99% of the movies about ww2 is about american and british soldiers. Young people today are taught that ww2 was only won because of the invasion of normandy (which btw only 50% of the troops were american. the rest was English, French, Polish, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish and other soldiers)
Her is a fact for you history lacking americans:
The German army had 300 divisions on the eastern front (that´s Russia btw) -3 million soldiers fought the red army since july 22nd 1941.
On the western front, the German army had only 50-60 divisions.
FACT.
American and British loss; under 1 million soldiers combined. German losses; 7 million soldiers. Russian losses; 17 million soldiers!!!!!
The war was won almost solely due to the red army, with soldiers under a brutal regime, who faced being shot by their own officers if they didn´t advance.
When USA joined the war in late 41, the German invasion of Russia had already stopped outside of Moscow and Leningrad. American soldiers didn´t join the war in europe until 3 years later.
So stop thinking you saved europe! I mean, I really respect the effort you made, as well as the great sacrifices. But stop glorifying it!!!
First, REAL facts back the claim that had the United States not become involved, Norway would not only be german territory today, it would probably be an incorporated reich state. As much as you are disgusted by the Amis getting the glory, we Americans are disgusted by the lack of gratitude on the part of Europeans for us having saved the world. Now I will respond to each of your comments individually. 1)The German army had 300 divisions on the eastern front (that´s Russia btw) -3 million soldiers fought the red army since july 22nd 1941. REALITY- THE GERMANS NEVER HAD 300 DIVISIONS IN THE EAST, AND ALTHOUGH THEIR INITIAL FORCES AT THE START OF "BARBAROSSA" WERE ALMOST THREE MILLION MEN, BY 1944 THE FORCES HAD BEEN REDUCED TO MUCH LESS THAT HALF THAT AMOUNT. 2)American and British loss; under 1 million soldiers combined. German losses; 7 million soldiers. Russian losses; 17 million soldiers!!!!! REALITY - I'M ASSUMING YOU ARE COUNTING ONLY DEATHS IN YOUR FIGURES. GERMAN KILLED IS 3,250,000. RUSSIAN KILLED IS 13,6000,000. 3) The war was won almost solely due to the red army, with soldiers under a brutal regime... REALITY - ONLY BECAUSE OF LEND/LEASE (AMERICAN AID) WERE THE SOVIETS ABLE TO SUSTAIN THEIR WAR EFFORT. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE NORMANDY INVASION WHICH WAS LED, FINANCED, AND DOMINATED (WE HAD THE MOST MEN INVOLVED AND THEREFORE TOOK HEAVIER CASUALTIES)BY THE U.S, TOOK PRESSURE OFF RUSSIA AND DISTRACTED HITLER. IN CONCLUSION, WE SAVED EUROPE. I'M GLAD YOU RESPECT "THE EFFORT" WE MADE, AS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THIS FORUM TO COMPLAIN ABOUT US. I ALSO RESPECT THE EFFORT OF YOUR COUNTRY MADE AGAINST HITLER. YOU HELD OUT LONGER THAN POLAND. - AMERICAN
Are you by chance white, blonde, blue-eyed, and non-Jewish? If so, you may well be wishing that the Nazis had won. If you aren't of the above description, then you probably wouldn't be here now spewing this nonsense about wishing Germany had won.
Seeing all the crimes against humanity the US has commited since 1945, I'm beginning to wish the Nazis had won too.
the war crimes that the U.S. committed in vietnam and iraq don't even scratch the surface of what hitler and the japanese did. if the nazis won, they would have tried to exterminate all jews, gypsies, and many other ethnicities. have the united states or israel tried that? you may say yes, but the right answer is no.
After all, if you compare the US and Israel today with Nazi Germany in WWII you won't find a lot of differences... [/quote] yes you would. you just hate america and israel and that hate blinds you to the obvious.
a new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! reply share
Lack of gratitude by Europeans for you "saving the world"? You really believe that? America did NOT save the world, and while the vast majority of right minded people are grateful for the American troops who fought ALONGSIDE the rest of the Allied Forces. As for Land-leasing, well that very nearly bankrupted the UK, and we have just finished paying you back, at a massive amount of interest. The US foremost thought when war broke out was for profit, and would have quite probably not been involved at all, but for Pearl Harbour.
The other thing that irritates me about several peoples comments when quoting the statistics of the dead. Referring to a countries losses as "only" x-amount dead is unbelievably disrespectful. One death was one too many.
More important than who won the war, or who paid the most in money or lives lost, but who STARTED the war? While you bicker about who did the most or best, it always comes back to the one or two turds who start these damn wars that the U.S. has to go finish for you.
finish.... are u joking.... both ww1 and ww2 they FINALLY end up comin into the war when it has one year left and basically whipe up the crumbs.... and no CANADA IN ANY OF THIS... u american turds gotta learn some *beep* history dammit.... canada probly saved more *beep* than u can say!!!
i agree the US government is one of the most corrupt in the world. They try hard to change peoples memory and take credit for the good stuff. the bad crap they sweep under the carpet. Most Americans are brainwashed by hollywood movies, politicians, news and other media to think there country is the best in the world, and have no idea about what happens or how it is outside the states.
The US entered the war in the turning point (typical them) and just sealed the deal alongside with 100 of thousands of people with other countries. Hitler's biggest advantage was taking the world by surprise. a surprise that was long gone by the time the US entered the war when the thick headed yanks finally woke up and realised maybe they should join the war.
And i puke a little everytime the dumb citizens of the US and A come up with the if it wasnt for us you would all be speaking german now. not only is it wrong. hitler would have lost with or without your help it might just have taken longer to finish the fight. if it wasnt for europe you would all be speaking giberish native american dancing around totem poles is a more correct statement.
the us is as corrupt as islamic countries probably more so stop listening to media and politicians from your country. it might enlighten you.
to you young americans: rise and fall of civilizations. enjoy playing policemen of the world while it lasts. in the mean time the healthy and wealthy great western europe countries will be watching you. we are not laughing with you but at you.
All in the all, the United States has the best in Military Tech. Not to mention the Best and biggest Military Branches, Marines, Army, Navy, Airforce, Pararescue (not really a military Branch, they just pull wounded soldiers out of some rough spots) National Guard, Army Reserve.
Hell i would be willing to bet that one man/women from any of the branches would be more then a match against five other guys/girls from another Country's Military Branches.
Rangers and the Brits Commando's though are basicly the same. Were'nt the rangers made to be just like them.?
But ya, if anything hits the fan in the future conflicts, then you can bet the United States Military will be on the front lines, standing Tall and unfliching when the Candians and other worthless Soliders start to break and run.
Another patriotic bigot. Hum-ho. Do you know why the United States has the best military technology? Because all the money that was supposed to go to domestic usage, like education, went into that. For what? To fight the unbelievably POWERFUL Middle East? Like, yes, wow, the F-22 Raptor. Unbelievably impressive, I admit. However, it's ability to shock and awe is hampered by the fact that the Taliban and whatnot the F-22 was designed to take down don't even have enough paper to fold into airplanes and fight back.
Thats Because Military Tech is the More importent thing to supply with money in the eyes of the public. Of course though, Most of the public are goddamn Hypocrites.
thats islam, By the way. And besides, Were talking bout Americans here, Not Islamic's.
All in all. Our American Military Forces are the best, Work the Best, Fight as the Best. and never retreat or surrender.
While other country's (none specificly) Military forces would cower in fear against numerical disadvantages, And utterly Just give up - with or without orders.
and come on, Why all the hate huh? Some guy made this topic and insulted America, Rightfuly so - he got Flamed.
All in all. Our American Military Forces are the best, Work the Best, Fight as the Best. and never retreat or surrender.
All in all? You can't make damned generalizations about this. I mean, one could add that America, all in all, has the most uneducated population in all the first world countries.
So America is really flucking perfect, hmm? EVERYONE else is inferior.
Ah yes, you patriotic egotistical *beep* make me chuckle. I bet it's people like you who went "HELL YES" to the Patriot Act, simply because you saw the word "patriot", and didn't have the damn common sense to figure out what the hell rights it granted to the government if signed. Good job.
The OP has a valid point. Compare the army (rofl pun) of American military movies and other media to the rest around the world. You'll notice that Americans make them by the truckload, and idiots like you just slurp it up.
I'd like to add that, despite all the Vietnam movies, where, yay, Americans are awesome and those yellow-bastards are just evil little suckers, you guys had very little reason to be in that fight. Yet you still have the damn nerve to over-glorify your unbelievably inappropriate presence there.
While other country's (none specificly) Military forces would cower in fear against numerical disadvantages, And utterly Just give up - with or without orders.
This is the part where you admit that you've watched too much "Band of Brothers" or "Saving Private Ryan".
I don't think you're even worth taking seriously if you're attached to the "OUR MILITARY WOULD FIGHT WHERE NO OTHER MILITARY WOULD" sentiment. As if of the millions of men who went to war, all of them stood their ground and fought to the end. Who? Draft-dodgers? Deserters? Who???
Cleaning up the gene pool, one jackass at a time. reply share
But Despite the Fact that our Nation's Population is not as educated as other country's. Our Nation's Population are just flat out Better then other Nations.
Nuff said.
Grunt stuck with plasma Grenade: Oh no... not again!
Also, education is a pretty big indicator of how developed your country is, as dictated by, well, *beep* every other country in the world. So, by agreeing that your country's education sucks, you've agreed that your "Nation's Population" is NOT "flat out Better then other Nations.
sometimes europeans astound me with how dumb you are.
first off...we entered the war in 1941 and the war would go on for another 3.5 years...hardly end of the war by any part.
second...lend-lease may have almost driven you to bankruptcy but at the time it was an incredible deal for you and a terrible deal for us. you "lease" something for us for as long as you want with more or less no strings attached.
third...if it wasnt for our commanders the british army would have been led by idiots and incompetent messes who couldn't figure out which way was north.
fourth...we single handedly defeated japan which if you didnt know had invaded your colony of india as well as taken over all of your colonized areas in the pacific. you did jack in the pacific and left us to fight that battle by ourselves...which we did and thank god you didnt get involved since we did a damn fine job without you.
fifth...europe is to blame for most of the problems in africa and a large portion of the problems in latin america. you can blame us all you want for the middle east. but africa is a mess because of you guys being racist and greedy and latin america still feels the after effects of colonization from you.
so all in all...quit acting like you *&&^%$$ dont stink...we have our problems but just because we do does not mean we dont deserve credit where we deserve it. we saved you...i dont care what you all say if it wasnt for us the world would be very different...england and france ARE to blame for wwII...europe has done more damage to the rest of the world than america could ever do and i take pride in not being as ignorant, stupid, or blind as some of the people who post on here.
First, America was ATTACKED in 1941. Before then, you guys sat around waiting for the war to blow over. The only incentive you had for fighting WAS Pearl Harbor. It seemed fair to you guys to leave France and England to the Nazis until you had a reason to fight. Or, well, a personal reason because entering the war to save your allies clearly wasn't a good enough reason. Because in the years before D-Day, you spent your time swatting at the Japanese and leaving your ginormous army at home to fester. You guys joined the European theater in 1944, and Europe and England had been pummeled by Nazi Germany for the last 5 years. Here's to friendship, eh?
Second, America has no reason to act sore over lend/lease. Do you know why America has so much money (if you ignore the debt)? Because they spent the late 40s and 50s selling metal to every European nation. Whatever money you lost in the lend/lease issue was made back a couple years later, plus interest.
Third, just like a mindless patriot to assume that everyone else's leaders, political, military, or otherwise, are idiots. The fact that you make no mention of actual events where British military leaders were "idiots and incompetent messes" further nullifies your argument.
Fourth, if the British would have known you people would be complaining about them not being there in the Pacific theater, they probably would have either flown east over Nazi-ruled Eastern Europe and/or Africa and through Japan-ruled Eastern Asia, OR west 15,000 kilometers. Apparently "logistics" is a word lost on modern Americans.
Five, to say nothing about racism in MODERN America today, all the way back to, hmmm, the 19th century? Does the Civil War not ring a bell? That war to.... fight... hmmm... black slavery??? Don't act like America is the innocent bystander. The truth is you people probably caused more emotional and physical trauma to blacks via tearing them from families and shipping them by the ship-load in disease-ridden boxes to America than the Europeans could when the colonized Africa.
latin america still feels the after effects of colonization from you.
Brilliant generalization there. Bravo. Convinced me, for sure.
england and france ARE to blame for wwII
Actually, if you don't remember, World War II was mostly the Nazis' fault. Because they're the ones that attacked everyone. Remember? Now, the damage that was done to England and France from 1939 to 1944, THAT was in part America's fault for sitting across the Atlantic with their thumbs up their asses.
europe has done more damage to the rest of the world than america
Europe has recorded history dating back to about 2000 B.C. Sure, atrocities were committed in the 4000 years. But until America has had a 4000 year history, your argument is complete *beep* Although with America's constant involvement with one conflict or another, I don't doubt that you're catching up in the "atrocity quotient".
Cleaning up the gene pool, one jackass at a time. reply share
by - RayZR-KaI on Sat May 10 2008 20:12:04 First, America was ATTACKED in 1941. Before then, you guys sat around waiting for the war to blow over.
If by "sitting around" you mean waging an undeclared naval war against Germany and giving military aid free to the Allies, then yes.
The only incentive you had for fighting WAS Pearl Harbor.
Considering that Germany didn't actually pose a direct threat to the United States, that's true too. It's thus interesting that the US did so much to aid the Allies before 7 December 1941.
entering the war to save your allies clearly wasn't a good enough reason.
To which treaty of alliance do you refer?
Because in the years before D-Day, you spent your time swatting at the Japanese and leaving your ginormous army at home to fester.
In that case, so did the British. I don't recall only one major Britsh and Commonwealth land operation in North West Europe between DYNAMO and OVERLORD, and that was the raid on Dieppe done well before the US had raised and trained its "ginormous" army. Of course US air and naval forces were fully engaged against the Germans as soon as they could be brought to bear. You do know that teh US Army wasn't exactly large in 1940 don't you? It was, in fact, smaller than Romania's.
You guys joined the European theater in 1944,
Technically correct only in so much as operations in North Africa and Italy were in the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations. Those operations started in 1942.
Second, America has no reason to act sore over lend/lease. Do you know why America has so much money (if you ignore the debt)? Because they spent the late 40s and 50s selling metal to every European nation.
Who could afford to buy it thanks to the Marshall Plan aid that restored their economies. Incidentally, you do know that the US had been the world's leading economy since before the First World War?
The fact that you make no mention of actual events where British military leaders were "idiots and incompetent messes" further nullifies your argument.
I have to agree with you there. Of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
if the British would have known you people would be complaining about them not being there in the Pacific theater, they probably would have either flown east over Nazi-ruled Eastern Europe and/or Africa and through Japan-ruled Eastern Asia, OR west 15,000 kilometers. Apparently "logistics" is a word lost on modern Americans.
Of course, the British did, somehow manage to keep India and Australia supplied and fighting wars in Burma and New Guinea. I hear a rumour that they had these things called "ships" that were apparently traveled great expanses of "ocean" more or less routinely in those days. Apparently, knowing how logistics was actually applied is a concept lost on you.
to say nothing about racism in MODERN America today, all the way back to, hmmm, the 19th century? Does the Civil War not ring a bell? That war to.... fight... hmmm... black slavery???
Hundreds of thousands of Americans died for the side that abolished slavery, while European governments supported the rebels who left the United States in order to preserve it. Meanwhile, Europeans were justifying their conquest and rule of Africans and Asians on the grounds that those people were inferior races better off having their land stolen and given to White masters. There is good reason to believe that much of Africa's current disfunctionality is the fault of colonial exploitation.
Of course, Europe isn't free of racial tensions today. There have been race riots in the UK, France, and Germany. I shan't hold my breath waiting for a person of colour to become Prime Minister of the UK or even lead a major opposition party.
shipping them by the ship-load in disease-ridden boxes to America than the Europeans could when the colonized Africa.
Actually, it was European ships that conducted the slave trade, not American, and most slaves ended up in European colonies in the Caribbean and Latin America, not in the United States.
Europe has recorded history dating back to about 2000 B.C. Sure, atrocities were committed in the 4000 years.
Of course, the atrocities in question continued until at least the 1950's and their aftereffects are very much felt today.
I don't doubt that you're catching up in the "atrocity quotient".
Considering the miniscule rate of American military misconduct in the current conflicts, I doubt it. I very much doubt we'll see a resumption of slave trading, the wholesale outright conquest of foreign peoples, or even incidents like the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre or the Bengal Famine of 1943
To be honest, I feel fairly stupid for being so loudmouthed. In my defense, the person I was replying to was being monstrously conceited. The utter arrogance in his post just set me off.
That being said, I feel the need to be a little picky:
To which treaty of alliance do you refer?
Oh you're just being coy.
Incidentally, you do know that the US had been the world's leading economy since before the First World War?
I believe there was a certain Great Depression during between the two World Wars. I'm fairly certain the US' growth during that period was fairly abysmal. It would be absolute farce to pretend selling metal ores to Europe did not propel the US' economy forward.
If by "sitting around" you mean waging an undeclared naval war against Germany and giving military aid free to the Allies, then yes.
I admit I misspoke. I made it seem as if the US had been sitting across the Atlantic laughing at the woes of Europe. But if I have to be honest, offering aid and sending men are two completely different things.
In that case, so did the British. I don't recall only one major Britsh and Commonwealth land operation in North West Europe between DYNAMO and OVERLORD
The difference was that the British were taking V2 rockets to the face during that period.
You do know that teh US Army wasn't exactly large in 1940 don't you? It was, in fact, smaller than Romania's.
You're quite right, but it's not as if the US had a deficit in human capital. After all, it only took a short period of peace-time drafting between 1940 to 1941 for the US army to grow almost tenfold, from 175,000 to approximately 1.4 million men. It only took a handful more years for the army to grow further to over 8 million strong.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans died for the side that abolished slavery, while European governments supported the rebels who left the United States in order to preserve it. Meanwhile, Europeans were justifying their conquest and rule of Africans and Asians on the grounds that those people were inferior races better off having their land stolen and given to White masters. There is good reason to believe that much of Africa's current disfunctionality is the fault of colonial exploitation.
Of course, Europe isn't free of racial tensions today. There have been race riots in the UK, France, and Germany. I shan't hold my breath waiting for a person of colour to become Prime Minister of the UK or even lead a major opposition party.
My point in my original post was not that Europe has handled issues of race better than the US. Rather, I was trying to explain that the US was no innocent bystander when it comes to the issue of racism and slavery. That being said, I concede that it was a fairly asinine generalization to say that the US had "probably caused more emotional and physical trauma to blacks via tearing them from families and shipping them by the ship-load in disease-ridden boxes to America than the Europeans could when the colonized Africa."
Of course, the British did, somehow manage to keep India and Australia supplied and fighting wars in Burma and New Guinea. I hear a rumour that they had these things called "ships" that were apparently traveled great expanses of "ocean" more or less routinely in those days. Apparently, knowing how logistics was actually applied is a concept lost on you.
I'm pretty sure the Axis forces had also heard of "these things called "ships"". They even had the foresight to put big guns on them.
That wasn't even my point. My point was the post I had replied to had implied that the rest of the Allied forces had sat around and let the US fight in the Pacific on their own when the truth was it was unbelievably impractical to send a large force 15,000 kilometers to the Pacific while at the same time duking it out in the European theater.
It's only now that I realize that some of this animosity between us may be because you have not read the post I was replying to. I, again, concede that I had made many fairly inane arguments and generalization. However, I think you may in part see why I said what I said if you read eganba's post, just above my post that you had replied to.
reply share
You're the one that claimed the US was allied with Britain et al before 7 December 1941 and failed to live up to the requirements of this alliance. That means an agreement to do things together, including go to war if required. NATO is an alliance, for instance. There were no such agreements between the United States and any other power before Germany started the war, and the agreements afterwards did not require the US to do more than it was already doing. To say then that the US was obligated to go to war for nations with which it had no agreement to do so is unsupportable.
believe there was a certain Great Depression during between the two World Wars.
Yep. The US was still the world's leading economy even then. Do recall that the Depression struck the entire world, not just the United States.
The difference was that the British were taking V2 rockets to the face during that period.
They had been bombed, though not very much since early 1941. the The V weapons didn't start until well after D-Day. I'm not sure how being bombed negates the fact that the British Army in England was doing little, if any more than the American one there or being formed, trained and transported to there. Indeed, American forces in the UK were being bombed as well.
After all, it only took a short period of peace-time drafting between 1940 to 1941 for the US army to grow almost tenfold, from 175,000 to approximately 1.4 million men.
In other words, to gather an untrained and ill-equipped rabble with no way to get most of them to Europe and support them there. The army that went to North Africa less than a year after Pearl Harbor was the best one could expect the US to do, and they actually did it quite well.
I was trying to explain that the US was no innocent bystander when it comes to the issue of racism and slavery.
In other words, the brilliant rebuttal strategy of "Oh yeah, so are you!" It helps, though, to have a clue about what your writing.
My point was the post I had replied to had implied that the rest of the Allied forces had sat around and let the US fight in the Pacific on their own when the truth was it was unbelievably impractical to send a large force 15,000 kilometers to the Pacific while at the same time duking it out in the European theater.
A point which, as made, was poorly founded. The UK did have the ability to support major forces in the war against Japan, and in fact, did. They could have supported more, if they had them. You were claiming that they could not. If you wanted to make the claim that they couldn't do that and make the necessary effort against Germany as well, you should have made it.
It's only now that I realize that some of this animosity between us may be because you have not read the post I was replying to.
I did, but frankly, being over a year old, it wasn't worth the effort of a response.
I concede that I may not have done my homework on some points, so I'm going to leave it be. I don't really have much of an interest in such things anymore anyways.
In other words, the brilliant rebuttal strategy of "Oh yeah, so are you!" It helps, though, to have a clue about what your writing
However, the arrogance of this statement annoys me to no end. If you had actually read the comment I was replying to, as you imply you do, you'd see that the writer was trying to claim that the US was handing lollipops out to the black community while the rest of Europe was setting Africa on fire. Which isn't quite the case.
Perhaps you may find my argument childish, but sometimes the "Oh yeah, so are you!" response is perfectly appropriate.
I did, but frankly, being over a year old, it wasn't worth the effort of a response.
Yes, I can see why you wouldn't bother some bigoted twit who wrote what he said over a year ago. I don't see why you'd think I'd care about what I've said six months ago.
I mean, honestly, I've gone to lengths to apologize for my obtuseness and the fact that I had not done my research quite as well as I had hoped. Clearly you've taken it as encouragement to be even more self-righteous. Hardly someone worth my time.
reply share
"if it wasnt for europe you would all be speaking giberish native american dancing around totem poles is a more correct statement."
Another racist idiot who knows nothing about Native Americans but likes to feel superior anyway. You type have nearly ruined the world, but you seem to think you're better, or smarter, or something. I am SURE YOU would have loved it if Hitler had won, and could have gotten rid of us inferior darkies.
hahahahaha. Thats funny. I'm Canadian and I know It took Poland, France, and the Canadians combined to close the Filaise gap from the South. Who closed it from the North? The Americans, BY THEMSELVES.
I hate to say it but the Canadian military sucked back then and barely did jack *beep* for WWII.
It is you who need to learn thier history because you obviously know nothing about the war.
Is this the same america who did not want *beep* all to do with the war in the first few years,who stood by and watched as the germans over run europe,and the british empire was brought to its knees? Fair enough the americans gave us 50 or so old destroyers,but only becasue we gave them land,also like someone else said we only frigging paid back the land lease money last year in 2006!!!!!!!!,yeah sheers brothers for that,nice to see you made sure as hell you got your money out of us. Also like the OP said,with out the russian army we would have lost the war,they destroyed the elite of the german army,now just imagine jsut a few of there top divisions had been at normandy,and youll see we would have probaly never got of the beaches.
I'm sure we can go head to head over the course of a couple weeks and exchange jabs back and forth. But I gotta tell you, there is an undercurrent of trivializing America's contribution to the war. Ok, so they sat out the first couple years of the war and watched as Germany ran amuck through Europe. Didn't Britain and France sit and watch as the Germans rolled over Poland? Why didn't they commit at that time? Hmmm, let's think about that one. Secondly, bravo the Russki army. What a war machine. I wonder where they would have been given two facts, the second of which is the more important one. 1) The US supplying the Soviets in the critical early stages of their war with Germany and 2) the same argument about the Russians can be applied to the US. The US could have brought 6 Marine divisions and a dozen or so Army divisions (maybe more) to bear on Europe were it not for the war in the Pacific. Not to mention the air power and Navy. Where were the Soviets in the fight against the Japanese? Nowhere. They were able to bring the full brunt of their military might and resources against Germany and completely focus on Hitler. You have to wonder if the Japanese engaged the Soviets on their eastern borders and the US weren't occupied with the Japanese how differently this war would have looked. So we're lucky, lucky, lucky that the Soviets kept the cream of the German Army occupied on the Eastern European front. Lucky for the Brits as well and the rest of Europe. Lucky for the Russkis that we kept the Japanese occupied in the Pacific. My point isn't to extol the invincibility of the grand American Army, but to illustrate that this nonsense sparring back and forth trying to trivialize America's contribution to the war effort is futile - and stupid.
goddammd right and where the hell is canada in this we were the freakin air aces of that dammd war look at battle of britian and US canadian helpin dig britian out of the dammd hole they dug themselves into!!!
You were doing quite well until your final statement. We did not "dig outselves" into a hole.. I think you'll find Hitler was doing that for everyone...
Genius, you are right. The American military is capable of major ass kicking. Want to know why we are stuggling in Iraq? Because we are misusing our military. They should go in, blow stuff up, kill lots of people, and get out.
It's the politicians who failed in Vietnam. Check the ratio of dead US soldiers to dead NVA and vietcong. Then start telling me this military sucks. (and that's with the chicken *beep* tactics.)
That myth didn't start until Reagan in the 80's . Why? Because until there there weren't enough people around that were young (and stupid) enough to believe such an outlandish line of crap.
Well the NVA understood that 'political action' was a major adjunct to the military action. Given the rules of engagement at the time the NVA could drag out the war indefinitely AND they had willing voices in the press would could get THEIR message out; They did the same thing against the French: they organized 'spit on the returning wounded vets' events through the French Communist/Anarchists parties among OTHER nice things.
Don't know if your figures are 100 percent accurate, but the rest of what you stated sounds right. We didn't win the war by ourselves, but without us, Germany and Japan would not have been defeated.
Putting on caps lock doesn't make you sound smarter.
To put an end to this silly little conversation, Hitler ended the war for himself. His biggest mistakes were calling off the invasion of Britain and breaking the non-aggression pact with Stalin. Though we may never know why Hitler called off the Battle of Britain (on the heels of victory no less, conspiracy theorists have wet dreams about this one)the result was Britain having the time to regroup and strike back, something done rather successfully by the Brits. If Hitler had continued the assault for just another week or so, the Swastika would have been flying over the houses of Parliament. This would mark Germany's dominance of the Western front, allowing him to tackle the Soviets at his leisure. As for the Soviets, Stalin's five year plans had obliterated his economy and left the Russian army powerless to stop the German onslaught. Stalin's army was larger, but due to the overestimated production quotas (many factory directors, fearing for their lives, lied about their production rates because they did not meet Stalin's unrealistic production goals. Stalin actually had a lot less military hardware than he thought.) Germany lost in the Russian theater because of the Harsh Russian winter literally freezing the Blitzkrieg in it's path. However if Hitler had finished conquering the Western front, he would only have one war to fight with the Russians, Hitler's decision to break the non-aggression pact was inevitable, but the time taken to end the western war would have allowed the winter season in Russia to pass, Hitler would have begun his invasion of the USSR in the spring after the thaw, giving him almost an entire year to take down the Soviets. What this all means is that Hitler brought the end of the War upon himself. If the United States had never entered the war, it would have ended with a German defeat anyway, with or without American help. Hitler's catastrophic blunders, not the heroic, guardian angle Yankees, ended World War 2. That on top of the fact that Germany was far too small a country to take on the world itself. It's production lines were only as big as the amount of people able to staff them, and their standing army was only 7 million strong by 1942. His military would have been stretched so perilously thin, even if he did manage to conquer Europe, he would be unable to hold his territory for very long.
ecko_47 on Thu Feb 15 2007 22:01:49 His biggest mistakes were calling off the invasion of Britain and breaking the non-aggression pact with Stalin.
The first was not a mistake. The Germans flat out lost. The BoB had become a battle of attrition that the Germans were not winning. The best for which they could have got would only have been an RAF withdrawal from 11 Group's area. This still would not have given them air supremacy over an invasion site. Even if they had managed to win, they still could not have successfully invaded. German air supremacy in 1940/41 would not get them across the Channel in the face of the RN. I suspect the Germans may have realized this at the time, for their invasion plans were laughably unworkable.
As for the second, that was one of the two the main aims of the Nazis, the other being the destruction of the Jews.
Hitler's greatest error, and thank God he made it, was to give the United States a reason to join the war. Had he ignored the UK - no Battle of Britain and no Battle of the Atlantic - and not allied with Japan, then US public opinion might well have favoured neutrality until it was too late.
Stalin's five year plans had obliterated his economy and left the Russian army powerless to stop the German onslaught
Actually, Lend_lease aid had not reached the Soviet Union in sufficient quantities by then to make much of a difference. The Germans were stopped by the heroism of the Red Army. Whether they would have kept the Nazis stopped without Lend-Lease, the Strategic Bombing Campaign, and the war in the Med and Western Europe is another question. It's highly likely the Soviets could not have advanced, though.
Hitler's catastrophic blunders,
Funny how all the surviving German generals blamed a man dead man after the war, one they had supported unreservedly until the very end. To be sure, his micromanagement didn;t help, but the German generals weren't supermen either.
not the heroic, guardian angle Yankees, ended World War 2.
Two American fission devices ended World War II, and that happened months after Hitler was dead.
Without the United States, the British would have been dead broke, starving, and short of essential supplies including oil. The Soviets would also have been getting awfully hungry, as Russia did in 1917, as well as being just as short of essential raw materials, fuel (especially avgas), explosives, trucks, railway equipment, and even boots.
The British Empire had barely been able to stop the Japanese at the Indian border. Most of China was lost. Indochina and what is now Indonesia were under an occupation even more brutal than the Nazi one of Eastern Europe. That heroic Red Army I mentioned above was a bit too busy elsewhere to "help". Without US Lend-Lease aid, the Fourteenth Army would not have liberated South-East Asia and avenged Changi Prison. Indonesia, China and Korea would not have thrown off their Imperial overlords. That was America's doing. The Soviets just waited until a few days before the wend to pick up some carrion, and would not have been able to do that without American Lend-Lease or the American assisted victory over the Hitlerites.
Germany`s airial losses were too great, thats why they stopped. They were unable to go on another week. Coupled with an inferior navy the Germans had no chance of putting Operation Sealion into action
U.S.A. did save Europe. Just not from Hitler. But from Stalin. If American hadn't invaded Normandi, the war will end maybe about 2 years later, with Russian's vitory over German. And the entire Europe will be red. FDR didn't want to see that happen, that's why they had to go in despite the heavy loss. And he was bearly in time.
They hardly GAVE it, if it was a loan did they? And as for "free".. we've been paying it back for 60 years, and we are still paying for it, with the lives of our soldiers in YOUR bloody war against Iraq. Can't find Bin Laden? Sod it, we'll just bomb the nearest country, and dress it up as a "war on terror".
They hardly GAVE it, if it was a loan did they? And as for "free".. we've been paying it back for 60 years...
The term "gave" is pretty accurate.
There was no repayment for $31 billion in Lend-Lease goods Britain received during the war. However, any goods received after the war (including any in transit at the end of the war) had to be paid for under the terms, although because of Britian's difficult economic conditions, the US agreed to discout such goods to one tenth of their value. The British government agreed to these terms. This total to be repaid was $586 million, less than 2% of the value of all Lend-Lease goods delivered.
After the war, the United States provided a series of economic assistance loans to Britain. The first of these, provided in 1946, was $3,750 million. The repayment of this loan was lumped together with the $586 million balance mentioned above. The total of $4,336 million was repaid over the next 60 years, as you said at 2% interest. That is the loan that was famously paid off recently.
ollie501 on Sun Jun 24 2007 12:34:06 They hardly GAVE it, if it was a loan did they? And as for "free".. we've been paying it back for 60 years,
A loan with a fifty-five-year repayment period, with options to suspend payments when your a bit short (making it sixty-one years), at a 2% rate of interest that was low even by 1940's standards is as close to free as you'll ever see. Try to find a mortgage with terms like that.
The loan was to pay for L-L aid retained by the UK after the war, not for equipment returned to the US post-war or used up during the war. The UK was charged about a tenth the actual price for the goods retained and not a penny for the rest. The £1,075 million loan (about £10,000 million in 2008 money) was finally repaid in December 2006. The UK was paying about £40 million per year out of a GDP of about £19,000 million in 1950, when payments began.
and we are still paying for it, with the lives of our soldiers in YOUR bloody war against Iraq.
That isn't a requirement of the loan repayment. The UK was actively engaged in enforcing the 1991 ceasefire and the previous related UN resolution as doing so is as much in Britain's interests as America's.
Have a look and see for yourself. The US war effort was nothing compared to the USSR one.
The US Lend and Lease was mostly symbolic. Russian mass-produced tanks (mainly T34-84) definately turned the war when they defeated their german counterparts at Kursk.
On a side note it's also a misconception that the main victims of the holocaust was jews. The main victims were political opponents (social democrats, communists) and, yes, Red Army soldiers. Not liberals/conservatives/patriots/nationalists (who put Hitler in power). I base this on Wikipedia numbers.
Don't get me wrong. All who fought fascism are TRUE heroes. But don't believe your media just because they are your compatriots..
That's incorrect. About twenty percent of the Soviet Air Force was made up of American aircraft. Nearly all of their AVGAS was American. The trucks that carried men and supplies to battle were mostly American made. American raw materials allowed Soviet industry to make the arms and ammunition they did make.
Russian mass-produced tanks (mainly T34-84) definately turned the war when they defeated their german counterparts at Kursk.
The T-34-85 didn't enter production until several months after Kursk. The version at Kursk was the T-34-76, mostly the Model 1942 and 1943 versions.
On a side note it's also a misconception that the main victims of the holocaust was jews.
The Holocaust was the Nazi campaign to murder all the Jews they could find. By definition, then, virtually all the victims were Jews. Over five million Jews were murdered compared to one million political prisoners. The Holocaust was unique at the time in that it was a very large scale deliberate government effort to exterminate a people for no other reason than their ethnicity. The deaths of some twenty-two million Soviets not killed in the Holocaust, on the other hand, was mostly nowhere near as methodical. About seven million of them soldiers and partisans who died as a result of military action. About three and a half million were POW's killed in Army run camps, and the remaining eleven million civilians died from a number of reasons, from accidental casualties as a result of war to casual murders by German troops, to massacres as a result of anti-partisan operations.
Incidetally, is there some reason you wanted to bring up that subject?
"First, REAL facts back the claim that had the United States not become involved, Norway would not only be german territory today, it would probably be an incorporated reich state. As much as you are disgusted by the Amis getting the glory, we Americans are disgusted by the lack of gratitude on the part of Europeans for us having saved the world. Now I will respond to each of your comments individually".
lollll thank you Americans for having "saved the world" by nuking millions of humans...the world wasn't saved for the dead , nor is it for most of us...Americans "saved the world" for Americans only.
I'm so tired of trying to educate ignorant yanks about basic History/Geography as you obviously don't get taught any , preferring to rely on Hollywood for your tuition instead . All you have to do is look at a pie chart of casualties in both WW1 & WW2 to see the reality written in stone . Thanks for joining in and all that but saving the world ? You turned up (late) and gave a good fight for real , but saying you won anything is exactly the same as someone waking up half way through a barroom brawl , throwing a few punches & then claiming the fight. For example the Chinese were fighting the Japs full on since 1937 ! Brits since 1939 ! Every American i have ever met seems to think that it was only you fighting the Japs ! Incredible ignorance. Look up the stats before you even bother replying mate .
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .
Get real,If you remember the Germans would have ownd Russia, if they hadn't invaded in the winter.And who do you think stormed the beaches of Normandy and liberated France w/other countries like England,Australia.I don't think you have a clue?watch the movie Patton,saving private Ryan,full metal jacket.Gary
Yes, I see your point, I´m not trying to speak bad of the contributions of the U.S in ww2. And I know, Hollywood films have 80% of the market, even here. But i´m just tired of this trend. That is why i mentioned red sun, black sand as something i am looking forward too. Flags of our fathers seems like the same old patriotic unbalanced crap.
The film you are refering to is the Kirk Douglas, Richard Harris film; Heroes of Telemark from the 50´s or something. Not a very good movie, and not wery true to the actual story. Fortunately a producer friend of mine has the rights to it and they are planning to make a new one, in Norwegian, and more true to the actual events. I´m looking forward to that.
And the other movie with Max Von Sydow is HAMSUN, yes. A remarkable film! If that was an american production Von Sydow would undoubtedly have won an oscar for his performance. It is out of this world.
First- U-571 doesn't exist. No U-boat by that name ever existed.
Now onto the Enigma: There were 15 captures of Naval Enigma _materials_ during WWII that allowed the Allied forces to correctly read most of the Engima messages. One was by the Americans (U-505 - captured west of Africa), one by the Canadians (U-774), and the rest by the Brits (often with the help of others). After captures, the rotors for the Engima were changed in order to alter the codes and protect the encryption- requiring the need for more and more captures relating to the Enigma. -M
Yeah, the U-boat site's legit. For the most part, Wikipedia has the main idea right, but the details are usually pretty far off. Same with Urban Dictionary.
I hate making points w/o citations, but the source escapes me right now. There was a short study that found the rate of errors on Wikipedia was equivalent to that of Encyclopedia Britannica's online site.
Successes 5 ships sunk for a total of 33.511 GRT 1 ship damaged for a total of 11.394 GRT 2 ships a total loss for a total of 13.658 GRT
Fate Sunk 28 Jan, 1944 west of Ireland, in position 52.41N, 14.27W, by depth charges from an Australian Sunderland aircraft (RAAF-Sqdn 461/D). 52 dead (all hands lost).
FOOF is not "same old patriotic crap" its actually one of the most anti war films I have ever seen. Supposedly Letters from Iwo Jima is also very anti war.
By the way AllenKR, I recall passing by a 'Norway town' en route to Hearst and San Francisco from Los Angeles - is that where you're from? I also remember this Viking House on a lake up in California again en route to San Francisco. Was back there in '98.
no no no... there is a town evidently built by Norwegian-American immigrants up in Northern California between LA and San Francisco. I was wondering whether AllenKR was from around there.
Of course I know where Norway is. Right next to Sweden and Finland to the east and north of Denmark and Germany. RIGHT?
Rrright! Sorry for that:) Are you sure it´s not the town north of santa barbara, Solevaag or something like that? I drove through it, but it turned out it was founded by danish settlers...
He's thinking of the California town named Solvang. It's just north of Santa Barbara and it is absolutely beautiful. I cannot get there enough. Solvang is featured in the movie "Sideways". I think the Danes did found that city.
As to your reference to the Norweigans and Allied Forces during WW2, you are correct on most of those accounts as you are with the Russians. My grandfather is an American WW2 vet and he was there. He, along with another buddy of his told me straight up that the Russians (mostly) won the war, especially on the German (eastern) front. So don't buy what the media in America is telling you. There's rarely and truth to it anyway, especially from the extreme jingo element out there.
I know we lost a lot of brave soldiers during WW2 but it absolutely pales in comparison with what the Russians lost. Just glad we had the bomb before the Nazis developed it. Lots of WW2 stories out there. I find that generation fascinating and I deeply respect their sacrifices, whether they are from the United States or abroad. God bless 'em.
Make a good move about the Russians in Stalingrad, or about the Aussies in the South Pacific or about the CZH Resisistance and Americans will watch it.
If its a good movie, its a good movie what the hell do you care?
Everyone knows the Russians were the main reason why Germany was defeated in Europe, but Saving Private Ryan was still a hell of a movie, even if it was just about .0005 percent of Allied forces.
And who told you that Americans were taught that the War was Won beause of the invasion of normandy? Not in american schools thats for sure.
Nevermind that the U.S. carried the the allies on it's back across western Europe and the Pacific, here's a couple of clues; Lend lease and Marshall plan. Without those two American contributions, Europe and Asia would have a very different face today. The United States saved the world. Deal with it.
Russia sadly had the biggest share of fatalities during WWII. 17 million deaths is an incredible number of people. Germany's 7 million were the fault of Hitler's war machine.
The Allies won because it was an combined effort. If it weren't for either the USA, or England, or Russia, the war may have ended differently. And as Sukeboss said above, the post war plans by the US allowed the reconstruction of Asia and Europe. There was alot of foresight by real leaders with intelligence and common sense. A BIG difference from what's in the White House right now, isn't it?
The vast majority of people who died in Soviet uniform were not communist fanatics,they were just ordinary people conscripted to defend their country. Stalin became all nationalistic when the Soviet Union was attacked and called the Russian people "my friends" in a radio broadcast and allowed more religious freedom and referred to"THE MOTHERLAND".
It is sad that so many people died on all sides in World War 11. Pehaps you should do some studying of World War 11 history,on the internet,watch the History channel,even read a book. Then you might not appear so ignorant when you post on sites like this.
I argue all the time against anti Americanism on this site and others,but then we get ignorant people like you who give ammunition to people who run down America and its people.
I wish poeple would refer to Britain asnd not just England. I am English, but I'm sure that some Scottish, Welsh and Irish people would be pretty p issed off not being recognised for their efforts in the war.
America saved western Europe ad East Asia. This is a fact. And I am sure that of those of you touting the achievements of the Red Army, none of you are from the countries who the Soviets 'rescued' from Germany. America liberated western Europe, while Russia conquered the east and doomed those countries to a future that was not so much better off than a German controlled country.
The fact that the Russians lost more people are do more to the brutality and incompetence of the leaders of their country and armies, than the onslaught of the German army, as incredible as it was. Germany (foolishly) invaded Russia only after it had completely conquered and pacified the governmants of the west, not expecting America to invade with Brittain in a war in which America had not any political grievances against Germany.
Without America and Brittain, imagine a western Europe, that looks like today's eastern Europe, or imagine that there would be no walls to be torn down in Berlin. Imagine the hammer and sickle still waving in Poland and Germany, and even France, Spain, and Italy.
Someone who either didn't pay attention in history lessons, or obviously paid attention far too much to the typically American-glorified lectures they give over in the US schools, particularly the south. Honestly, Americans wouldn't be generalised as arrogant if weren't for the sheer one-dimensional interest in strictly American-only history. Sort out your economy, get a leader who actually has intellect and isn't wanted dead by half the world, and THEN perhaps the generally sh*t movies being deployed by Hollywood at the moment may start to turn for the better too. This movie was alright, but the acting made me cringe. Certainly not as bad as Windtalkers...
(This was aimed at Sukebeboss who sounds like a typical narcissistic redneck who prefers to listen to fairy tales rather than facts. Don't overstate the US contribution in the second world war of all things; it just makes every European think you've never picked up a book on the war and that you live in your nice little 'Everybody fears America' bubble that Mr George W Bush seems to think he's erected.)
I couldn't have put it better myself. For years I told my best friend that when our troops won WWII, they also saved the world. The French would be speaking German (If they weren't slaughtered yet) and the Pacific would belong to Imperialist Japan. "They traveled far from their homes and families they loved. They fought and died for people they did not know. And, in their own simple and profoundly selfless way, they not only served their country, they saved the world."
-Jack Sacco (From the book " Where The Bird Never Sings")
Quote: "The United States saved the world. Deal with it."
Im not anti-american at all, but to read again this falcons' slogan makes me sadly laugh.
- Marshall plan contributed also to the wealth of the us (so to the wealth that it has now). - If there is one thing that saved the world from the germans, it is undoubtedly the russian "steamroller". - No country has real friend, all countries have interests. (The us would not have gone to war if it had no interest to do so)
You saved the world by fighting the axis, then you saved the world from communism by fighting in Viet-nam, Afghanistan...; now you are saving the world from terrorism by fighting in Afghanistan (again) and of course in Iraq.
That is not so simple. You should READ some history books, or some serious newspapers. Hollywood loves to embellish facts, adds a lot of patriotism and a victorious end, generally only focused on american efforts, without of course the unpleasant and numerous hitches. Understand that some people are bored of this.
There was a great film made about the fight in Stalingrad, it was actually called "Stalingrad", it was a German film which told the story from the German (not Nazi, the film is very critical of Nazi ideology...) point of view...
Even better is a fantastic Russian film called "Come and See" ("Idi I Smotri") by a director called Elem Klimov, one of the best war films ever made IMO...
"Enemy At The Gates" at least attempted to look at things from a Russian POV, but it was so hopelessly compromised in the end, and Jude *beep* Law was certainly no kind of sensible choice to play the lead role...
The topic starter is quite correct, way too much emphasis on American experiences of WW2 in cinematic terms...
There WAS a great movie about the battle of Stalingrad. It was called, strangely enough, "Stalingrad." Possibly the best war movie ever made.
Americans didn't watch it, however... pretty much because the Russians in the movie were not speaking English. Subtitles don't bother people in other countries, but Americans won't watch subtitled movies.
And as far as Americans not having been taught that we won the war singlehandedly, how many times have you heard that tired claim "we saved your !&^@ in WWII!" and its variations? Its so common it has become a cliche.
I don't mind watching war movies that deal with different countries perspectives. That is fine. I enjoy and wlecome them. Unfortunately Hollywood is here in the USA,so they are going to covet the American audience most.
Now, to say we didn't play much of a part in the war is complete bullsh!t. We did have lend-lease before we got involved and afterwards. You look at many of the vehicles, equipment, ammunition, food, medical supplies, etc. and it was from the USA. Even the T-34 was an American design that was rejected by the army. This should in no way, take away from what other nations did and went through. The Russians and the Chinese suffered greatly, unfortunately as much of the suffering was by their leaders and government at times as was the Germans and Japanese.No we did not do it alone. That is true, but we more than a bit player. We were a pretty major party to the war on both fronts. Especially in the Pacific. Yes we had assitance from the British, the Australians and the new Zealanders, but we were the major player there. We did help turn the tide. To say otherswise, is BS. We also helped in the rebuilding of Europe as well. we did come up with the Marshall Plan and helped keep our allies and former enemies safe. We have also helped keep Europe secure from the Soviets expansion after WWII. That too is fact.
I too would like to see more movies showing the bravery, and sacrifice by other nations. I would like to see a movie or mini-series on the red Devils at Pegasus Bridge, the Battle for Caen with the Canadian forces or the Russians at Kursk. Those would be much welcome by this history fan. I wouldn't mind seeing more form the German's and Japanese perspectives like the young soldiers in the Hitlerjugend or the Japanese at Tarawa, Guadalcanal or Saipan. I think there are more than enough stories to be told that could make for some good entertainment.
Even the T-34 was an American design that was rejected by the army
Not quite. Back in the early 1930's, an American inventor, Walter Christie, who made tanks that what were in effect tracked race-cars more than serious combat vehicles tried to interest the US Army in his designs. His designs were expensive and he himself difficult to work with, so the US Army declined to do business with him. He sold his designs to the USSR and UK instead. The Brits just used his suspension, The Soviets made a version of the Christie Tank that became the BT series. The T-34 took concepts pioneered by the BT's and improved on them.
If the allies had failed D-Day, I'm sure Europe would have looked quite differently today. Most probaby, most of Europe would have had to endure 40 years of some kind of dictatorship.
It doesn't really matter which because both the commies and nazis were in practice both as bad as the other. For example, Stalin managed to kill about the same number of russians, as the Germans did.
I recall that men like Ira Hayes and John Bradley, not to mention Jacob De Shazer and Richard Winter went to war to DESTROY IDIOTIC OPINIONS LIKE THAT. So sad to see the efforts of the Greatest Generation wasted on (hopefully a scattered few) of their less than worthy descendants.
Ryandaddi needs an education. Preferrably one at the receiving end of sniper bullets and suicide bombs in downtown Baghdad - or perhaps that's too good for him.
It's because of idiotic opinions like that, that America is damned by foes and friends alike today. It's disgusting and despicable to see how tarnished the image of America gets when some dumb loudmouth who'd never get within 100 yards of a recruiting station starts shooting his mouth off about being the 'greatest, most badass country in the world and all the rest are F --KIN losers' and talking big about nuking the world.
Thank heavens for people like Marine Sergeant Drury and AllenKR who give lie to the image of America presented by the likes of Ryandaddi.
I think that every country has the inalienable RIGHT to glorify its own soldiers as it so chooses - to extremes at its own risk (too much glorification leading to hubris). I will say this for the Italians, Germans and Japanese of WW2 as much as for their Allied foes.
That being said, every historical representation must stand up to the standards of good historical research and good drama. There are many films, noble efforts to be sure that try and incorporate good historical research at the expense of drama or try and glorify their soldiers at the expense of both (See U-571 for an example of the latter - or better yet, DON'T see it).
I think that Hollywood has every right to make good war movies about American soldiers, whether they be the bedraggled patriots in the snows of Valley Forge sworn at in several languages by their European drillmasters only to emerge and conquer at Monmouth Court House, or the flag-bearers of the Joe Rosenthal photograph at Iwo, as Clint Eastwood has done here. It's American cinema, it's their right.
Norwegian, French, Czech, Dutch, Indian, Philippine, Korean, etc. cinema has as much right to make their own films about their own heroes. And many have, though their efforts are, sadly, not as well publicised.
One particular movie made by the Malaysians is The Story of Lieutenant Adnan. It's the true story of a Malaysian officer who held against the Japanese advance in 1942. The Dutch director Paul Verhoeven made Soldier of Orange about the Dutch Resistance in WW2. French cinema has made several very interesting WW1 movies, Joyeaux Noel (with the Germans and Brits) and A Very Long Engagement.
The Czechs have a MUCH superior aviation story to Hollywood's idiotic Pearl Harbor, the film 'Dark Blue World' - virtually the same plot as the Hollywood movie but handled with respect and intelligence and a story that becomes uniquely Czech, as it contemplates the fate of the heroic Czech pilots who returned after the war only to be deemed 'traitors' by the Czech communist government.
The Koreans have, of course, the very well done Taegukgi which does retread the whole 'brothers at war' theme but it is bitterly apt in Korea's case - it tells the story of the Korean War (to them the Korean CIVIL War - which is technically STILL ONGOING, though punctuated by a Truce, by the way) through Korean eye. Before this we only knew The Bridges at Tokko Ri, The Hunters, MacArthur, that other movie with the 'jody call' (AllenKR help me out here, which one is that? Jody was there when you left - your baby was there when you left - Sound off ONE TWO, etc.) But now the Koreans have 'gotten a word in' and are telling their own story.
I'm glad to hear that Norway will be coming out with their own 'Heroes of the Telemark' movie - looking forward to it! Norway actually has a lot of 'unfilmed' WW2 history and perhaps we'll one day get to hear the story of the heroes of Oskarborg fortress which sank the arrogant DKM Blucher in Drobak Narrows or of the gallant crews of the Norge and Eidsvold who fought their ships against treacherous and overwhelming odds - the Germans got theirs a few days later when old lady Warspite blew their 'tin cans' out of the fjords.
The point is, TELL YOUR STORY - don't be afraid to, we're all free to tell it the way we think it should be told. Don't wait for anyone else to tell it for you and if someone tells it for you, you really have no one to blame but yourself.
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here AllenKR but from experience it's the arrogance of people like Ryandaddi which give America such a bad name here in Asia, particularly among those who should be America's strongest allies. Nuke everyone? Thanks you've alienated Japan (specifically) as it still is a VERY touchy issue - as well as everyone else. Genocide is the only answer? Where are we Rwanda? the Balkans? Since when was America a poster boy for ethnic cleansing?
It's unfortunate to the extreme that people like that are allowed to spew their vitriol before the world - paradoxically it is the freedom to do so, the freedom protected by and bled for by those in harms way now that makes America great. It is just sad that so many abuse this hard won freedom - and reinforce negative stereotypes about America (and by extension put more American fighting soldiers at risk) - taking advantage of the benefits and not giving a thought to what this freedom has cost.
WWII Europe wasn't our war, it was Europes. They were incapable of dealing with the messes they made, and the US came to the rescue. Don't act like the Russians were doing anything other than defending themselves. Same with the French, Brits, and nordics. The US helped its friends, not as an act of self defense, but out of our decency. A decency which Half of Europe and the Russians showed themselves incapable of when the US finally had to take action in its own interest in the world.
You ignorant wretches will spew your revised history until we once again have to save your arses, which we will. AND exactly the same as 70 years ago, we will have told you it was coming, you will have known it was coming, but you will have been too stupid to do anything about it. In hindsight you will blame it on the psychosis of a single man or men, and your position in the world will be reduced even further.
For 10 years you knew exactly what hitler was going to do, and for as many you've known what the Radical Islamic Governments are doing.
Whats so pathetic is that they even freely admit it.
I certainly hope it is your naive asses that are drafted and die to the current enemies of civilization rather than my children in 20 years. But ultimately thats what this is about, your ignorance of history combined with your lack of a nutsack that allows the filth to grow and spread.
again, my ignorant friend "caas"; look at the facts!!
300 German divisions fought against the Sovjets on the eastern front.
In africa, where most of the american efforts were made pre-june 6 44, The German army had only a few divisions and the "turning point" at El alaimein was hardly that.
On the western front (fighting the U.S and the Brits mostly) The german army had ONLY 50-60 divisions.. about 6-700 000 soldiers....
So I´m sorry that you are lead to believe that the Americans saved Europe... The whole red army was already in Berlin while you guys just had crossed the Rhine river..
The numbers and facts speak for themselves. Ignorence is bliss..
Indeed, the Soviets accounted for the highest amount of casualties in WWII. However, this was primarily due to Stalin's stupidity--NOT Red Army courage/competence. I think you need to look at the Soviet Purges from the 1930's. In addition to political "rivals",Stalin executed several top Soviet Miilitary officials--Marshasls and so forth. Consequently, the Red Army had Lieutenants /w Marshal type duties; instead of being responsible for say a 1,000 men, they would have to lead something like 80-100 thousand. Moreover, Despite several warnings from Soviet intelligence, Stalin refused to acknowledge an imminent Nazi attack. Subsequently, thousands of idle tanks and airplanes were destroyed in the initial Nazi invasion.
Also, you say that the U.S. did not do much...This is grossly incorrect. If the U.S. did not defeat the Japanese, the axis would have won WWII. No other country from the Allies--including the Soviet Union--had a navy to stop the Japanese.
Conclusion--you should thank the Americans for saving Europe's ass, as it usually does.
WWII was your war (people who actually fought there would be sick to hear you spout your rubbish viewpoint (entitled to it) )........Japan attacked you at Pearl Harbour....REMEMBER?!? Before then only a few Americans had managed to get off their ass and help the Allies out. Those who flew with the RAF during 1940-41. Took you too long to respond. Britain had already fought off German invasion attempts.
Iraq is America's mess - Bush interfering with World Politics. Now they need the rest of the world to help sort them out. You supported Bin Laden in the 1980s in Afghanistan, and now the tables have turned because the interest of America isn't with him.
America is only after Oil etc, there were no weapons of Mass Destruction. Thats been proved time and time again.
Like any war, there is always conflicting viewpoints. Americans need to open their eyes to the world...well at least this one does.
You make it sound like it's all of America's fault that we have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I certainly don't support what is going on in the world right now. I also certainly did not vote for Bush. You confuse the actions of American politicians with actual American people.
excuse me, but talk about what you KNOW about, if you'll look up my IP, you'll KNOW where I'm at, and I'm here to tell you FIRST HAND that I've seen many, MANY bunkers full of weapons that COULD have unleashed hell on the world. Never mind that anyone who watches CNN SAW convoys of trucks headed out of Iraq through Syria... wonder what was in them?
And I'm sure, that Europeans are SOOO eletist, that ALL of the history YOU've gotten is 100% correct right? ROTFLMAO. NO country's history teaches it without shading it toward themselves, so get over it. NO country is better than any other (we all just go through periods of screwed up leaders.... currently the problem of my own country), no people are better than any other, and EVERYONE needs to open their eyes, and realize that they're no more perfect than anyone else, PERIOD. Pretty messed up when I see people on here talking about how stuck up/superior one country is while they sit there TALKING about how great theres is??? ever heard of throwing stones at glass houses?
Do I think America is butting it's nose in in alot of places where it don't belong, absolutely, I'd LOVE it if we'd pull all our troops back, and spend the BILLION dollars a day we're spending in Iraq in the USA (kinda shoots the "oil" business out of the water doesn't it? How much oil would it take to make up the $1.8 TRILLION dollars we've spent sinc we've been in Iraq? LMAO).
EVERYONE thinks their country is the best, I'm here to admit that MINE has some SERIOUS problems, but so does yours.
irishandyn on Mon Dec 18 2006 11:26:27 Before then only a few Americans had managed to get off their ass and help the Allies out
In fact, the USN was conducting an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the German Navy well before Pearl Harbor. Remarkable actually considering that no vital American interests were obviously at immediate risk. By the way, from your user name, can I assume you're Irish? That would be the country whose president sent condolences to Germany when Hitler died? Could you be so kind as to tell us what part the Irish armed forced played in the defeat of the Axis? What bases did Eire permit the RN, RCN, and USN to use to protect convoys?
Iraq is America's mess
I would tend to say the blame for the mess properly belongs to Iraqis. First, the Al Tikriti dynasty and then to the various factions hoping to rule over the Iraqi people. Most of them have rejected those forces. Of course now the US has taken primary responsibility for Iraq, they should stay as long as needed until the mess is under Iraqi control. That should be in the next year or two.
You supported Bin Laden in the 1980s in Afghanistan,
In fact, Bin Laden's group violently refused American assistance against the Soviets. He got his money from fellow Saudis and his weapons from the Pakistanis.
America is only after Oil etc,
Then you'd think they have taken it by now. Instead, it remains the property of the Iraqi people.
there were no weapons of Mass Destruction.
Then Saddam should have complied with the ceasefire conditions requiring him to prove so. He didn't. Then again, he didn't keep many of the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire. Instead, he encouraged the belief that he did have them, a disastrous bluff on his part. He certainly fooled the US and UK governments.
Go do something to advance the globe? hmmm, like invading and terrorising a country because of oil? hmmm.. There´s only 4,5 million people in all of Norway, so I guess we have never been able to have enough soldiers to tell the brits and the americans what we really think of their imperialism and world policing. The Nobel peace prize and peace negotiators in Israel/palestine has been efforts we are proud of as a nation.
You do not like the U.S. as a world police??? Ok...maybe we should go into isolation. Then the Russians and Chinese can take over the world. Our agression in the Middle East is not just because of oil...We are engaged in a struggle against the Chinese and Russians to maintain our World hegemony. We may not be perfect (Reagan and the Neoconservative policies in Latin America were quite appalling), BUT we do not pull people out of their houses in the middle of the night and shoot them in the head for political dissent--Chinese//Russian style. Trust me, the "World's Policemen" could be much worse.
I have been poitning this out for a long time. The US entered for self-interested purposes. Not to promote democracy or to save the Jew. It saw an oppurtunity to bomb Europe and move ahead economically. US has always acted in its own best interest and always will. Germany had more balls than all of them. They had to fight everyone with little or no help. Thats guts. But we always have top talk about the stupid Holocaust. Europe would be better right now under the Swastika.
i bet this guys a canadian and jealous of the U.S. and the british for kicking so much nazi facist ass in WW2.
and this movies about the war in the pacfic
what the f u c k is he talking about europe for
and also didnt we do the majority of the fighting against the japanese? i konw we had help from the allies but that theater was pretty much the U.S. all the way
HAHAHAHAHAHA thank u guys for giving me such a laugh u should have been on the radio or something especially that guy who said Europe would be better under the Swastika hahahahahah what are u man some new age german version of a Borat character or something hahahahahahaha