I am not trying to cause problems on the forums but I hate hearing the U.S say that they saved 'our' asses in WW2. Their argument is flawwed. The English and the US (along with others) all fought in WW2, and had the english not fought you cannot be sure the US would have won. The US waited a long time before joining in and even then the only real reason they did so was the bombing of pearl harbour. The US made massive amounts of money out of WW1 and WW2 and then used this to defeat already battered forces. I could go on for a while but i suppose I should just post the question.

Do you think the US was more of a hero than any other country that fought against the Axis in WW2.

I think it's generally agreed that the US's involvement helped to resolve the conflict more quickly than without them. I think the Allies probably would still have won (mainly because Russia would roll over the whole continent of Europe) but America's inclusion helped to stop Germany's expansion.

I think America helped just as much as everyone else. There troops/weapons/ammo etcetera helped the war alot, but didn't win it.

To quote Al Murray "Sorry squire but if your not in a fight from the start you ain't in the fight at all"

I always say that to Americans who say crap like "well if wasn't for us you'd be speaking german"

but my thoughts are this: if they didn't get involved the war would have likely gone on for while longer. They helped speed up the winning process... which is always nice.

Starnerf:
I think it's generally agreed that the US's involvement helped to resolve the conflict more quickly than without them. I think the Allies probably would still have won (mainly because Russia would roll over the whole continent of Europe) but America's inclusion helped to stop Germany's expansion.

I agree entirely, however this is about wether or not the US bragging rights are well deserved.

Trying to start WWIII eh? It was group effort. America may have done well out of WWII, but thats no comfort to their dead.

US take germany without UK as a springboard? No
Russia collapse without US and UK aid? Maybe
England mount invasion of Europe on own? Not a chance

EDIT: US & UK succesfully invade without the Russians? Doubt it very much

gibboss28:
To quote Al Murray "Sorry squire but if your not in a fight from the start you ain't in the fight at all"

I always say that to Americans who say crap like "well if wasn't for us you'd be speaking german"

but my thoughts are this: if they didn't get involved the war would have likely gone on for while longer. They helped speed up the winning process... which is always nice.

We were in the fight from the start, We gave ships, weapons and other military goods in trading. Most notably some ships for bases in bermudu and peru or something.

stinkychops:

Starnerf:
I think it's generally agreed that the US's involvement helped to resolve the conflict more quickly than without them. I think the Allies probably would still have won (mainly because Russia would roll over the whole continent of Europe) but America's inclusion helped to stop Germany's expansion.

I agree entirely, however this is about wether or not the US bragging rights are well deserved.

Yeah, I feel the claim that we "won" the war is not accurate and so bragging as if we did is not something I condone. Unless you're bragging about the Allies winning and just happen to be including the Americans. Then brag away.

They joined the war much too late to have any bragging rites. The allies already had a strong upper hand against Germany. Besides, alot of Americans also bring up Hiroshima which just annoys me. They dropped an atomic bomb on a country that had practically already been defeated.

From what I understand in my history lessons, the American people wanted to get involved in the war much earlier, but the government didn't. Something about not wanting to fund a costly war after just getting out of a Great Depression?

Bulletinmybrain:

gibboss28:
To quote Al Murray "Sorry squire but if your not in a fight from the start you ain't in the fight at all"

I always say that to Americans who say crap like "well if wasn't for us you'd be speaking german"

but my thoughts are this: if they didn't get involved the war would have likely gone on for while longer. They helped speed up the winning process... which is always nice.

We were in the fight from the start, We gave ships, weapons and other military goods in trading. Most notably some ships for bases in bermudu and peru or something.

America gave all those but never sent men into the war till 1943. Furthermore, you only gave weapons.

Russia would be decimated by german offense, The germans went into russia with almost twice as many tanks, planes and vehicles then russia had.(Give or take.) Russias advantage over the miltary powerhouse germany was the russian winter, and troops. But their troops were not well trained.

Bulletinmybrain:
Russia would be decimated by german offense, The germans went into russia with almost twice as many tanks, planes and vehicles then russia had.(Give or take.) Russias advantage over the miltary powerhouse germany was the russian winter, and troops. But their troops were not well trained.

The russians quickly recovered though, by kursk they way outnumbered the germans in every field.

bor3ds0ul:

Bulletinmybrain:

gibboss28:
To quote Al Murray "Sorry squire but if your not in a fight from the start you ain't in the fight at all"

I always say that to Americans who say crap like "well if wasn't for us you'd be speaking german"

but my thoughts are this: if they didn't get involved the war would have likely gone on for while longer. They helped speed up the winning process... which is always nice.

We were in the fight from the start, We gave ships, weapons and other military goods in trading. Most notably some ships for bases in bermudu and peru or something.

America gave all those but never sent men into the war till 1943. Furthermore, you only gave weapons.

Weapons that you needed. UK was almost sololy focused on defense, So us giving aids for money later pretty much saved them a whole lot of trouble. US could be best compared to germany. Well equiped soldiers, Powerhouse.

scumofsociety:

Bulletinmybrain:
Russia would be decimated by german offense, The germans went into russia with almost twice as many tanks, planes and vehicles then russia had.(Give or take.) Russias advantage over the miltary powerhouse germany was the russian winter, and troops. But their troops were not well trained.

The russians quickly recovered though, by kursk they way outnumbered the germans in every field.

Thats my point though. They outnumbered germans 3:1 most likely but if the germans attacked again they would come with winter gear, and even more miltary equipment.

Bulletinmybrain:

Thats my point though. They outnumbered germans 3:1 most likely but if the germans attacked again they would come with winter gear, and even more miltary equipment.

Not entirely sure what you mean, but yes, allied bombing did help a lot when it came to taking down german production, if it werent for the allies, maybe the Germans could have swung Kursk their way. Maybe.

scumofsociety:

Bulletinmybrain:

Thats my point though. They outnumbered germans 3:1 most likely but if the germans attacked again they would come with winter gear, and even more miltary equipment.

Not entirely sure what you mean, but yes, allied bombing did help a lot when it came to taking down german production, if it werent for the allies, maybe the Germans could have swung Kursk their way. Maybe.

The germans left russia because of the russian winter. And yes without allied bombing on germans production plants europe would have been in a dire situation the u.s might not have been able to help.

America did not win the war in Europe; Russia did. By December of 1943, Germany's fate was pretty much sealed.

Now, without America and its absolutely massive, not to mention nearly untouchable, industry, the war could've taken far, far longer - and when it finished, the Soviet Union would've been uncomfortably expansive.

Bulletinmybrain:

The germans left russia because of the russian winter. And yes without allied bombing on germans production plants europe would have been in a dire situation the u.s might not have been able to help.

I thought it was more to do with 6 million very angry russians kicking their asses. They lost at Stalingrad mainly due to the winter, but after that it was the russian counter attacks.

EDIT: the invasion of italy also helped though

I think Canada did all the saving...

scumofsociety:

Bulletinmybrain:

The germans left russia because of the russian winter. And yes without allied bombing on germans production plants europe would have been in a dire situation the u.s might not have been able to help.

I thought it was more to do with 6 million very angry russians kicking their asses. They lost at Stalingrad mainly due to the winter, but after that it was the russian counter attacks.

They got all the way to moscow, And then fleed for the winter so I thought?

There's always this impression that Britain was about to keel over and die before Captain Yank dived in to save the day. Sorry to burst this fanciful bubble, but it simply isn't true.

The Battle of Britain is pretty much the point where Germany lost the war. It was even said so by German Officers who survived the war. Contrary to the claims that the RAF was about to curl up and die before Hitler stopped bombing their airfields, the RAF had maintained near-constant strengths throughout the Battle of Britain, whilst the Luftwaffe were losing so many aircraft that had they NOT called off their aerial campaign they'd have been massacred. Britain had the most advanced early-warning network on the globe at that point, and that went a long way to holding the line.

Yes, the Americans certainly did a lot of good things for the Allies overall, but they also didn't help in a lot of ways. It was the Americans, for example, who came up with the great idea of "No escorts at all are better than too few", and so allowed U-Boats to sink millions of tons of shipping and kill thousands of British sailors all because they couldn't be arsed send out 2 frigates per trip. Without the Americans we'd have never attempted Market Garden, which was horrendously flawed from the start and nothing more than a combined effort of the allied generals to nab a bit of glory. Despite what Hollywood says, Americans did NOT crack Enigma, we did.

Russia, ultimately, is the force that crushed Germany. Britain could not have beaten Germany alone, but it could (and did) hold Germany off and keep them busy.

The war would have lasted a lot longer without Americans, but we would not all be speaking German. If Europe DID collapse due to America sitting there twiddling its thumbs, they'd be big enough and strong enough to give the Yanks a bloody hiding and stick a German Flag over the White House as well.

Ultimately the USSR won the second world war, largely by itself regardless of what history books/show may say.

Most people (but especially Americans) fail to grasp the sheer scale of the war on the Eastern front.
To give it some context look at it like this.
In the whole of WW2 the United states lost 416'800 servicemen killed and 1'700 civilians killed: Total 418'500
The UK has a population of less than half the US in 1939, But lost 382'600 servicemen and 67'800 civilians. Total: 450,400 British servicemen (sailors, soldiers, pilots) also fought in every theatre of the war.

In the Battle of Stalingrad (17/7/1942--2/2/1943) The Russians lost 1,100,000 soldiers and an estimated 40,000+ civilians. More than both countries combined and in only 7months.

My honest opinion of the US in WW2 is that they take credit for a war that, by en-large they did not fight in.
They were absent from China, Burma, North Africa, the Eastern front and the first three years of the Western War.

The Marine Island hopping campaign was insignificant compared to the war in China/Malaya/Burma, fueled by little else than pride and a desire for revenge over Pearl Harbour (before anyone mentions B-29's, the islands were not vital as airfields, B-29's could and did fly from China).
They were not even the largest Allied Force present on the D-day landings, if you were to believe most war movies, they were the only force there.

They were never invaded and the only direct attack on the US (Pearl Harbour is half way accross the Pacific) was by a Japanese bomb balloon that killed 6 Scouts who tampered with it.

Whilst it's clear that US industry helped end the western war faster. They take far too much credit when there's 23 million Russians and 20 million Chinese who deserve more than they get.

However, they can take credit for stopping Hokkaido becoming a Russian Island.

Bulletinmybrain:

scumofsociety:

Bulletinmybrain:

The germans left russia because of the russian winter. And yes without allied bombing on germans production plants europe would have been in a dire situation the u.s might not have been able to help.

I thought it was more to do with 6 million very angry russians kicking their asses. They lost at Stalingrad mainly due to the winter, but after that it was the russian counter attacks.

They got all the way to moscow, And then fleed for the winter so I thought?

No. They got fucking stuck in Russia because of the winter. All that snow and mud kinda impeded a swift retreat.

Bulletinmybrain:

They got all the way to moscow, And then fleed for the winter so I thought?

Fraid not dude, they dug in, then the russians counter attacked.

And to add to fix the spades point: the forces that crushed germany were approx:
1M commonwealth
2M USA
6M russians

EDIT: Although I should add I dont agree about the Pacific Islands campaign being insignificant, it was absolutely vital in cutting Japanese supply routes.

stinkychops:
I am not trying to cause problems on the forums but I hate hearing the U.S say that they saved 'our' asses in WW2. Their argument is flawwed. The English and the US (along with others) all fought in WW2, and had the english not fought you cannot be sure the US would have won. The US waited a long time before joining in and even then the only real reason they did so was the bombing of pearl harbour. The US made massive amounts of money out of WW1 and WW2 and then used this to defeat already battered forces. I could go on for a while but i suppose I should just post the question.

Do you think the US was more of a hero than any other country that fought against the Axis in WW2.

Had Britain capitulated, it would've been a hell of a lot harder to take Europe,
Had the Germans taken Moscow, the Allies would face Hitler on a single front,
Had the United States not supplied Britain and Russia prior to, and after entering the war, it would be pretty hard for either side to come out on top.

Conclusion: You take one out of the equation, Hitler wins.

Okay I was a little slack, But germans almost pushed to the capital without much effort. They were thwarted by the russian winter which they did not prepare for. The russians started counter offensive them in their playground. The germans began moving backwards. While the british were constantly attacking german production facility's. Ulitmatly the british would not get off the island because the germans were so dug in france. It required US forces to come in and stomp on everything.

scumofsociety:

Bulletinmybrain:

They got all the way to moscow, And then fleed for the winter so I thought?

Fraid not dude, they dug in, then the russians counter attacked.

And to add to fix the spades point: the forces that crushed germany were approx:
1M commonwealth
2M USA
6M russians

Like I said, The russians were not supburbly trained and instead went with bulk instead of quality. Or else why the hell would the germans be at their doorstep and britians?

Bulletinmybrain:
Okay I was a little slack, But germans almost pushed to the capital without much effort. They were thwarted by the russian winter which they did not prepare for. The russians started counter offensive them in their playground. The germans began moving backwards. While the british were constantly attacking german production facility's. Ulitmatly the british would not get off the island because the germans were so dug in france. It required US forces to come in and stomp on everything.

Or, in a few years, Russia would've swept through Europe like a tidal wave.

Russians were never really well trained, but that didn't matter. They could afford losses. Everything they made was intended to be cheap and expendable, from their rifles to their tanks. Why? Because they had literally millions of men that could die without hurting the country, and they had millions of women to work in the factories.

Germany could not afford losses. They had limited resources, both human and otherwise. In fact, the only reason they were successful was because they used their limited resources to incredible effect through careful use of strategy and tactics.

So as soon as the Blitzkrieg stopped and it came down to a slugfest, Germany was ruined. Nothing they could've done would've saved them from the Russians; only delayed the inevitable.

Saevus:

Bulletinmybrain:
Okay I was a little slack, But germans almost pushed to the capital without much effort. They were thwarted by the russian winter which they did not prepare for. The russians started counter offensive them in their playground. The germans began moving backwards. While the british were constantly attacking german production facility's. Ulitmatly the british would not get off the island because the germans were so dug in france. It required US forces to come in and stomp on everything.

Or, in a few years, Russia would've swept through Europe like a tidal wave.

Not entirely, The germans had the maginot line and I don't think russia knew how to circumnavigate it.

EDIT: And even if they did the germans would put up a defense in the moutains.

Bulletinmybrain:
Okay I was a little slack, But germans almost pushed to the capital without much effort. They were thwarted by the russian winter which they did not prepare for. The russians started counter offensive them in their playground. The germans began moving backwards. While the british were constantly attacking german production facility's. Ulitmatly the british would not get off the island because the germans were so dug in france. It required US forces to come in and stomp on everything.

Managed retreat was basically their defensive strategy, use the poor existing troops to delay, while building up strength for a counter attack. It worked very well, but yes things might have been a bit worse without US support. As I said in my first post.

Yes, absolutely britain would not have been able to mount an invasion, as I said in my 1st post.

Britain required the US to take down germany. Russia on the other hand, did not. As I said...well, u get the picture.

EDIT: the maginot line was french, and was taken out very early...1940.

the germans defended in the mountains anyway. they still lost

Bulletinmybrain: