Why bash America for coming late to WW2?

I think at some occasions the soviets won battles even being outnumbered, the battle of Moscow would be such an example , or Stalingrad(at least the part where soviets were on defensive).

Soviets did not win Stalingrad because they outnumbered the germans but because of their good plan and of course all the german mistakes.

Or operation Bagration(I know the germans were outnumbered there)was a perfectly led offensive, where hundreds of thousands of german POW's were being made.

 

Whether or not the Germans were outnumbered was not the point, the fact remains that the Russian juggernut was unstoppable. By the war's end, it is safe to say that the skills of Russian fighting men and the qualities of its combat equipment were almost equal if not surpassed the Germans. It was no surprise they they were able to "route" or "annihilate" the Japs.
I still think that on paper, operation Bagration was the greatest military victory for the Soviets in WWII. In one felt swoop, half a million German troops were wiped out, that was more than in Kursk, or Stalingrad, or Berlin itself.

 

I'm sorry, but I got to say, this all sounds like a bunch of ass kissing to me. Sure America burdoned alot of the weight, but so did your country, so I'm sure if the Americans on this forum are insulted by criticising America for reacting too late, they'll say something. Now that I think about it, America and its people were glad they waited to join the war, why would they want more dead?

 

Annihilate does not mean rout.

Annihilate means that you (effectively) completely wipe the enemy out.
Rout means that you have somehow forced the enemy to run away.

 

Be that as it may.I like America and Americans and I think they get bashed unfairly. I am entitled to my views whether they are arse kissing or not. I've already felt that some of the Americans here are fed up with some statements judging by their responses in previous months. Some of the anti American comments here (whether to do with WW2 or not) have actually pissed me off quite a bit too. In this thread I just chose a decent and valid response.:smok:

 

The Germans were not actually defeated at Moscow. Advanced elements of the German army were pushed back and were prevented from entering the city but generally it led to a stalemate that lasted a very long time. The Germans certainly were not annihilated at Moscow and it's forces in the land before Moscow were not crushed. In effect they were already too late for the push on Moscow before it even began and the weather was more crucial. That is mainly what halted the German advance with mud then snow. In early December 1941 fresh and very well equiped numbers of troops from Siberia were available for a Soviet counterattack but as I have previously said this was eventually halted by stubborn resistance.

The Soviets vastly outnumbered the Germans at Stalingrad. The 6th Army actually took 90% of Stalingrad and could have easily abandoned the city and broke out even quite late in the battle but Hitler refused. The Germans were not actually beaten by Soviet forces inside the city at any point. Fresh Soviet divisions encirled them from the outside and this noose got tighter and tighter and the lack of proper supplies and numerically far inferior German troops couldn't hope to win in the end. So in my view it WAS sheer numbers of fresh Soviet troops that defeated the Germans at Stalingrad.

Bagration was an excellent offensive but even here the Soviets well outnumbered the Germans. The Germans were taken by surprise in the area where the main points of attack were,particularly Bobruisk. It was a lightening quick advance early on but it eventually stalled and the Germans were able to check it before Warsaw and this lasted for almost 6 months. Yes,it most certainly was the biggest defeat suffered by the German army during WW2 but I actually have to marvel at how capable the Germans were in not collasping totally and managing to put up a decent defensive display later on in the battle. The Soviets should have routed the Germans completely there but they didn't. They did very well but then having numerical advantage in men and equpiment that should be EXPECTED. The Germans actually performed very well in local counter attacks and particularly in the East Prussia area later on but overwhelming numbers couldn't change the overall picture. Another case of numbers being the crucial factor.

Do not forget that the Soviets lost more than 3 times as many troops as the Germans did on the eastern front and that is despite the Soviets almost always outnumbering the Germans in practically every major engagement there.Sometimes by two and three to one.Late on it was even more.

 

True. Annihilate means completely wiping the enemy out. This happened on just a few occassions by the Soviets. Stalingrad and Berlin most notably and both were against vastly inferior numbers of German troops. Most other times the Germans lived to fight another day. The Soviets did not annihilate the Germans at Moscow, Kursk, Bagration, Balaton, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, Poland. The Germans totally annihilated more Soviet forces in the course of WW2 than vice versa,and usually when outnumbered themselves. It's just a fact that the Soviets could bring more NEW forces to the battlefront than the Germans.

 

The Soviets (and 'Russia' before them) have always enjoyed a rather huge advantage in quantity (remember the WW1 'Russian Steamroller'), and their commanders have always taken advantage of this.
Even though they lost 3 men for every German, they could easily afford this.
Who ended with the least manpower?

 

Yes but the point is that some people refuse to acknowledge that it was mainly due to manpower that the Soviets won. Some try and claim it was through brilliance of the Soviet military. The Soviets themselves claim this all the time. That's wrong. The Germans were superior in most aspects except the most crucial one =numbers!!!

 

Reading this coming out of a European's fingers surprises me to no end.

 

Daniel,

I'm an Englishman, not a European. Big difference. Come to England and you'll see. Americans are welcome and well liked in England generally.

 

i consider myself to be english first and foremost, im definetly not british, but i do consider myself to be european. to be honest i havnt got a lot of time for the amercians, they very much like the french they think evrybody likes them or should like them but in reality most dont.

as for giving them grief about ww2 is concerend there is no case to answer, they entered when it was forced upon them nothin wrong with that.

obviously they made a huge difference to the final outcome.

only thing that gets most people in this country is when americans say that they bailed us out in ww2 and the perception that it was the USA that defeated germany.

dont matter tho cause your still crap at football!

 

Lydon Wrote: "At least America helped and were there with us in spirit even before America was attacked by the Japanese"

Is there something wrong with you, are you ill? Being there in spirit?!
My god I never heard that one before, now I have confirmed one thing about the universe's grand schene of things, "what you have just written is the summation of the humour of the universe!

I just emulate the facts, I don't label, I'll leave that up to you. Canada was the Commonwealth's '"Arsenal of Democracy"' long before the USA showed up. For two years they bled with the rest of the world at war, the only Americans that bled during this time were the ones who came to Canada to join in a battle for the survival of Democracy and their friends.

I hate to say it but you're going to have to blow the smoke somewhere else, try Iraq they are desperate enough to believe you; since everything they had has been destroyed by an illegit government.
:bang: :angry:

 

Oh pull your head in Mutant Poodle.

This thread is not about Canada's involvement in WW2 is it so why bring your lot into the equation? What is your point? If you want to do that then start another thread and I'll chip in. I don't have to mention Canada if it's not relevant to the discussion do I? This thread is not about Canada period.

Everything Iraq has had has been destroyed has it? It's a minor conflict. A very minor conflict. A major 'political' conflict but a very minor 'actual' conflict. Get that into your head. I don't see all of Iraq in ruins do you? More Americans have been killed in car crashes this year than total deaths in Iraq this last year and a half. Sobering thought huh? Or do you wish us believe that America is responsible for the biggest bloodshed in history? Get real.

Sheesh, it's true then. Canadians really do have a chip on their shoulders about the Yanks. Is it that 'small nation next to a big one complex'?

 

The British are just as guilty. We also claim we won the war when in actual fact the Soviets did the lions share.

 

The success of WW2 was a team effort, no one country won it and no one country could have won it. The allies couldn't have won without the soviets and the soviets couldn't have won without aid. The same goes for Britain and the Commonwealth.

 

Remarkable. When you start learning about WW2 you learn that instead of just the USA a whole lot of countries participated in WW2 and helped win it, together. Then at some point you realize that one of the countries has borne an uneven share and should recieve due respect; this country is usually either the US or the SU. And in the end, you get back at your starting point: the Allies made a joint effort and though there was some significant friction between the members none of them could have done it alone.

This is a process most WW2-interested people go through, and you can see it here on the forum every day. In fact I made the last step by what you other members provided... Thanks!

 

It's not my head that needs pulling in, in fact its been out for a long long time. Actually most of the world can't stand the USA, and we all know it!!!!!!!!!!! :angry: :bang:

Actually Cnada doesn't suffer from a complex, we just live in a shadow of another country.

Canada paricipates on a world scale, to hopefully better portions of the desperate world. You could realize that most of Europe, in fact alll of the nations of Europe do the same.

If you consider the size of a conflict to be based upon the amount of planes, tanks and ships sunk then you are a fool. Not an idiot, not dumb, just a fool. The conflict in that region has been going on for centuries, not just when the USA showed up for the oil. :roll:

One last thing; did you or did you not make an uneducated claim in point, that you made, about the USA being there for their friends? My reponse was an answer to your hisorically inacrrurate claim.
I participated in your thread, like others, but I only corrected your misinformation. Do better research, pull your head out of the sand and come up for a reality check. :idea:

Subscript to your claiming I have a chip on my shoulders regarding the USA. My family clan has had quite a distiction in serving in the USA armed forces. This includes the American Civil War, WWI and WWII. All of my family in the states served as officers in the American navy; the highest rank attained was Rear Admiral during WW II.
When it comes to historical quests for knowledge I was driven to this by that Admiral. He too thinks that the USA takes too much credit for wining the war in Europe, the Russians bled more than anyone else. At the end of WW II the Canadian armed forces were number 3 in world power, and filled entirely of volunteers, that knew the value of national friendships.
(Entirely volunteer until late 1944 when subscription was ordered even in Quebec).

Just so you understand, its people such as yourself that give Americans a bad name, with unsubstantiated ccomments like the one I read and quoted.

Edited by Moderator - careful consideration before responding requested

 

No Mutant Poodle, the number of LIVES lost on all sides in this present conflict in Iraq would suggest it is a minor conflict. As I said, it is a MAJOR political crises but a minor conflict nevertheless. You are aware that around ONE MILLION poor souls perished in Rwanda not so long ago? Nobody talks about that, few of these 'decent', 'helpful' nations like most in Europe or Canada put up much protest at the time or took it upon themselves to do something about it. Or did I miss something? Hell, even France ignored world opinion to carry out nuclear tests in the South Pacific not that long ago. Have you forgotten that? I know people from New Zealand who haven't.

As for America being there 'in spirit' with Britain in 1940 and 1941 well I believe that to be the case. They weren't siding with the Nazis were they like many countries in Europe? They weren't producing pro Nazi movies were they? Take a look at Hollywood during the time before America entered the war. A great proportion of American movies were pro British and made a point about it. Ever heard of Mrs Miniver to name just one? What about Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes fighting evil Nazi spies? Rallys and fund raising for Britain by the general public in America were fairly commonplace.

As for your family's history of serving in the U.S military well that's no different from Scotsmen serving in the British army yet still having a chip on their shoulder about England or being part of Britain. There are many of those about. Doesn't mean they haven't got a chip on their shoulder. Obviously you have.

I have no problem with Canadians and Canada so I have no argument with the role Canada played in WW2. It's got nothing to do with any of my points so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

I agree that America takes too much credit for WW2 but so does Britain. Why don't you complain about Britain?

 

Yup and I'm sure all those dead fighting the Nazi regime are greatly tankful for 'being there in spirit'. Eh!

You made a point, I responded as I saw fit. You are the one making claims about being there spirtually as being there bleeding in the trenches. Not! Big difference. Eh!

Isn't it a real bumber when the truth comes up and bites you in the ass!

No chip, I seem to come across your types where ever I go. I just do my best to serve history as truthfully as possible.
I am as insulted as your clever little insult waqs intended in regards to my family. Shame on you. Shame! You'll have to do better than that, I expected more from an Englishman but apparently you must have a bit of that Scotish chip on your shoulders, since I never have had one on mine.

Here is a fact you should take to heart, " the tip of the spear may be small, but it is considered the most significant part of the spear."

It is now a matter of time before some godless revolutionary {God Forbid}explodes a nuclear or biogenetic device in the USA or Europe. The question of it would happen has gone the way after the imoral and illegal second invasion of Iraq. In fact if you watched CNN it was released by Congress, yes the USA congress, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that \there were no connections of Osahma to Hussein.