth. Its population included over 200 000 refugees from the war, and this fact was well known to the Allies.

The firebombing of this city created firestorms. Killed were between 35 000 and 135 000 people, almost exclusively civilians.

The difference here between the German psycho killers and the US/UK is not that huge. Both did it to achieve military goals. The US/UK felt justified by the fact that the Germand had started it. Still, if a psycho killer starts cutting up your relatives, if you in response start cutting up his relatives and you stood next to each other, blood stained clothes and hands, you'd both look like psycho killers to me.

The Nazi regime was a murderous one that comes the closest to any human definition I have seen of evil and only rivaled by Stalin and his cronies.

The bombing of London is not a particularly good example of the differences between the good vs the bad I think. Much better one would be treatment of civilian population in general, occupied/liberated territory, prisoners of war and post-war actions. They're not as "sexy" though but those are the reasons I'm very thankful for US intervention.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

On the other hand, if you call them psycho killers for this, consider the British and American raids later in the war. Admittedly, the US did much to attempt to target primarily military targets but that's pretty hard when you're carpet bombing.

I draw a SIGNIFICANT distinctionbetween the acts of an AGGRESSOR, and the subsequent acts of those against whom it has aggressed. And a whole lot can be "forgiven" of the defender.

Quote

The difference here between the German psycho killers and the US/UK is not that huge. Both did it to achieve military goals. The US/UK felt justified by the fact that the Germand had started it...

You can stop right there. Whether you agree with me or not, that, to me, is all the justification I feel is required of a country that has been attacked by the war machine of another country.

The lesson to be learned, is, "If you're not gonna like your victim fighting back and fuckin' you up, don't fuckin' start the wheels in motion by trying to take by war what isn't yours."

WTF, man. How can anyone bitch about what happens to them after they start a BRUTAL, SICK war and do the kinds of things that the Germans and Japanese did to their victims?

You open up a can of whoop-ass, you better be able to handle it. Because as history now points out, it can backfire on you.


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mark135 0]

This could open a whloe new can of worms. but if you want to get technical you could say it was the allies that started ww2 via the treaty of versailles.

If not for the US keeping Japan busy in the pacific (until midway we were little more than a nuicance to japan and were losing the war in the pacific) japan would have fullfilled their obligations under the axis treaty and attacked Russia in a more substantial manner. Russia would have fallen.

Nazi Germany was very close to developing an atomic weapon. The O.S.S. (Forrunner to the CIA) was very busy during the war to thwart thier attempts. (and kidnapping the german rocket scientists)

The US did not have all the best equipment. The sherman tank for instance was under gunned and under armoured. they only defeated nazi tanks by attacking using 6-7 shermans and outflanking 1 nazi tank. The king tiger was virtually unstoppable.

What we did have was the m1 garand, the mustang, the gmc troop truck and the c-47 (dc-3) these were the machines that won the war.

The Brits with U.S. material defeated the afrika corps pretty much on thier own.

The US let russia take berlin as Roosevelt agreed to Let stalin have it. The us/uk offensive stopped in order for this to happen.
Churchill was furious over this agreement and didnt trust Stalin at all. Patton wanted to roll into berlin and just keep heading east. He hated the Russians.

De Gaulle was a pain the allies ass. The Poles remained a fighting force the whole war.


Bottom Line is that if not for Normandy and midway we would have lost the war.
The Allies didnt win the war as much as the Nazi's lost it due to Hitlers blunders.
We had the enigma code and the germans never changed it. we knew everything they were going to do yet had a very rough time defeating them.

As far as any contreversy over the using of the atomic bomb.... Well my father was in california training for the invasion of japan. with expected 60 -70 % casulitys odds are I wouldnt exist if not for the atomic bombs.

Sorry for the spelling, I am in a hurry and have to rush off to work now. so thats all I got to say about that.

_______________


"It seemed like a good idea at the time"

[Skyrad 0]

No the US didn't win it for us. Like you I am grateful for the sacrifice made by that generation of Americans, but no they didn't win it for us.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Not forgetting the Kiwiw Ozzy and Canuc pilots as well as others.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Both my grandfathers escaped Holland prior to the invasion and spent the rest of the war fighting.

One flew many mission in south east asia for the KNIL as a pilot on a b-25 bomber.

The other a captain with the Brittish infantry.

I think it is pretty obvious that America could not have won this war on its own either....

[markd_nscr986 0]

Uncle "Grant" KIA Belgium 1944 Patton's 3rd Army

Grandpa "Charles" bombardier 8th AAC

Uncle "Sonny" USN North Atlantic (gunners mate on "armed" merchant marine ships)

Uncle "Homer" US Army "D" day participant......served later with Patton's 3rd Army


The names will be different,but most families in the US can tell the same story

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Dolph 0]

Quote

I draw a SIGNIFICANT distinctionbetween the acts of an AGGRESSOR, and the subsequent acts of those against whom it has aggressed. And a whole lot can be "forgiven" of the defender.

Understandable, and I do not disagree. But, whether a decapitation of an innocent child was done as an unprovoked act of aggression or as an act of response to aggression, the innocent child still loses its head. Of course context has to be considered when judging an action, but the action itself has considerable influence on the moral justification.

Quote

You can stop right there. Whether you agree with me or not, that, to me, is all the justification I feel is required of a country that has been attacked by the war machine of another country.

In other words, once aggression has commenced against a country, that country is, in essence, given a Carte Blanche in terms of actions - all will be considered justified and morally defensible? Putting words in your mouth, sorry; a response of the same magnitude of cruelty is morally defensible then? I'll need to give that some thought before I can give a good answer to that.

Quote

The lesson to be learned, is, "If you're not gonna like your victim fighting back and fuckin' you up, don't fuckin' start the wheels in motion by trying to take by war what isn't yours."

Agreed, that is indeed the lesson. My question is more: does aggression justify equal behaviour? Would it be morally right and defensible to systematically kill German civilians in death camps, since they'd done it? I personally believe no. Your mileage may vary.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

The names will be different,but most families in the US can tell the same story

Uncle “Ed,” torpedoman’s mate and submariner in the Pacific Theatre.

Uncle “Gary,” medical corpsman, survived Bataan Death March, after the war shot self in temple with grandpa’s pistol since disabilities wouldn’t allow him to hold a job as a tradesman in their paper mill town and life in a wheelchair looked bleak.

Grandpa “Jim,” engineer, volunteered for army service but was rejected because the war board needed him to run a key paper mill that supplied the allied war effort.

Yadda yadda yadda …


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The US is Europe's little brother who's grown up to be much more powerful than its older brother. Europeans gotta accept that, and stop bitching. The US gotta be graceful about their newfound position and respect that their older brother has been there, done that through history for a very long time.

When the stuff hits the fan in a big way the next time, I'm confident we'll fight side by side again.

This is exactly my thoughts and hope.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Some of you people are beginning to sound like children in the school play ground ... Uncle Bob did this and served there ... well in order to fit in. My Grandfather(s) were too young for WWI and too old for WWII and my father was too young for WWII. So none of them served in the war and thus I was allowed to exist. So there.

Said it before, I'll say it again. Thanks to all those nations and individuals who served on the allied side in WWII. Without them (regardless of their nationality) life as we know it today in our western democracies would not exist and I'm sure many of us would never have been born.

Oh and I picked up "Call of Duty 2" last night and played a few rounds in the Russian campaign and it's a good thing that I didn't have to serve in a war since I was KIA many many times (and it's only a game). War (at least the real thing) is nasty with no winners and really should only be entered into as a last resort. WWII was a noble war and the right war to get into, the Iraq war isn't.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[shropshire 0]

Thanks Bill - Something that I can agree with you,(for once).
No, really, spot on.... no single nation WON the war Team work got the job done.... Pity we couldn't capitalise on that after the wars.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[chuteless 1]

everyone could have and would have, except the Americans bullied their way to the front of the line and everyone else shrugged their collective shoulders and said...."Oh, Okay"

It says alot for the Prime Ministers England and Canada have had.


Bill Cole

[shropshire 0]

You're right... but it's a real shame, they had an excellent opportunity to make real changes to the world..... I guess that it's human nature and we're not ready to be nice to each other and embrace our differences instead of fighting because of them.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[miked10270 0]

Quote

.... no single nation WON the war Team work got the job done.... Pity we couldn't capitalise on that after the wars.

The alliance of Britain, Russia & America (purely in date order!) arose purely out of having a common enemy. Their individual political systems & goals remained disaparate throughout. Had this particular war not been fought at the time, then the Anglo-American (Capitalism) Vs Soviet (Communism) war would have inevitably commenced shortly thereafter. If you were to look for a single significant cause for WWII, then it would be Hitlers absolute & breathtaking incompetence & naivety as an international politician (I suppose this really isn't the time to compare Hitler's & Dubya's international skills!).

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

If you were to look for a single significant cause for WWII, then it would be Hitlers absolute & breathtaking incompetence & naivety as an international politician

I dunno. Hitler’s annexation and intimidation political ploys leading up to the hostilities seem pretty darn shrewd to me. His military and strategic calls are another matter altogether in my book.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

You lot have all banded together and are posting this stuff purely to wind up Kallend & I ...

Aren't you!...

Aren't you? ...

Mike.

If the Battle of Britain had gone the other way, the Nazis would have won.

If the Battle of Moscow had gone the other way, the Nazis would have won.

If Normandy had gone the other way, there would have been a stalemate in the west.

The USSR killed more Germans than all other nations combined.

PS just for Jeffery:

The US did create the P51, but it was a POS until it got a Rolls Royce engine.

The atomic bomb was not invented in the USA. It was patented by a Hungarian and all the initial design work was done in the UK.

To answer the original question:

Here's the numbers of military killed in action of various nations, 1939 - 45:

USSR 8,668,000
Nazi Germany 2,800,000
Japan 1,506,000
China 1,324,000
Britain 398,000
United States 295,000
France 211,000
Canada 39,000
other Brit. Empire (Aus, NZ, Rhodesia, S. Africa) 136,000

Civilians killed:

USSR 15,000,000
Nazi Germany 500,000
Japan 300,000
France 108,000
Britain 65,000

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.