Bush/Cheney have disgraced their office; they should resign

[stevebaby]

You acknowledge that your government behaved cowardly during WWII.


You have still not given one reason why Americans should have fought in a war started by europeans and fought in europe.


You and Darkboong says Americans don't know history. Apparently neither do either of you. America in the 1930's was very isolationist. Public sentiment was that the war in europe was a european affair. It should be settled by europeans. Again, one reason why Americans should have fought in a european war.


Not true. The US declared war on Japan on December 8th. Roosevelt didn't include Germany. Germany had not attacked the US. Germany declared war on the US on December 11th.

"one reason why americans should have fought in a european war"?
"Germany declared war on the us on december 11th"
You have answered your own question.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

CR, if you still don't realise that the "singlehanded" comment is ********, you really do need to do a little more research on what happened throughout the Pacific Theatre (and not just contain it to the areas where American Forces were involved). The US Forces fought "island to island" in conjunction with a lot of other people. It would be nice to see you pay a little more respect to those people. The fight to overcome the Japanese was not just John Wayne in Iwo Jima.
In terms of numbers, USA was the largest contributor. In terms of effort and sacrifice, not necessarily so. You make the point that 10% of your population joined up - 12.5% of ours did, with another 6.25% taking up arms for home defence, and that was without us being attacked.
I, personally, thank all of those who took part, regardless of where they came from. I don't know any WW2 Vet's who would claim that anything was done singlehandedly when it came to defeating the Axis Powers. It surprises me that this is your view of how the victory came about.

Sure the Australians, Kiwis, British, and a few others fought. The lionshare of the work was left to the Americans. The Australians, Kiwis, Brits stood no chance of beating the Japanese on their own. The US could have beaten Japan without any other help.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Of course not, but you got your facts wrong regarding Talvisota.

Did the Soviets not invade Finland? What other facts are pertinent? The Soviets saw a chance to get some land back that they lost.

Not quite. You were claiming the Europeans didn't fight in the Pacific theatre, they most certainly did (although as you point out they got clobbered at the start). If you want to restrict it to contributions that ended the war, the British scientists who worked on the Manhattan project, provided Radar and code-breaking to the Americans would count.

The Americans had already broken the Japanese code before the war. Likewise the British had broken the German code.

The RAF provided support for a few operations and delivered and protected supplies (including Hurricanes and Spitfires). The US provided P-39s and B-25s which had been rejected as poorly armored and underperforming for combat in the European Theatre.That said at least one Russian Ace flew a P-39.

Can you provide a source for the RAF flying combat support for Soviet military operations?
The P-39 was well armored but was considered to slow and unmaneuverable for the US and British. It turned out well suited for ground support and tank busting.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

No one suggested that the US didn't play a very central role in WWII. The USA did and I know from speaking with one US veteran with whom I used to be in regular contact in Ga., that the US vets got full recognition from many many Europeans who were under Nazi occupation.

But to suggest that the US solely "liberated Europe" is inaccurate.

In respect of the war in the Pacific : yes the USA did play a very major part in that as well.
As did the Aussies and the New Zealanders, Malaysians, British.

I never said the US "solely" liberated europe. My response was to insinuations that American involvement was somehow less honorable that any other country.
Or the theory that the American contribution was equal to all other allied countries. Only one country can claim to be equal to the US in contribution to the european war and that is Russia. And in the Pacific theater no other country can even come close to claiming an equal share of the victory.

 

[limerickman]

I never said the US "solely" liberated europe. My response was to insinuations that American involvement was somehow less honorable that any other country.
Or the theory that the American contribution was equal to all other allied countries. Only one country can claim to be equal to the US in contribution to the european war and that is Russia. And in the Pacific theater no other country can even come close to claiming an equal share of the victory.

I never stated that you said that the USA solely liberated Europe.
I stated that one of your fellow US citizens stated that the USA solely liberated Europe in this Forum.
And indeed it seems that the textbooks used in your country's education system state that your country liberated Europe.
Your country didn't liberate Europe.
Your country contributed to the liberation of Europe with allies such as USSR and Britain.

Regarding the quantification of the contribution of respective country's to the WW2 effort.
The British contribution to the liberation of Europe outstripped your country's
contribution.

 

[limerickman]

CR, if you still don't realise that the "singlehanded" comment is ********, you really do need to do a little more research on what happened throughout the Pacific Theatre (and not just contain it to the areas where American Forces were involved). The US Forces fought "island to island" in conjunction with a lot of other people. It would be nice to see you pay a little more respect to those people. The fight to overcome the Japanese was not just John Wayne in Iwo Jima.
In terms of numbers, USA was the largest contributor. In terms of effort and sacrifice, not necessarily so. You make the point that 10% of your population joined up - 12.5% of ours did, with another 6.25% taking up arms for home defence, and that was without us being attacked.
I, personally, thank all of those who took part, regardless of where they came from. I don't know any WW2 Vet's who would claim that anything was done singlehandedly when it came to defeating the Axis Powers. It surprises me that this is your view of how the victory came about.

Eoin, part of the problem is that they're taught history in school which is factually incorrect.
Given that their country education textbooks are incorrect, it's not surprising that they post inaccurate information.

I was shocked to see a US school history text book that stated that the USA won the Vietnam war.
Given this level of inaccuracy, it's hardly surprising.

 

[limerickman]

You've got to admit that excuse sounds a bit thin Lim. Their bombers were struggling to reach British targets, they would have needed to have fueled the planes up for the extra mileage and pretty much throw out everything that wasn't nailed down for a start.

That was the response that the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe gave to the Irish goverment in light of the bombing.
In hindsight the excuse looks shaky but that was the explanation given.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Regarding the quantification of the contribution of respective country's to the WW2 effort. The British contribution to the liberation of Europe outstripped your country's contribution.

How so? We supplied Britain with supplies and war material. We supplied Britain with food and necessities to survive. Without the US the Brits could only sit on their island and watch the Germans run continental europe. Sure they could have made some bombing runs. They in no way shape or form could have mounted an invasion of europe on their own.

 

[limerickman]

How so? We supplied Britain with supplies and war material. We supplied Britain with food and necessities to survive. Without the US the Brits could only sit on their island and watch the Germans run continental europe. Sure they could have made some bombing runs. They in no way shape or form could have mounted an invasion of europe on their own.

While your country was making profits by supplying both sides between 1939-1941, the British were trying to defend what was left of democracy.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Eoin, part of the problem is that they're taught history in school which is factually incorrect. Given that their country education textbooks are incorrect, it's not surprising that they post inaccurate information.

I'm sorry what information is incorrect? Just another case of the europeans looking down their noses at Americans.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

While your country was making profits by supplying both sides between 1939-1941, the British were trying to defend what was left of democracy.

Here we go with the dishonorable **** again.
Defend what was left of democracy. Well the Brits did a **** poor job of that. Hell the Germans ran the Brits out of France at Dunkirk. That was a great contribution. The Brits were lucky that ****** turned his attention to the Soviets.

What war material did the US supply to Germany?

 

[limerickman]

I'm sorry what information is incorrect? Just another case of the europeans looking down their noses at Americans.

Your country's education textbooks are factually incorrect : how else can you explain why those textbooks state that your country won the Vietnam war ?

And as regards looking down noses, you'd do well to try to learn about a subject before you pontificate about winning the war against the Japanese.

Several non-European members here have corrected your false assertions about the war against the Japanese.

 

[limerickman]

Here we go with the dishonorable **** again.
Defend what was left of democracy. Well the Brits did a **** poor job of that. Hell the Germans ran the Brits out of France at Dunkirk. That was a great contribution. The Brits were lucky that ****** turned his attention to the Soviets.

What war material did the US supply to Germany?

The fact that the USA dealt with both sides in WW2, prior to America's entry in to the war, is well documented.
You can call it dishonourable **** if you wish - but it factaully correct to state that the USA traded with both warring sides.

What material did the USA supply to Germany?
IBM, Ford and General Motors all traded with the Germany and helped to bolster the Nazi regime with the technology and product supplied.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Your country's education textbooks are factually incorrect : how else can you explain why those textbooks state that your country won the Vietnam war ?

Never seen a textbook that stated that. Show your source for that. Where can I find this textbook?

And as regards looking down noses, you'd do well to try to learn about a subject before you pontificate about winning the war against the Japanese.

Oh yes the Aussies, Kiwis, and the Brits were doing such a bang up job in the Pacific. Actually the Aussies and Kiwis held their own. The Brits on the other hand spent the war stalemated in Burma. How many non-Americans participated in the landings on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa?
Here is your answer: zero! While the US was fighting the battles to get within range of Japan, the Brits were barely holding on in Burma. How many non-American planes bombed Japan? Zero!

pontificate

Something you do well!

Several non-European members here have corrected your false assertions about the war against the Japanese.

If it is false then you'll probably want to remove my posts!

 

[Colorado Ryder]

The fact that the USA dealt with both sides in WW2, prior to America's entry in to the war, is well documented.
You can call it dishonourable **** if you wish - but it factaully correct to state that the USA traded with both warring sides.

What material did the USA supply to Germany?
IBM, Ford and General Motors all traded with the Germany and helped to bolster the Nazi regime with the technology and product supplied.

Was the US at war with Germany at this time?

 

[Carrera]

There was a line of thought in Spain back in the nineties that those countries that lost WW2 came off best in the long term, namely Germany and Japan. At that time, Germany had a very strong economy and Japan has always been an economic powerhouse.
Britain fought well in WW2 but gained very little out of the victory. Most of the spoils went to the Soviet Union while France and Britain slipped into decline.
As for the U.S., the U.S. economy started to boom back then the way China is today. Both the USSR and the U.S. mainly prospered as a result of the war.
Since that time, Britain has slipped into decline and continues to do so. Now Germany and France appear to be in the same boat and China has just overtaken Italy.

Was the US at war with Germany at this time?

 

[darkboong]

Sure they could have made some bombing runs.

"some bombing runs" ... They made *lots* of bombing runs, in case you forgot they completely flattened a few large cities (unnecessarily and immorally in my view).

They in no way shape or form could have mounted an invasion of europe on their own.

Over the long term Russia would have squashed Germany flat anyway. IIRC 83% of the German losses were on the Eastern Front. The trick was to stop the Russians from running Europe (hence the race for Berlin - which the Americans failed to win Single Handedly).

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Over the long term Russia would have squashed Germany flat anyway. IIRC 83% of the German losses were on the Eastern Front. The trick was to stop the Russians from running Europe (hence the race for Berlin - which the Americans failed to win Single Handedly).

Never said the US won the european war singlehandedly. The Soviets paid a steep price but again they deserved everything they lost.

Had the US not entered the war, the British would have looked across the channel and seen the Soviets waving back. Without US participation on the western front the war on the eastern front would have lasted several more years. Without a credible invasion threat from the west ****** could have used those troops in the east.

The Race for Berlin.....not really a race. Eisenhower was told that casualties from a Berlin battle would be over 100,000. Hearing this he told his staff that the Soviets could take Berlin. The Soviets lost about 150,000 men taking Berlin.

 

[wolfix]

"some bombing runs" ... They made *lots* of bombing runs, in case you forgot they completely flattened a few large cities (unnecessarily and immorally in my view).

What is the explanation to the bomb being 'Unnecessary & Immoral ?"

 

[wolfix]

"some bombing runs" ... They made *lots* of bombing runs, in case you forgot they completely flattened a few large cities (unnecessarily and immorally in my view).

What is the explanation to the bomb being 'Unnecessary & Immoral ?"