you are forgetting 1 major ingrediant in all of this bp, as usual, while the soviets were able to mass their whole army on one front, and i grant you it was a very large front, at the same time the u.s was fighting on 5 or six different fronts europe 2 fronts in the pacific usland hoping, africa, italy, burma, we had personnel in china.
Exporting democracy from one country to another is an illusion.
- Thread starter Jimboyready
- Start date
Another example was Czecholsovakia, from the time it was created after WW1 to when Nazi Germany overran the country. I do believe of all the countries created by the Allied powers in Europe after the War to End all Wars, it was the only one to still be democratic by 1939. The rest, including Poland, turned into dictatorships before then.yogi said:
At best imposing democracy is iffy. And of course there is more to it than just voting. Hell in many cases we still don't have it right.
lets see if i got this right jimboy you blame us americans for killing 2 million japanese after they hit pearl harbor. I suppose the generations following the greatest generation should feel some guilt, but ill let you in on a little secret i dont. Had an uncle die in the bataan death march.
dittman said:
The US had two armies in the Pacific Theatre, the 6th and 8th Armies. The greater portion of these were with macArthur's forces, who obviously had more land to cover than Nimitz.
In the ETO the US had three army groups with the 6th and 12th in France and the 15th in Italy. Even then these weren't entirely American. Half of US 6th Army was French and the US 15th Army Group was really a multi-national force that included at one time or another British, Canadian, French, Polish, and even Brazilian troops.
Where you get 5 or 6 fronts in Europe is puzzling. There were no more than two at one time for the US in the ETO. North Africa was the first, and following the victory there came Sicily and then Italy was next. Then of course came D-Day and western Europe was most of important theatre of operations.
As I have said before, the western Allies didn't fight the bulk of the German and Axis forces. The USSR did. Oh yes, the partisians in the Balkans such as in Yugoslavia and Greece, tied down TWO German army groups. Pretty darn good for the partisians when the Germans had 3 army groups in western Europe, 1 in Italy, and up to 5 against the Soviets.
dittman said:
I had an uncle (he didn't marry my aunt until 1947) who survived the Bataan Death March and survived a Japanese POW camp located in China. With the brave help of some sympathetic Chinese running a clandestine mail service the POW's were able to keep in touch with other POW camps.
And let's face reality, both sides of the war, Allies and the Axis each killed millions and millions of civilians.
BTW the greatest generation, that doesn't apply to just the Americans.
Respectfully, Jimboy, you are incredibly ignorant of Japanese history and how Japan became a modern country. Japan was forcibly opened up to trade and modernization by US naval power. Further, the United States provided Japan with advanced weaponry and military training beginning in the late 19th/early 20th century. Many of the top officers in the WWII Japanese military were trained at Annapolis. BTW, I was born in Japan.Jimboyready said:
Absolutely. I'm particularly fascinated by the incredible evolution of air power over such a short period, for a weapon that barely existed in the previous conflict (WWI).Grendleaxe said:
With respect to the Russians, I can't give them much credit for honor, given that they had entered into a secret pact with the Nazis before the war to partition Eastern Europe, and assisted German remilitarization by allowing them to secretly train forces within Russia. Once Hitler decided Germany no longer needed the alliance, he betrayed Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union.
If we look at the post-war political and economic development of those countries "liberated" and/or dominated by the Soviet Union versus the United States, only the most zealous idealogue could conclude that there wasn't a significant gap in both prosperity and liberty between those nations which wound up in the American sphere of influence (the "Free World") versus the Soviet bloc (behind the "Iron Curtain"). People don't sneak out, crawl under barbed wire, risk machine gun fire to escape from happy, prosperous open societies. Many of my family did exactly that to make it to the West.
With respect to China, China's economic recovery from the disaster of the Cultural Revolution and decades of failure of Soviet style communism, really began with the opening up with relations with the US and the free market economies under Deng Xiaoping, and turning away from the Soviet axis. Economic and political liberalization during this period was incredible. Many of my family who had been trapped in Communist China for decades were finally allowed to rejoin us.
With respect to China, China's economic recovery from the disaster of the Cultural Revolution and decades of failure of Soviet style communism, really began with the opening up with relations with the US and the free market economies under Deng Xiaoping, and turning away from the Soviet axis. Economic and political liberalization during this period was incredible. Many of my family who had been trapped in Communist China for decades were finally allowed to rejoin us.
Great story.....sorry your dose of reality does not fit the image some Canadaians have of the US and that is why you are not getting any responses to your post.rollerboy said:
The USA is the land of opportunity.
It's interesting how people can convince themselves of almost anything. The US is malevolent, and the root of all suffering. Communism good, democracy bad. And "my grandfather can fondly recall how the Russians landed at Omaha Beach and began the liberation of France. This was after they kicked the Germans out of North Africa and rolled through the Boot of Italy. And the way the Soviets defeated the Japanese in those incredible naval battles, and bombed the Japanese and German infrastructure to rubble, wow those Russians! And one can only have wished that the freedom and prosperity they brought the their newfound satellites after the war could have been visited on those poor suckers caught in the American sphere of influence."luckydog71 said:
Next they will convince themselves that China is their largest trading partner.
just some more info
military manpower
soviets-12,500,000
u.s.a. -12,250,000
aircraft in europe
june 1942 dec.1944
soviets 2100 15,800
u.s.a 0 12,200
total no of weapons manufactured
world u.sa %
542,000 283,000 52% u.s.a
total no. of vehicles produced
world u.s.a. %
5.1 mil. 2.47 mil. 48%
number of divisions
pre war
soviets u.s.a.
194 8
1945
491 94
military manpower
soviets-12,500,000
u.s.a. -12,250,000
aircraft in europe
june 1942 dec.1944
soviets 2100 15,800
u.s.a 0 12,200
total no of weapons manufactured
world u.sa %
542,000 283,000 52% u.s.a
total no. of vehicles produced
world u.s.a. %
5.1 mil. 2.47 mil. 48%
number of divisions
pre war
soviets u.s.a.
194 8
1945
491 94
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml
"The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort.
"There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'."
"The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort.
"There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'."
I Know you don't. Any many like you won't. But your denial won't change the truth. I wonder about the 1500 nephews' and what are they thinking after the deaths of their Uncles in Iraq.dittman said:
I'm guessing that reading comprehension is not the strongest suit of either of you, Rollerboy and LuckyDog. What I said was that contrary to what Rollerboy posted, the defeat of Nazi Germany was led by the Soviet Red Army, not the US. You've taken this to mean that I'm a communist-loving, American-hating, revisionist-history writing no nothing. It seems the two of you are intent on turning the Allied victory in WWII into an entirely made in the USA affair. Nothing is further from the truth. Many nations contributed. The RAF's victory in the Battle of Britain, achieved with more Canadian help than American, and the Red Army's defeat of the bulk of the German Wehrmacht on the Eastern front were as significant events in the eventual Allied victory as was the entry of the USA into the war. And since you're both sure that the victory was led by the USA, where are the pictures of an American soldier placing the Stars and Stripes on the flagpole at the Reichstag? Oh yeah, that famous picture was of a member of the Soviet Red Army hanging the Hammer and Sickle.
actually bp you are right to a degree in 42 after the invasion of russia and there was no threat of a 2nd front from the brits about 67% of the german army was on the eastern front, however by the time of the normandy invasion, that number had been whitteled down to 52%.
also a little bit of history for you it was a good chance that the western allies would have beaten the russkies to berlin but ike stopped them on the elbe, to make sure that there was no "friendly" casulties incase the russian and americans met up in berlin.
also a little bit of history for you it was a good chance that the western allies would have beaten the russkies to berlin but ike stopped them on the elbe, to make sure that there was no "friendly" casulties incase the russian and americans met up in berlin.
Spefically of who are you talking about?dittman said:
I've read the entire thread and never found anything in regards to minimize the US role in WW2. From what I have gotten from your post in the past on this subject it overemphasizing the US role and belittling the roles played by other allies like the UK and USSR.
It's be said before, and remains a cold hard fact, there no way the Allies could have won without the US and there was no way the US could have won without the Allies.
What is not all that well known is Canada's contribution to the conflict. And this has been pointed out by me and others.
dittman said:
VERY interesting numbers! I would like to know the source(s). Thanks in advance.
Careful when speaking of divisions, as a division was not always the same from army to army and indeed from type to type. In general Soviet divisions were much smaller than their western counterparts. And when it came to armour and mechanized forces, the Soviets found that brigades were much better suited to their forces after the debacle of 1941.
Who exactly did the Soviet Red Army lead? Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. The Russians were leading the defense of their own homeland against land invasion.BushPilot said:
Last edited:
