American views of the British effort in D-Day and WW2 in general.

[Phlegmak]

Is this an appropriate consideration? I mean would Americans ACTUALLY be less likely to see war movies that portray the achievements of other countries in addition to their own?

Yeah, possibly.

 

[SirDrake]

K-19 Widowmaker (Soviets)

K-19 was a (nuclear) ballistic missile submarine, which I'm sure the Russians would have loved to have had in WWII. But that movie is set in the Cold War era (circa 1959).

But speaking of submarine movies, and Hollywood giving the Brits short-shrift in WWII, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the film U-571. It portrays an American crew capturing Enigma material from a U-boat, something which (in reality) was done almost entirely by British sailors.

E.g., in October 1942 a squadron of British destroyers caught U-559 in the Mediterranean. While the submarine was being scuttled, Lieutenant Tony Fasson, Able Seaman Colin Grazier, and canteen assistant Tommy Brown boarded the sub and managed to acquire both its Engima machine and supporting documents.

This capture was directly responsible for allowing Bletchley to break the U-Boat Enigma code which had eluded them for the previous nine months, at tremendous cost to Allied shipping.

A few seconds after the material was handed over to Brown, the submarine sank with Fasson and Grazier still on board.

 

[Cutlass]

American culture is heavily American centric. It's not hard to see why it's history and entertainment are as well. As for the makers of movies, they have a vested interest in making the movies that the audience has the easiest time to identify with. And that means war movies that focus on the American part and downplaying the parts of our allies. It's simple marketing.

 

[cardgame]

Only metric that really makes much sense: The number of military personnel who died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Canada: 45,300
China: 3,800,000
Poland: 240,000
Soviet Union: 10,700,000
UK: 382,700
US: 416,800
Yugoslavia: 446,000

Right, so you think Yugoslavia contributed more to WW2 than the U.S.? :infinite number of :

That just shows who did the worst job at handling their troops. (and total # involved isn't listed, so still not fully showing it). It ignores every other aspect of war... such as enemies killed, lands liberated (or taken over), enemy factories destroyed, etc.

 

[emzie]

Right, so you think Yugoslavia contributed more to WW2 than the U.S.? :infinite number of :

That just shows who did the worst job at handling their troops. (and total # involved isn't listed, so still not fully showing it). It ignores every other aspect of war... such as enemies killed, lands liberated (or taken over), enemy factories destroyed, etc.

Surely, using infantry as cannon fodder wasn't good for the casualty numbers, but I'm not sure I'd say Zhukov mismanaged his troops.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Why is it in films such as Band of brother and Saving private Ryan, that the British are shown to be incompetent or even left out altogether? With the recent events regarding the queen, it seems that America is slowly changing what actually happened: Making it that the British did nothing, whilst America was the one who "Did everything". Why is this happening?

Listen, every country covers there contributions to the war much more then other nations, and in doing so, a biased opinion or two will probably emerge.

Plus, what do Americans want to watch more? The contributions of the Brits and Soviets? Or the contributions of America? Production companies are out for there bottom line, and covering the American side of WW2 in Europe and glorifying it while smoothing over some historical facts is a money maker. I know Pearl Harbor is not a WW2 in Europe movie, but I think that it is a perfect example of the above.

With all that being said, I do not have enough information to make a valued judgment on the British effort in WW2. If I had to guess though, the typical average citizen would probably say that we saved the Brits from Nazi slavery while doing most of the heavy lifting in that endeavor.

 

[emzie]

With all that being said, I do not have enough information to make a valued judgment on the British effort in WW2. If I had to guess though, the typical average citizen would probably say that we saved the Brits from Nazi slavery while doing most of the heavy lifting in that endeavor.

Which is deplorable.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Which is deplorable.

But... we did save Britain from being the last bastion of Freedom in Europe. Consider, what would happen if America had not entered the war?

Nazi Germany would still be defeated, but at a much higher cost for the Soviets. However, who would stop the Soviets from taking the rest of Western Europe up the the Pyrenees?

The Brits would be able to hold the home islands, but would be very isolated from Europe.


WW2 in Europe was very much a team effort in the West. The major players interlocking in solidarity to defeat an evil foe.

 

[emzie]

But... we did save Britain from being the last bastion of Freedom in Europe. Consider, what would happen if America had not entered the war?

Nazi Germany would still be defeated, but at a much higher cost for the Soviets. However, who would stop the Soviets from taking the rest of Western Europe up the the Pyrenees?

The Brits would be able to hold the home islands, but would be very isolated from Europe.


WW2 in Europe was very much a team effort in the West. The major players interlocking in solidarity to defeat an evil foe.

I'd agree that it's fair to say the US saved western Europe from the Soviets, but not Britain from anyone.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I'd agree that it's fair to say the US saved western Europe from the Soviets, but not Britain from anyone.

Ehh... eventually, if the Soviets had annexed Western Europe into a massive Warsaw Pact entity... lets call it the Madrid Pact, Britain would in effect be surrounded.

In 20 years time, if the Soviets had decided to build a blue water navy that could challenge the Brits, then I find it conceivable that Britain might fall. Hell, Britain would be even more reliant on the Americas for grain. The Soviets could tear a page out of Nazi Germany's book and use its truely epic production capability to build a Sub armada that would force Britain to surrender or starve.

 

[Leonel]

Of course the American's have an American centric view of the war! The same way the French think they single handedly pushed the Nazi's out of France and how the English think they trounced the Nazis with the American's serving as clean up duty.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Of course the American's have an American centric view of the war! The same way the French think they single handedly pushed the Nazi's out of France and how the English think they trounced the Nazis with the American's serving as clean up duty.

The French still hasn't forgiven America and Britain for saving them.

 

[amadeus]

Of course the American's have an American centric view of the war! The same way the French think they single handedly pushed the Nazi's out of France and how the English think they trounced the Nazis with the American's serving as clean up duty.

The French government took a survey in 1950 of how many people at one point had helped the French underground. At that time, they had reported that 43 million people had helped in some way.

The population of France in 1944 was 39 million.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Right, so you think Yugoslavia contributed more to WW2 than the U.S.? :infinite number of :.

Yep. Based on the number of brave Yugoslavian soldiers who gave their lives to free the world from the domination of Hitler. Unlike the country that waited until it was attacked by Japan late in the war first, and then still waited for German to declare war on them instead of the other way around. You should be so proud.

The French government took a survey in 1950 of how many people at one point had helped the French underground. At that time, they had reported that 43 million people had helped in some way.

The population of France in 1944 was 39 million.

Source?

 

[Esckey]

Somethings just shouldn't count when comparing achivments.

 

[emzie]

Yep. Based on the number of brave Yugoslavian soldiers who gave their lives to free the world from the domination of Hitler. Unlike the country that waited until it was attacked by Japan late in the war first, and then still needed German to declare war on them instead of the other way around. You should be so proud.

Historian's fallacy is so fun!

Source?

Doesn't need one. It's self-evident.

 

[amadeus]

Source?

Demography of Resistance in World War II by Faye Kreeplye, pg. 44 and 189.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Yep. Based on the number of brave Yugoslavian soldiers who gave their lives to free the world from the domination of Hitler. Unlike the country that waited until it was attacked by Japan late in the war first, and then still waited for German to declare war on them instead of the other way around. You should be so proud.



Source?

Numbers don't mean everything.

Italy fielded an Army of 4 million in WW2, while Britain fielded an army of 3.5 million. Yet I doubt anyone would say that Italy contributed much to the axis war effort compared to Britain to the Allied war effort.

 

[MobBoss]

I have no idea how this myth started, but it is the naive view of many Americans that we singlehandedly won the war. It was actually the Soviet Union who contributed the most if you want to go by the only metric that really makes much sense: The number of military personnel who died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Canada: 45,300
China: 3,800,000
Poland: 240,000
Soviet Union: 10,700,000
UK: 382,700
US: 416,800
Yugoslavia: 446,000

But D-Day is a bad example:

Omaha: 4,500
Utah: 200
Gold: 400
Juno: 340
Sword: 630

Even though you could argue that Omaha Beach was botched and that so many should have never died.

I like how you confuse casualty loss with contribution. Russias military losses were huge primarily because of their hugely inept leadership in the first part of the war. It has nothing to do with who was effective and who wasnt.

Yep. Based on the number of brave Yugoslavian soldiers who gave their lives to free the world from the domination of Hitler. Unlike the country that waited until it was attacked by Japan late in the war first, and then still waited for German to declare war on them instead of the other way around. You should be so proud.

You know...I really have no idea why you live in the USA. I really dont.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I like how you confuse casualty loss with contribution. Russias military losses were huge primarily because of their hugely inept leadership in the first part of the war. It has nothing to do with who was effective and who wasnt.



You know...I really have no idea why you live in the USA. I really dont.

Last part was a bit harsh