I've been watching a lot of stuff on WW2 recently (thank you Yesterday channel and my newborn daughter). An American friend of mine loves to trot out the "we saved your asses line" frequently when the subject comes up over a few beers, but the more I watch and learn, the more it seems that they actually didn't. Now, I don't want to downplay America's contribution to the war, so many brave people gave their lives in that war and to that end it's sort of why it pisses me off when they say that, because if I've got this right, the Russian's had already broken the Eastern Axis line and were making headway into Belorussia when the Americans arrived in Europe (I know they declared war on the Axis in 1941). Things were tight, but we had won the Battle of Britain, there were no German soldiers on British soil and despite France making a total hash of it, we kept our chins up. So, did they "save our asses" (it's arses, come on lads)? Or are they teaching a slightly different version of history over there?
It's not always the number or effectiveness of "troops on the ground" that sway the balance in modern warfare. History may well have had to be rewritten had the Americans not supplied food etc to the allies, munitions to the Russians and their late entry into the ground war and liberation efforts. My father was a radio operator on Merchant Navy North Atlantic convoys during the war. He often said without the Americans accompanying the convoys my sister & I would never have been born. They were critical in the Allies success. Your American friend is winding you up for fun most likely. His father or other family members were likely involved.
It’s definitely complex. But a few things to recall (not exhaustive by any stretch and just off the top of my head/when should be in bed): Germany declared war on the USA in Dec 1941. There wasn’t a big appetite for joining the war in the USA – though to be fair, British appetite for war wasn’t that high either – particularly preceding and peaking in May 1940 USA exacted heavy price from UK: territory, technology, repayments Failed Dieppe raid (’42 or ’43 – can’t remember) demonstrated need for concerted build-up to make a second front work Battle of the Atlantic was also key, plus the threat of second front kept some important units in the west. Chances are that after Germany failed to complete Barbarossa by 1941 (off the top, I think helping Mussolini in Balkans/Greece waylaid them from a March start to June), odds were very much stacked. US/UK Italian campaign also diverted Wehrmacht units from west and east. If alone in Europe, USSR would not have stopped in Germany, they would have ploughed on ‘liberating west’ if second front hadn’t been established (unless French Resistance/ govt in exile had re-taken control from a collapsing Reich). Plus, difficult to imagine Stalin attacking so-called Allies at that point, but the extra territories would have meant a very different Cold War, especially with all of the German powerhouse (and more) in its midst. Find it interesting to think if they’d have gone for Franco somehow too, if unopposed. Anyway, regardless of the counter-factual last paragraph, it’s an interesting debate.
Ask any veteran of WW2 and they will tell you, perhaps reluctantly, without the Americans we would not have won the war. Although latecomers to two world wars their impact in achieving victory was immense. Hitler went against his own philosophy of never fighting a war on two fronts. Attacking Russia was a huge blunder on his part. After initial success the German Army never recovered from the defeat at Stalingrad which ended in 1943. From that point onwards they were forced to retreat. The writing was on the wall. If like me you've been on a speed reading course you should be able get through this in 2 minutes. It's something to do with Russia and oil... https://history.stackexchange.com/q...ion-when-he-was-still-busy-fighting-the-unite
I’m off to have a walk around the Jewish quarter in Budapest today. The Nazi’s turned it into a ghetto in WW2. Should be interesting.
Just finished Das Boot which interestingly included an American sub story. The US committed more to the Pacific War against Japan than Europe but obviously D Day onwards couldn't have happened without them. We may have been able to complete the Italy/Greece campaigns without them but the Russians would have occupied the whole of Northern Europe by say 1946 resulting in a different Yalta treaty etc.
To argue that one nation saved the rest during the Second World War is laughable. Assigning greater value to one at the expense of the other cheapens the efforts of those involved. In saying that, I would argue that nations like France, Poland and China among others deserve way more credit than they ever get, rather than everyone constantly going on about the 'big three'. My main gripe with all this is, which is mostly unrelated, is that the Second World War wasn't the second World War. It was at least the third.
Apart from Sterling's American pal, and I suspect his stance was tongue in cheek, no one seems to be really arguing about a single saviour here. The efforts & sacrifices by all participants in the bloody conflict is also recognized...including those of the vanquised.
Always worth pointing out that from the moment Germany and Russia were at war, at least 70% of the Nazi's resources were targeted at the Red Army until they were defeated. That Russia could cope with this, however, was in some part down to the resources sent to them primarily by the US, but also other by countries. No country 'won' the war in isolation. Had the UK not stood up to the Germany threat before the US entered the war it's a bit shuddering to think of what would have happened. That was our proudest moment. The Second World War is far, far too complex an event to be glibly summed up with statements such as 'we saved your asses' (as said by Americans to Brits) or 'we stood up to the Germans while your capitulated' (by Brits to the French). But the American effort should never be underestimated, forgotten or in any way resented.
We should be forever grateful to the blue wobbly thing that surrounds our country! That was our saviour and we should have had a bank holiday introduced after the war to celebrate our gratitude to her!
King Canute had it right... http://www.whisperingbooks.com/Show...And_Legends&story=King_Canute_On_The_Seashore please log in to view this image
That's exactly how I feel about it. My grandfather fought in that war and he didn't need his arse saving. It's just arrogance. Thank you to those that have contributed, its given me a much more humble response which hopefully will shut him up. It's either that or the immortal Corporal Jones line: "In the last war, the only thing the Americans charged was the 10% on the money they lent us".
The Soviets supplied the Germans for over 18 months with materials they used whilst rampaging through France, Belgium etc and bombing us. In fact German troops passed trains laden with raw material heading for Germany as they headed into Russia. If they Soviets hadn't signed the non aggression pact the Nazis wouldn't have dared invade Poland when they did.
True. That and General Winter as the Russians called it helped defeat Napoleon and the Nazis. Though without a strong navy and the RAF the Channel wouldn't have been enough to save us.
If the Nazis had the pilots and aircraft they lost I. The Battle Of Britain things might have been a bit different. The Germans themselves were surprised by how few troops they needed to control France.
In the "what if" camp, Lost Victories by Eric Von Manstein is an interesting read as is Achtung Panzer (pre war) and Panzer General (after the war) by Heinz Guderian
True. Worth remembering too that 600,000 Greeks died. A percentage of the population that in our country would have equated to nearly 5million in this country, whereas as we lost about 450,000 military and civilian casualties.
