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

[Camikaze]

Yeah. I bet you completely forgot about the 3.2 million Chinese soldiers who died during WWII. It was all about the US "saving the Pacific".

Well dying didn't really help win did it?

 

[aelf]

2) Not really. The US destroyed Germanys industries with it's constant bombing campaign. They lost a lot of produciton and ability to produce. That was a large factor, in conjuction with the actions of the other Allies.

Not that I know of. Under Speer, German war production actually went up despite Allied bombing. It was the lack of fuel that was the problem, and that had to do with failing to gain the oil fields in the Soviet Union.

 

[Formaldehyde]

1) The point is you make it sound like it was years once the US entered the war that they fought Germany.

Not much of a point given that I doubt anybody else took it that way. I certainly didn't intend it that way. Do you atually think I didn't know it was a matter of days for Germany to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor was attacked instead of years?

No, my point was that even after being attacked by Japan the US still did not declare war on Germany, their ally...

2) Not really. The US destroyed Germanys industries with it's constant bombing campaign. They lost a lot of produciton and ability to produce. That was a large factor, in conjuction with the actions of the other Allies.

That certainly helped, but the British were doing so long before the US started their own bombing campaigns during the day. And those raids were largely ineffective until Germany no longer had an air force and the allies had air superiority. And that was largely due to planes and other resources being bled off to help the Eastern Front.

3) The US Navy destroyed the Japanese Navy and with it, their ability to continue on the offensive.

Yes they did. Did I claim otherwise? My point is that China played a very instrumental role in the war in the Pacific, but you don't see that even mentioned in any US Hollywood propaganda, much like the real story of the European war in Russia outside of one movie which was not shown much once they became our 'enemies'.


Link to video.

 

[Gogf]

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?

You're surprised that American films focus on Americans?

 

[amadeus]

Movies about World War II tend to ignore a lot of things; movies are about getting butts in seats, not about historical accuracy.

 

[Masada]

So it is your opinion that that Germany would have won the war if the US had not gotten involved?

The emphasis that Stalin put on opening up a second front is telling. By the time America entered the war there was every possibility that the Soviet Union could still have lost the war. Nothing is written in stone and the balance was yet to go completely against Nazi Germany.

Probably not, but they certainly contributed a lot more than Hollywood gives them credit. What were our losses in the Pacific compared to theirs? How many Japanese soldiers did we kill compared to them?

Killing is one facet of wars and they are seldom reduced solely to attrition to the exclusion of all else. America quite simply didn't need to kill all the Japanese or even most of them. It simply needed to destroy their merchant shipping, bomb their industry and destroy their navy. The rest would follow soon after. I'm also mildly amused that you make an accusatory post about the use of my opinion and then venture to use your own!

Yes they did. Did I claim otherwise? My point is that China played a very instrumental role in the war in the Pacific, but you don't see that even mentioned in any US Hollywood propaganda, much like the real story of the European war in Russia outside of one movie which was not shown much once they became our 'enemies'.

Granted. But Japan wasn't going to be able to use those extra soldiers that were tied up in China for anything useful in any case. If its any consolation the Chinese release(d) hundreds of movies about the war from their perspective and ignore categorically Western assistance which arguably kept the Nationalists fighting. The Soviet Union and Russia do exactly the same thing. Australia and New Zealand have never to my knowledge in any film about Galipoli ever mentioned the British except as negative stereotypes, have never mentioned the French at all or the presence of German officers leading Turkish units.

 

[bigdog5994]

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.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

 

[cardgame]

All this talk of casualties and enemies KIA is ignoring every other aspect of war.


(hypothetical)
If the US enters into a tiny war on one side and the other gives up, did the victorious tiny nation contribute more to the war than the US joining their side, even though without US pressure they may have lost or kept on fighting for decades? I think not...

 

[aelf]

The emphasis that Stalin put on opening up a second front is telling. By the time America entered the war there was every possibility that the Soviet Union could still have lost the war. Nothing is written in stone and the balance was yet to go completely against Nazi Germany.

Well, AFAIK, it's not like the US did much until Overlord, not counting Lend Lease.

Credit to the Reds, I say.

 

[cardgame]

Well, AFAIK, it's not like the US did much until Overlord, not counting Lend Lease.

Credit to the Reds, I say.

Bombing most of Germany, invading Italy, supplying the Reds isn't much?

 

[Masada]

Bombing most of Germany, invading Italy, supplying the Reds isn't much?

Sideshows. The Italian front was kept static by a very small amount of troops... I'm inclined to believe that more Germans were involved in suppressing Yugoslavia than Italy.

Well, AFAIK, it's not like the US did much until Overlord, not counting Lend Lease.

The Germans gained another enemy to fight and had to act accordingly since individually Britain and the Commonwealth were impotent. That they had to reposition troops to meet this threat - prior to Overlord - was important.

Credit to the Reds, I say.

Credit to German mistakes more than anything the Red Army did or did not do.

 

[aelf]

Bombing most of Germany,

Did you not read what I said about Speer?

invading Italy,

I give you that. But at about the same time, Kursk was happening, so it's not like the Soviets really needed a hand before they managed on their side of the war.

supplying the Reds isn't much?

Do you know what the Lend Lease is?

Credit to German mistakes more than anything the Red Army did or did not do.

The same could be said of Overlord, since the Germans failed to fortify as well as they could. Omaha was a sample of how difficult it might have been.

 

[Masada]

I give you that. But at about the same time, Kursk was happening, so it's not like the Soviets really needed a hand before they managed on their side of the war.

Diverted a fraction of total German strength and was held static by that fraction for the rest of the war.

 

[cardgame]

Did you not read what I said about Speer?



I give you that. But at about the same time, Kursk was happening, so it's not like the Soviets really needed a hand before they managed on their side of the war.



Do you know what the Lend Lease is?



The same could be said of Overlord, since the Germans failed to fortify it as well as they could.

Lend lease was for the UK... maybe my history teacher doesn't like Russia I'll cede you this as it's pretty much the same thing I guess.

I will stand on the bombing part though, it broke Hitler's promise that his cities would never be bombed, and had a large effect on German morale, both the citizenry and the army, especially the higher-ups.

 

[Masada]

I will stand on the bombing part though, it broke Hitler's promise that his cities would never be bombed, and had a large effect on German morale, both the citizenry and the army, especially the higher-ups.

... and yet the army and the population kept fighting on till the bitter end. I wouldn't be surrendering to the Red Army either mind.

 

[aelf]

Diverted a fraction of total German strength and was held static by that fraction for the rest of the war.

Doesn't that undermine your own point?

Lend lease was for the UK... maybe my history teacher doesn't like Russia I'll cede you this as it's pretty much the same thing I guess.

Some say the Lend Lease was vital, while others downplay it. Certainly, it was very important, but I don't know if the Soviets would have lost without it.

I will stand on the bombing part though, it broke Hitler's promise that his cities would never be bombed, and had a large effect on German morale, both the citizenry and the army, especially the higher-ups.

I don't know how much significance that holds. The Wehrmacht still kept up a heroic fight till the end.

By the way, on a slightly unrelated note, I love Der Untergang.

 

[Masada]

Doesn't that undermine your own point?

The diversion of Axis assets to possible landing places doesn't. All those elite Panzer divisions sitting idle in France are not cutting a swathe through the Soviet Union. And you don't use Panzer divisions to chase down Franc-Tireur.

 

[aelf]

The diversion of Axis assets to possible landing places doesn't. All those elite Panzer divisions sitting idle in France are not cutting a swathe through the Soviet Union. And you don't use Panzer divisions to chase down Franc-Tireur.

Well, when I read a bit on this, I couldn't figure out who the 'Panzer Elite' were supposed to be. I could only find mention of a hastily-trained Hitlerjugend SS Panzer unit and another one that was reconstituted from the remnants of a North African unit. Doesn't sound like it was all that well-manned.

 

[hossam]

forma, if your such a Russophile, why not go live there? youve been using this whole thread to bash america, if you hate it so much you can always leave.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The diversion of Axis assets to possible landing places doesn't. All those elite Panzer divisions sitting idle in France are not cutting a swathe through the Soviet Union. And you don't use Panzer divisions to chase down Franc-Tireur.

Point that Both US and British bomber commands tied down a large amount ofs Luffwaffen troops including huge numbers of 88s which would have made a significant different elsewhere.