Turn on thread page Beta

Did the US really "save our ass" in WW2? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texan88)
    South of Denmark, east or Belgium and France, west of Poland, and North of Austria and Switzerland. Go screw yourself
    Yes because one person makes up the majority of America? Go screw yourself and then learn to read, thanks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Russians did more, but both we and the Russians benefited from American weapons. On D-day there were still as many British Empire troops as Americans, thereafter the balance of forces began to shift more in favour of the Americans.

    But I don't see how cowardly standing by and watching Hitler conquer countries and persecute Jews until the Japanese attacked them and Hitler declared war on the US can be seen as particularly boastworthy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texan88)
    Oh forgot also America did alot of the grunt work in the pacific islands, not saying we did it all but come on you have to admit we made the decisive move that ultimately ended the war.
    I think this is mostly talking about victory in Europe. The pacific was almost a separate war..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    If a Yank says they saved Britain's ass they would be wrong.
    If they ever say we'd be speaking German if it wasn't for them they are wrong and stupid.

    I can't be arsed to go into more detail, but not, the US really didn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They saved Britain from economic collapse, by providing a huge loan to the Government.

    But, no, they didn't win the war in Europe.

    They did, however, end the war in the Pacific; albeit, quite messily.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xSkyFire)
    Yes because one person makes up the majority of America? Go screw yourself and then learn to read, thanks.
    Generalizing an entire nation is pretty lame. That's like me saying everyone in England have horrible teeth, drink too much, and drink tea...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Russia done jack (just their weather)

    unfortunately for hitler he didnt learn from napoleons mistakes
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    The Russians did more, but both we and the Russians benefited from American weapons. On D-day there were still as many British Empire troops as Americans, thereafter the balance of forces began to shift more in favour of the Americans.

    But I don't see how cowardly standing by and watching Hitler conquer countries and persecute Jews until the Japanese attacked them and Hitler declared war on the US can be seen as particularly boastworthy.

    Cowardly standing by? And then you're the same person who will go and criticize the US nowadays for interfering in everyone's business. You can't have it both ways . . .
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    The US, UK and Russia all contributed in relatively equal measure.
    That is entirely untrue. I know of no respectable historian who argues that. :wtf:

    The USSR contributed at least 15 times what Britain did, in terms of tanks, troops, funds and above all: lives. They sacrificed ~27 million men pushing the Nazis back westwards, from where the Americans entered and ended the war, meeting in Germany several kilometres west of Berlin.

    As for your comment on North Africa - Britain was largely successful there but that constituted such a minuscule part of the war as a whole. Britain was virtually on the verge of bankruptcy prior to WWII and the war pushed the country over the edge. American funds, ie. Marshall aid is all that kept the British economy alive, and Russian tanks and troops are what kept the Nazis down for the most part.

    To say that Britain contributed in "relatively equal measures" with the likes of the USA and USSR in WWII is nothing short of a lie / misinformation (to put it more nicely). :yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lou Reed)
    i'd say that's pretty accurate tbh
    Richard Hammond has white teeth :p:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Well they emerged the dominant country on the planet - they may not have won it but they certainly won it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Texan88)
    Generalizing an entire nation is pretty lame. That's like me saying everyone in England have horrible teeth, drink too much, and drink tea...
    The teeth thing was fixed long ago, drinking too much relative to other countries fair enough and I don't see what's wrong with drinking tea.
    Was it something like 38% of Americans even believe in evolution? Americans also spending the most time in classrooms with the least results in the *world* ? It's pretty much known everywhere the US education system is retarded anyway lol
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    All of the Allied nations played their own crucial parts. Yes, American ground forces did play an important role in defeating Hitler in western Europe, but Britain played an equally important role defeating the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, while Russia was crucial in eastern Europe.
    The most important thing is that Nazi Germany was defeated...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dzeh)
    Russia done jack (just their weather)

    unfortunately for hitler he didnt learn from napoleons mistakes
    The weather was on the side of the Russians, but the weather didn't do all the work for them. After the battle of Stalingrad the Red Army started to steadily push back Germany.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Russia never intended to save our ass and thats where the difference lies.
    Had Germany not invaded Russia they certainly wouldn't have joined in the war. America sent supplies to us and basically kept the country running, however Germany's plans to invade England was never really wanted within the German high command.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nappyblues)
    Cowardly standing by? And then you're the same person who will go and criticize the US nowadays for interfering in everyone's business. You can't have it both ways . . .
    No I want the US to step up to the plate re Iran. I don't have any problem with US military action and intervention.

    The problem for British supporters of the US is how incompetent and unreliable their military execution is, if they were as effective as we used to be Western Civilisation would be a lot safer. The US has no staying power, and the neocons simply didn't do the job properly, if they had begun with troop levels as high as during the surge and secured the Iraqi borders asap think how much more stable things would have been.

    If you are going to do something do it properly, you end up wasting less money and blood in the long run - I couldn't believe how little manpower the US put into Iraq and Afghanistan and the pitiful size of the economic reconstruction. If you had spent half the money you ended up spending in Vietnam on buying up all the land and pragmatically redistributing it to all the peasants and giving them a better quality of life the appeal of communism would have been practically non-existent and it would have cost less than you ended up spending in that war. Why did they try to eradicate the opium poppies in Afghanistan when a huge number of the Afghan population were reliant on that crop for their livelihood? Why not buy up the whole opium crop at the price they were already being paid and use it for the West's legitimate pharmaceutical needs while you reconstruct their economy properly - massive Marshall Aid package - and offer them some real alternatives? There is no point doing anything in a half hearted way, and the US is often hamstrung by its obsession with not being an empire - as a result it ends up doing less good in the world than the British did, we didn't go in and leave everything in a complete mess (most of the time), we spent time and energy on nation building and constitutional development.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well we saved their ass in World War III... :holmes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The Russians ripped the heart out of the Nazi army and the Americans supllied them with the stuff to do it through land-lease.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=ak56]
    My opinion on the matter is the US didn't like the fact commies were ultimately considered the heros of the war, and as little information would be getting back to the US public that didn't go through the military, in a simplied way, I suspect the US Military were just telling the public they were kicking everyones ass. Also, Americans, being the sort of people they are, didn't like to think of themselves as merely being just a part of the greater force, they need to be the leaders, they need to be perceived as the ones kicking everyones ass.
    QUOTE]

    Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant... "being the sort of people they are." Way to pinhole over 301 million people, be they black, brown, white, yellow, speak english or spanish, etc..

    It is just unbelievable that people generalise Americans as Christian, fat, stupid, overly patriotic, blah, blah, blah.. The United States is the most diverse country in the world.. hell, I hear spanish half the time..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The Germans could never have taken the UK. They couldn't control the skies and it would have been (almost) impossible for them to take the UK.

    Supposing the US had not entered the war then the situation would have been (in March 1942):

    Russians, having stopped the final German advance on December 5th 1941 (before the US entered the war), would be slowly pushing the Germans back. Their industry would be building up. All this would happen, but would take maybe a few more months to complete.

    Having postponed Operation Sealion on 17th September 1940, the final units earmarked for the Operation were re-directed on February 13th 1942. Britain would be disarray after the fall of Singapore on 15th February 1942.

    Operations in North Africa were mixed. No advances or retreats in the future.

    British industry would be in tatters as would the army. We wouldn't be able to get the resources to manufacture new goods.

    Now, the most common arguments I hear about how the US saved the UK and my responses:

    Britain did resist Nazi forces during Operation Sealion, but in the aftermath Britain was in no position to single-handedly take back Western Europe from the Third Reich. If the US had stayed out of the conflict, Hitler could have regrouped and been able to conquer the UK.
    In wargames conducted at RMA Sandhurst in 1974 by the generals (UK and German) who would have commanded in real life, they found the Germans could make a beachhead, but couldn't expand it. The Royal Navy could cut off the supplies and the Germans couldn't get past the GHQ line.

    They could not have taken the UK, however, the UK could not have attacked Western Europe at the time.

    We could have re-grouped, but it would have taken time. At least 8 months to reach a minimum standard. After all, we still had an empire.

    Operation Overlord would not have been possible without the help of the United States. Without the industrial powerhouse that was the United States, the allies would not have had sufficient manpower and vehicles to mount a successful invasion.
    Overlord might not have been needed. We could have advanced slowly, but inexorably, through Italy for example.

    The Russians would have advanced to Berlin without us. It would have taken at least a year longer, but it would have probably happened.

    Operation Overlord wouldn't have happened without Operation Fortitude or the ULTRA intelligence group - both British planned and executed.

    After the closing of the European Theatre it became evident that the Nazi's were hard at work on the atomic bomb and only months behind the Manhattan Project. If the United States had not entered the war when it did, Hitler could have developed the A-bomb first, which would have effectively made him the victor.
    What if the UK "Tube Alloys" program invented them first? US and Germany were not the only ones making atomic bombs you know.

    Indeed, the US were only able to make such a huge technological “jump” so soon after starting the Manhattan Project because of the Tube Alloys program.

    Great Britain relied on supplies being sent from the United States as part of Roosevelt's lend-lease plan. Would the UK have been able to put up such a fight without American aid?
    The Lend-Lease plan started at the end of October 1941 with shipments to the UK. By this stage we had won the Battle of Britain and Sealion had already been stopped.

    It is very unlikely, nigh on impossible that we would have fallen. We had air support, we had the biggest, most powerful navy and the Germans would not have been able to advance past the GHQ line.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 23, 2012
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.