We need to get over our selves about world war 2
Posted Nov 11, 2023, 12:25 AM UTC
1740
Another foreigner who failed history
9
Calling people of different nationalities who aren’t even in your country “foreigners” is about as American as it gets.
-6
Wait, they're saying that we entered WWII purely because Germany declared war on us? Like I'm sure ignorance is bliss and all but what fanfic were they reading?
7
Ya interesting they didn’t mention Pearl Harbor at all
4
Yeah, also interesting that they didn't mention how Russia qas content to let Germany invade their neighbors and force their Nazism on the region until Germany showed up to mess with them.
5
Nah, they're actually right in a way. The American public, even on Dec 8, was significantly divided about a war with Germany. Most didn't want one at all. After the horrors of WWI, most Americans had no intention on dying for the retardation of the French and British.
President Roosavelt would have 100% been impeached for entering a war in Europe had Germany not declared war on the US, which I believe is what the commenter was referring to.
-2
Soviets would have fought the Nazis with linoleum knives and a shoe without a sole if it weren't for the Land-Lease Act.
And what did the U.S. provide?
400,000 jeeps & trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks
1.5 million blankets
15 million pairs of army boots
107,000 tons of cotton
2.7 million tons of petrol products
4.5 million tons of food
https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/
2
But this wasnt all provided in a single year. Lend Lease reached its peak in 1944, and by that point the war was already over. Only a fraction of what was listed here was provided to the Soviets during the battle of stalingrad or Kursk.
Also 14k planes? The Soviets produced over 100k aircraft throughout the entire war
-5
Stalin stated they could not have defeated the Germans without lend lease.
Other than being wrong about everything, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread?
5
Give me the exact quote and the context behind it
Since you like citing historians im sure you wont have an issue with me citing Glantz right? Well he claims that the Soviets could have won without Lend-Lease
-2
Both Zhukov and Nikita Khrushchev admitted it.
4
lol. Keep digging your hole.
3
Lend Lease ftw
2
I didn't know pearl harbor wasn't a thing, at least according to them
2
We joined because of the Japanese you idiot.
2
Guess who was winning in those three years we weren't in WWII, because it certainly wasn't the allys
1
The US officially entered the war after the Japanese attack. Not because of anything Germany specifically did.
That said, I get tired of these peple acting as if any one entity single-handedly won the war. the result would have been in more doubt without the contributions of any one of the three major Allied powers and their dependencies. It was a group effort. Some entities payed more of a force in certain aspects and arenas than others. And even if you were to argue the soviets bore a greater burden from a troop and casualty standpoint in Europe, the US certainly carried the bulk of the weight in the Pacific theater.
1
Some entities paid more of
FTFY.
Although payed exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
-
Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. The deck is yet to be payed.
-
Payed out when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. The rope is payed out! You can pull now.
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
Beep, boop, I'm a bot
1
None of us participated in that war so none of us have bragging rights.
-1
Nobody is bragging. Euroland keeps trying to gaslight by minimizing the U.S.'s contributions to the war effort. Ignoring the fact the U.S. basically handled the entire Pacific theater on its own, there was no chance of an Invasion of mainland Europe without the U.S. being the laboring oar.
The thing about WWII is that it basically marked the end of the U.K. as being a relevant force in the world. Yes, they go to keep territories, etc. post war, but their place on the world stage was essentially over.
The U.K.'s biggest contribution to the war effort is its seemingly endless supplies of actors for U.S. WWII movies.
3
Since everyone on this sub focuses entirely on the failures of European nations and success of America, here’s how it looks if you do the same the other way. From another post where people were saying Europe was dead without the US.
What super soldier serum do you think American soldiers were taking that meant they did more than the Soviets and British?
The main independent contribution by the US army in Europe was the 7th army in Sicily, where they lost 8,000 of 12,000 soldiers. They then didn’t even arrived in Italy until after it had surrendered, and still took 116,000 casualties.
The first real American Air Force action in Europe was the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, cripple American long range bombing capabilities in Europe for more than half a year.
This lead to new American bombers being built that were better armoured, but had much lower payloads than most other bombers.
The next major US action (trying to bomb the same place) resulted in over a quarter of the attacking force being lost. After this the US halted air operations over Germany until 1944.
They then continued “precision bombing” in Germany (only 7% of the bombs dropped landed within 1000 feet of their targets).
During D-day, American paratroopers were deployed to defend the invasion. They were dropped in the wrong locations.
There were two main groups of Americans involved in the landing at D-day. One group went off course and ended up 2km in the wrong direction, and the other landed in an are with little defence. The first group then failed to remove the German heavy defences or gain any foothold until the next day.
The US forces then levelled one French city, captured another due to other allied bombers preventing a German SS Panzer division from reaching it, almost lost another city until allied bombers showed up, failed to hold 2 bridges against a small German force with 2 full divisions, took 6 months to push to a city that they then didn’t capture, had one of their best forces pushed back by a regular German force, completely ignored information about a major German surprise attack (leading to the highest casualties America took in any battle in WW2), was saved from another counter attack by French forces, and finally linked up with more Allied/Soviet forces to push into Germany, and every group they encountered surrendered without a fight.
The US may have been enough to tip the balance, but we’re nowhere near as effective as you seem to think. Remember all this was after every other nation in Europe had been at war for over 2 years.
-2
... and, what about the Pacific?
...what about the billions of aid to the Allies?
... why does an "independent army" mean anything? The entire Italy campaign was multi-national.
... The American bombing issue was basically a learning experience, and it was valuable. The English still bombed at night, so bombing was still going on. The U.S. made adjustments and improved. However, no matter how good the bomber was, the bombers needed escorts as the targets were becoming further and further into German territory.
... Lower payloads ... big deal. The target has to be reached to drop the bombs. More planes reaching the target areas made up for this. The 7% rate was factored in. It's not like there was some other air force willing and able to bomb during the day that could do it better.
... Paratroopers dropped in wrong locations? So what? Do you think that was not anticipated? Eventually they covered most of their objectives. An unanticipated bonus of the deployment is that the Germans were confused.
... Utah beach landing off course? So, what? They cleared the beach and were moving heavy arms and vehicles in by noon. The new location was much easier, so the commanding officer (Teddy Roosevelt, Jr.) rerouted the rest of the landings to his spot. Omaha had cleared an exit by noon. The only beach not fully established that day was Gold - which was one of the British landing sites.
... That next paragraph is a mess of vague statements. Not worth responding to. The most glaring falsehood is that the Americans linked up with the Soviets to get into Germany. That was not true; the Americans got in on their own and then linked up south of Berlin.
See, even your "devil's advocate" piece, is full of holes.
The fundamental problem is that you somehow afford both positions "equivalency" when one is just a random statement of half-truths and irrelevant facts mixed in with silly judgments. The other is based on actual facts and events. The person who wrote this has little knowledge of WWII. The criticisms seem to be based off of cursory readings of random sources or Wikipedia without understanding any of the context or foundational facts.
I guess by posting this as some valid criticism, you are just as ignorant as the writer.
2
The US lost, what, 250,000 in that war...losing no factories or cities.. or even civilians to speak of. Russia lost 27 million civilians and most of everything else. US just mopped up the mess, really. As an American, it grinds away in the back of my mind how relatively scot-free we got off in it all. We didn't even have to invade Japan.. but that's another story. I can't help fearing that the averages will catch the US up in some horrible way.. But wouldn't it be nice if all nations could avoid WW3 somehow?
-1
The U.S. basically handled the Pacific Theater on its own. Russia brought that trouble on themselves. They were happy to carve up Poland with the Germans and maneuver themselves for the spoils of war. Russia was so overconfident about it's arrangement that Stalin ignored reports of a build up on his borders maintaining that Germany would never invade. So, Russia wasn't prepared, and they paid dearly.
Russia's initial tactics of just throwing everything into the attack also created a giant meat grinder - but, at that time, that is all they had. Eventually, their military was overhauled on the fly and their performance improved drastically. With Russia it was always going to be a war of attrition given their choices and circumstances.
Also, 20 million of Russia's civilians died at Stalin's hand. I guess the U.S. could have received more sympathy if it carried out mass executions of its own people.
As an American, it really "grinds away" that America, using its vast resources efficiently with relatively more concern for the welfare of its troops such that its potential losses were mitigated? Fighting a war better than the other combatants is somehow a rub of the green to you? What averages would catch up to the U.S.? It hasn't been a matter of luck; it's been about resources, technology, efficiency, planning, and preparation. There is no "bad luck" due.
2
I hope you're right about no bad luck due. The math should all be on our side, except everyone hates us and what i principally worry about is some Bin Laden sort getting a nuke and a nice missile and EMPing us. No one seems quite sure what that 1 MT nuke might do to our electronics at 300 vertical miles. Maybe we could all laugh it off afterwards. I hope so. Also, yeah, I'm thinking I was soft in having empathy for the USSR. Stalin was a horrible person and the USSR should have stopped him. But Stalin killing 20 million of his own people during the war? I've heard this before. Surely someone is conflating WW2 deaths with the Holodomor. But otherwise, I like your optimism.
1
Totally ignorant.
After Poland was invaded, nothing happened for a year. That period was called the "Phony War" by France and England and the "Sitzkrieg" by the Germans.
After Germany invaded West, the U.S. was pouring funds and supplies into the Allies' cause.
Finally, if any European thinks they were going to win without U.S. intervention, they are sadly mistaken. Even if they did have the numbers and materiel, their leadership needed a buffer as English and French generals were always more concerned with personal glory than actually winning.
It would have been a very long war. And with Hitler's nuclear aims and Germany's rocketry, it wouldn't be long before the entire continent was Nazi.
Right. the U.K. would have been knocked out of the war thus giving Germany a free reign in Western Europe. With that front locked up, they likely would have taken Russia with their initial invasion.
This is just blatantly false. Germany invaded Denmark and Norway during this time period. There were also naval battles, air battles and incursions into Germany by France. It wasnt phony.
You sold them those goods under cash and carry, Lend-Lease would only be signed in 1941.
Again, thats just not true. Yes many french generals were quite incompetent, but they were replaced with newer ones later on in the war. Also the brits were doing a fairly good job in Africa too. This also ignores the USSR
This guy never read a history book. Eat up that European propaganda
European propaganda? Bruh
On the Axis side, the Germans launched attacks at sea in the autumn and winter against British aircraft carriers and destroyers, sinking several, including the carrier HMS Courageous, with the loss of 519 lives. Action in the air began on 16 October 1939, when the Luftwaffe launched air raids on British warships. There were various minor bombing raids and reconnaissance flights on both sides.
So, you are being disingenuous. There is a reason why historians cite "the phoney war," and "sitzkrieg" as names given to this period.
Also, there was a separate program where the U.S. provided navy vessels in exchange for base access which started in 1940.
Anyhow, your points are way off and to me, it looks like you are trying to argue for argument's sake. You shouldn't do that as you are making a fool of yourself.
>It's not blatantly false. There were no operations that would be of any scale that would have invited "outside help." From Wiki (for convenience) is the list of what happened:
Any scale? Basically the entire German surface fleet was sunk invading Norway. The invasion of Norway wasnt some small thing. Also the whole "phoney war" term has fallen out of favor with modern historians
In your comment you stated that "nothing happened" and now you do concede that many things did in fact happen. So did nothing happen or did important things happen?
>So, you are being disingenuous. There is a reason why historians cite "the phoney war," and "sitzkrieg" as names given to this period.
What historians? The only thing you have cited so far is wikipedia articles
>Your understanding and representation of "Lend Lease" is wanting. I guess you couldn't get through the entire Wikipedia article. "Cash and Carry" was the initial program which was designed to keep the veneer of neutrality. In 1941, "Lend-Lease" was signed, and basically, it was not a sale of goods, but an aid program:
"After Germany invaded West, the U.S. was pouring funds and supplies into the Allies' cause"
Pouring funds into the Allie's cause huh? It was the opposite. Lend-Lease wasnt signed until 1941, the Germans marched west in 1940. The program that was in place was cash and carry, which mandated payment. The US wasnt pouring aid to the allies, it was selling weapons to them. It looks you are the one that is lacking in knowledge when it comes to Lend Lease
>Also, there was a separate program where the U.S. provided navy vessels in exchange for base access which started in 1940.
So? Lend-Lease still wouldnt be signed for another year
>Also, the brits has issues with their leadership in Africa as well. Not sure why you are using this as an example. Above all, as I stated, they were too hung up on personal glory which affected their competence. Monty was consistently a pain in the ass and always complaining about not getting the lion's share of resources during the campaign following Overlord to Berlin.
I agree that Monty was a bit of a pain in the ass later in the war, but during the North African campaign he did make the various forces of the brits coordinate much better. Also Archibald Wavell absolutely destroyed the italians in operation compass. The Americans also had prideful generals like for example Mark Clark that rushed for Rome instead of encircling the retreating German army in the Italian campaign.
>Anyhow, your points are way off and to me, it looks like you are trying to argue for argument's sake. You shouldn't do that as you are making a fool of yourself.
No im arguing because you are spreading blatant disinformation and making it seem like the Allies before the US entered were utterly incompetent
Just stop already. Like I said, you are making a fool of yourself. The invasion of Norway preceded the invasion of Western Europe by one month. There was little else going on:
From September 1939 to May 1940, apart from a few brief skirmishes, both sides were content to remain behind their defences. This contrast with the blitzkrieg ('lightning war') tactics of the Polish campaign resulted in the war being labelled as the 'sitzkrieg' and the 'Bore War'.
The Anglo-French war plans were fundamentally defensive and the build-up of French and British land forces proved to be a lengthy process. In the meantime, much importance was placed upon the effects of the Allied naval blockade of Germany.
On the home front, Britain braced itself for an all-out German air attack and its civil defence plans were immediately put into effect. Air raid precautions were rigorously imposed, but although the much-feared danger of aerial attack did not immediately materialise, people still had to abide by a host of government restrictions. Conscription, food rationing and the use of public transport for military purposes combined to make the 'Phoney War' a time of discomfort and anti-climax in Britain.
In the spring of 1940 Germany launched attacks against Scandinavia and western Europe. Norway was strategically and economically important to both Germany and the Allies. Hitler decided to pre-empt an Allied move, and German troops invaded Norway by sea and air on 9 April 1940. On 10 May 1940, Germany also launched attacks on France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, bringing the stalemate in western Europe to an end.
Phony War