Political Crossfire Forums

[Esin]

The following is an essay written by a favourite amature author of mine. It's very good and I believe hits the nail right on the head. Too often we Americans try to over-emphasis America's role in WWII, and while I believe we did play a very significant role in that war, we did not win it alone; not by a long shot. So, that being said, here we go....


"Yesterday, I overheard an old woman who didn’t know any better telling someone how America had crushed Nazi Germany and thus saved the world. She continued with an oversimplified history of the Cold War and subsequent events. I felt I needed to voice my concerns over what seems to be a major misconception among Americans today: We did not win World War II in Europe alone, nor could we have.

The fact is, without the Soviet Union, Hitler would have prevailed. What Europe would look like today is for another essay; I will simply try to focus on why Western civilization owes quite a bit to Stalin and Russian communism.

From the beginning of the war in 1939 and up to around late-1943 to early-1944, Germany possessed the best army in the world. Its air force was quite capable as well, and though modern historians now believe its effectiveness may have been exaggerated as a playing chip in Nazi infighting, it was no doubt an astute war machine. The German navy relied heavily on submarines, and practically starved out Britain, but Germany was always a continental power first. Even into early 1945, after considerable losses on all fronts, the German military was still capable of putting up a vicious fight, and did so until its surrender in May 1945.

Around eighty percent of these highly capable forces were arrayed on the Eastern Front, against the USSR, along with Italians, auxiliaries from captured Soviet territories, and the bulk of the armies of Germany’s lesser allies, Rumania and Hungary (Bulgaria did not participate in the invasion of the Soviet Union). At various times, practically all of Germany’s best commanders save for Erwin Rommel commanded troops on the Eastern Front. The two largest battles in human history, Stalingrad and Kursk, occurred on the Eastern Front, along with other titanic battles at Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kiev, Budapest, and the destruction of numerous German armies. Ultimately, the Soviets took Berlin in weeks of horrific fighting and raised their flag over the Reichstag.

Along with doing the bulk of the fighting, the Soviet Union paid the highest price in blood. World War II cost 62,536,500 lives (including the Holocaust), of which 23,200,000 were from the Soviet Union, compared to 418,500 from the United States and 450,400 from the United Kingdom. Indeed, 64 percent of Allied military deaths were Soviet, whereas the UK and US each made up two percent of Allied military deaths. The USSR lost 13.7 percent of its population, while the US lost 0.94 percent and the US 0.32 percent. (China had the most dead after Russia, with ten million, and 24 percent of Allied military deaths. It had been at war with Japan since at least 1937, arguably since as early as 1931.)

The Soviets did most of the fighting, most of the dying, and most of the destruction of Nazi Germany. However, the Allies did play a major role. The well-known invasion of Europe, via Italy and France, as well as the African campaign before, had the effect of diverting much-needed German troops from the Eastern Front. Strategic bombing played an even more important role, devastating German cities and gutting German industry on levels that had never before been attained in war, and would only be exceeded by the even more comprehensive bombing campaign against Japan.

Perhaps the most important contribution made by the United States to the fighting was in the prewar and early-war supply of Britain and the USSR with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act. This was especially important to the Soviets. American weapons and equipment supplied the Red Army at the time when it most needed materiel. Without it, the Soviet Union likely would have been unable to turn the German onslaught, and Moscow would have fallen. By the end of the war, millions of tons of food and cloth, thousands of aircraft, tanks, and firearms, hundreds of thousands of trucks and machine guns, and millions of boots were delivered to the Soviet Union by the United States.

Could the Allies have beat Germany without the military might of the Soviet Union? No. Could the Soviet Union have defeated Germany without Allied assistance? Again, no. Ultimately, winning the war was a joint effort, one in which no one side can claim all the credit. However, the role of the Soviet Union in World War II cannot be underestimated."


Fictionpress - How the Commies Saved Civilization, by Mbwun.

All that being said, I believe that the thing that most Americans are especially proud of in WWII, is that we elected to fight in Europe without any need to do so. Russia was attacked, and drawn into the war forcefully when Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbontrop treaty. Had it not been for Hitler's aggression, I am fairly sure Russia wouldn't have gone to war. Perhaps England wasn't required to fight, but had it not, it would have had to face Hitler alone in Europe, a prospect I am sure wouldn't have been to pleasurable. America really didn't have to. It would have been exceedingly difficult for Hitler to attempt an invasion of the mainland United States due to its relative geographic isolation, and personally I don't believe Hitler ever really had any intentions to invade the States. Hitler's WWII was primarily a European War, and only spilled into Africa and the Near East because of Europe's presence in those areas. The Far East was a different story and could almost be classified as an entirely seperate but cocurrent war.

Please post your thoughts, ideas, and comments.

Regard,
-Esin

[eynon]

Hilter's main beef was with Communism, not Liberalism......his 2 main goals were to wipe it out and destroy the Jewish people.

He wanted to leave Britain and America alone and focus on his conquest of the East. We meddled, so we went to war.

[Esin]

Are you agreeing with what was posted, adding to it, or disagreeing? I am not really sure.

[thundertaker]

Yes, the commies saved most of civilisation, but at a price that was borne heavily by the peoples of Eastern Europe (especially the females).
Fortunately for the rest of Europe, the D-Day landings and the second front denied the Red Hordes the excuse to rape and pillage their way any further throught Nazi-occupied land.......

[antonio62]

thundertaker wrote: Yes, the commies saved most of civilisation, but at a price that was borne heavily by the peoples of Eastern Europe (especially the females).
Fortunately for the rest of Europe, the D-Day landings and the second front denied the Red Hordes the excuse to rape and pillage their way any further throught Nazi-occupied land.......

I think that Germany would move troops to the east to try and defend Germany had the second front not been opened. This would have meant Britain could recapture the rest of western Europe quite easily. Whether or not Stalin would stop in Germany or not may be another story.

[eynon]

antonio62 wrote: thundertaker wrote: Yes, the commies saved most of civilisation, but at a price that was borne heavily by the peoples of Eastern Europe (especially the females).
Fortunately for the rest of Europe, the D-Day landings and the second front denied the Red Hordes the excuse to rape and pillage their way any further throught Nazi-occupied land.......

I think that Germany would move troops to the east to try and defend Germany had the second front not been opened. This would have meant Britain could recapture the rest of western Europe quite easily. Whether or not Stalin would stop in Germany or not may be another story.

and us Yanks would've smashed Japan and occupied East-Asia by early 1945.....no Communist China, no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no Sukarno in Indonesia, no Poi-pot in Cambodia, no "beloved leader" in Korea.

[eynon]

Esin wrote: Are you agreeing with what was posted, adding to it, or disagreeing? I am not really sure.

well, it's like this.....Hitler wasn't really a huge threat to liberalism in Britain or North America, he wanted to smash the Soviets. So it's not that the commies saved civilizaton, they saved themselves......

[thundertaker]

I'm not sure how many troops he would have diverted to face the Russians. Even while Russian and German troops battled in the Suburbs of Berlin in the Spring of 1945, Countries like Denmark and Norway were still well-garrisoned with hundreds of thousands of German troops, that would probably have neccisitated the 'liberation' of those countries as well by Stalin's murderous army......

[Eton]

Esin wrote:

All that being said, I believe that the thing that most Americans are especially proud of in WWII, is that we elected to fight in Europe without any need to do so.

Well actually Hitler declared war on the US. At least Britain and France chose to go to war against Hitler, that is a badge of honour that we can wear and Americans cannot! 8:)

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: Esin wrote:

All that being said, I believe that the thing that most Americans are especially proud of in WWII, is that we elected to fight in Europe without any need to do so.

Well actually Hitler declared war on the US. At least Britain and France chose to go to war against Hitler, that is a badge of honour that we can wear and Americans cannot! 8:)

But the Americans chose Europe First, which they didn't have to.

[thundertaker]

DSwain wrote: Eton wrote: Esin wrote:

All that being said, I believe that the thing that most Americans are especially proud of in WWII, is that we elected to fight in Europe without any need to do so.

Well actually Hitler declared war on the US. At least Britain and France chose to go to war against Hitler, that is a badge of honour that we can wear and Americans cannot! 8:)

But the Americans chose Europe First, which they didn't have to.

Most of the fighting against the Japanese was of a naval/amphibious nature, which meant it was a job for the US Navy and the US Marines. Most of the US Navy was engaged in the Pacific, and Naval operations in the Atlantic and mediterranean was relegated to the Royal Navy.
The US Army was better suited to fighting the war in Europe, which was mostly a land war. Defeating the Germans first was a more efficient use of resources. The US had what they needed to prosecute the war in Japan simultaneously........

[DSwain]

thundertaker wrote: DSwain wrote: Eton wrote: Esin wrote:

All that being said, I believe that the thing that most Americans are especially proud of in WWII, is that we elected to fight in Europe without any need to do so.

Well actually Hitler declared war on the US. At least Britain and France chose to go to war against Hitler, that is a badge of honour that we can wear and Americans cannot! 8:)

But the Americans chose Europe First, which they didn't have to.

Most of the fighting against the Japanese was of a naval/amphibious nature, which meant it was a job for the US Navy and the US Marines. Most of the US Navy was engaged in the Pacific, and Naval operations in the Atlantic and mediterranean was relegated to the Royal Navy.
The US Army was better suited to fighting the war in Europe, which was mostly a land war. Defeating the Germans first was a more efficient use of resources. The US had what they needed to prosecute the war in Japan simultaneously........

The key resource to the United States execution of WW2 was that of the amphibious landing craft - the vessels that 'won us the war' accoding to Eisenhower. Amphibious lift in the Pacific was at nowhere like the level available in the European theatre of ops. Nimitz and Macarthur would have loved those boats - instead Europe got them.

[Ellron]

Eton wrote: Esin wrote:

All that being said, I believe that the thing that most Americans are especially proud of in WWII, is that we elected to fight in Europe without any need to do so.

Well actually Hitler declared war on the US. At least Britain and France chose to go to war against Hitler, that is a badge of honour that we can wear and Americans cannot! 8:)

You chose?

You chose to go to war becasue he invaded Belgium and France?

How is that choosing again?

You declared war when he hit Poland but thats not choosing to go to war. Thats saying we are aggresive. You guys just sat there.

[Lucky Luke]

Ellron wrote: Eton wrote: Esin wrote:

All that being said, I believe that the thing that most Americans are especially proud of in WWII, is that we elected to fight in Europe without any need to do so.

Well actually Hitler declared war on the US. At least Britain and France chose to go to war against Hitler, that is a badge of honour that we can wear and Americans cannot! 8:)

You chose?

You chose to go to war becasue he invaded Belgium and France?

How is that choosing again?

You declared war when he hit Poland but thats not choosing to go to war. Thats saying we are aggresive. You guys just sat there.

Britain chose to go to war, god knows many British politicians and businessmen would have preferred an alliance with Hitler's regime. The choice was made despite them.

France believed it had the best army in Europe and would stop Hitler's regime in a few weeks, it was a lot closer encounter than most would agree today.

As for America Admiral Doenitz was really fed up of its "neutrality".

Quote: In 1941 America was not ready for war. With US forces queuing for arms alongside Britain and Russia, Roosevelt knew he needed more time to build America's military capacity. If war was to come, he wanted Japan to be seen to be the aggressor, but Roosevelt was in no hurry.

Furthermore, he saw Germany as America's main enemy. This 'Europe first' strategy was affirmed with Churchill at the Arcadia conference in late December 1941. Roosevelt had already pushed neutrality to the limit and had assigned warships to accompany convoys in the Atlantic. War with Germany was only a matter of time: why choose to fight another with Japan? Even when European conflict came, it did so only on Hitler's invitation after he gratuitously declared war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/pearl_harbour_03.shtml

:-D
:-D

[antonio62]

French army should really have won. They didn't because there tactics were really out of date.

[Lucky Luke]

antonio62 wrote: French army should really have won. They didn't because there tactics were really out of date.

Churchill claimed that they were unlucky, a misunderstanding with the Belgium authorities split the allied forces in two just at the wrong time and at the wrong place.

:-D
:-D

[mendosan]

The french troops disntergrated there troops they had very poor morale, and there were questions about there training and the German tactics were much much better.

[Lucky Luke]

mendosan wrote: The french troops disntergrated there troops they had very poor morale, and there were questions about there training and the German tactics were much much better.

The French troops you are on about are the ones who rushed to Belgium just to find that Belgium had already capitulated. By then they were already cut off from the rest of the allied forces.

The rest of the French troops fought like lions to protect the British retreat and 200,000 of them died these few weeks. Others led by De Gaulle desperately tried to defend Paris against all odds. The ones trapped in Dunkirk who were lucky enough to make it to England were sent straight back to Normandy to fight another day.

This sacrifice of the French soldiers fighting Hitler is totally forgotten. It seems incredible when the number of French soldiers killed on the
battlefield these few weeks more than equals the number of American soldiers killed on the WW2 battlefields thereafter.
:-D
:-D

[bob.appleyard]

Lucky Luke wrote: France believed it had the best army in Europe and would stop Hitler's regime in a few weeks, it was a lot closer encounter than most would agree today.

France piled loads of resources into the Maginot Line, which the Germans just skirted past. The French also relied on their doddering WWI leadership to see them through, which they ... err ... didn't.

[Lucky Luke]

bob.appleyard wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: France believed it had the best army in Europe and would stop Hitler's regime in a few weeks, it was a lot closer encounter than most would agree today.

France piled loads of resources into the Maginot Line, which the Germans just skirted past. The French also relied on their doddering WWI leadership to see them through, which they ... err ... didn't.

Had Belgium told the French what they told the British Hitler would have been stopped, so said Churchill.

:-D
:-D