The Role of Various Countries in World War II

[6underground 11]

SkiGeek, The "Americans saved the day" is the tone of which his statement was made, you just quoted him saying:

Jealous that we kicked your ass in two wars, maybe?quote>

How can that be interpreted in any other way than arrogance? Or the sentiment of "Americans saved the day" which was echoed later?

This is exactly the quote i was talking about, whether he was clear about that before he said that, is irrelevant, because he lost his patience and resorted to arrogance AFTER. How is that not observable?

In fact, it just supports my opinion that when pushed some Americans will resort to arrogance if they feel their back is pushed against the wall. In which case, that occurred exactly.

Actually, I did have high hopes that it could be a useful discussion. But several people made posts (you were one of them, btw) that made it necessary to close it.quote>

I didn't comment all the way through the discussion, I made one or two posts that addressed Duke's arrogant comment of "kicking your ass in two wars". I then countered that with the fact that the U.S.A couldn't even take Vietnam, never mind "kicking ass in two world wars". A comment which is MORE than justifiable and objective.

Actually, there is, when people make blanket statements.quote>

Perhaps, is not an indefinite statement, is it. So how can it be refered to as a blanket statment.

Let me give you an example:

1) Perhaps there are two apples in the basket

2) There are two apples in the basket.

One is a definitive statement, the other is not. Do you see the fallacy in your accusation now?

There is also no need to be snide or imagine that people have motives that do not actually exist.quote>

I really think the term "pot-kettle-black" comes to mind here. Just because you have some form of authority on these boards as a moderator does not make you immune to the less encouraged human emotions. So let's not take some self-righteous high round. When there isn't right now. As for motives, that's entirely an interpretive perspective, one that shouldn't be dismissed on the drop of anyone's hat.

I've already stated that I'm done with the thread, because of the comment he made about ass kicking Britain in two world wars. I've done what I needed to do. Now, if that's not to your liking and wish instead to provoke the issue, whereby you can ban me for some alleged "snideness", I'm afraid I wont be playing that game. It's old hat now.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: 6underground

SkiGeek, The "Americans saved the day" is the tone of which his statement was made, you just quoted him saying:

Jealous that we kicked your ass in two wars, maybe?quote>

How can that be interpreted in any other way than arrogance? Or the sentiment of "Americans saved the day" which was echoed later?  quote>

As I said earlier, it can be interpreted as raising a possibility then rejecting it.

Jealous that we kicked your ass in two wars, maybe?

Yeah, I don't know either. Jealousy isn't really a factor. quote>

Problem is, people went ballistic on the first sentence without reading the second.

 

Actually, I did have high hopes that it could be a useful discussion. But several people made posts (you were one of them, btw) that made it necessary to close it.quote>

I didn't comment all the way through the discussion, I made one or two posts that addressed Duke's arrogant comment of "kicking your ass in two wars". I then countered that with the fact that the U.S.A couldn't even take Vietnam, never mind "kicking ass in two world wars". A comment which is MORE than justifiable and objective. quote>

Here is the point you are missing: in order for these threads to continue, we need to discuss the issues, not each other.   Duke's arrogance is not an issue.  It's talking about Duke.  But that seems to be what you are stuck on.

Just because you have some form of authority on these boards as a moderator does not make you immune to the less encouraged human emotions. quote>

I don't recall saying that I was.  but we aren't going to talk about me either.   Discuss the issues, not each other.  What part of that do people not understand?

I've already stated that I'm done with the thread, because of the comment he made about ass kicking Britain in two world wars. I've done what I needed to do.quote>

and that is my point:  you didn't need to come in here and comment on someone else.   You have contributed nothing to this discussion in terms of the issues.

If you wish to discuss the issues, you are welcome to continue posting in these threads.  If you insist on discussing other members, your removal can be facilitated.

Originally posted by: The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz

This is something I feel very passionately about, and I'm worried that if I go into too much detail I might get into trouble, so I'll keep it short and concise..quote>

Hi Muzz.  Good to hear from you.  Haven't seen you in a while.

You raise a valid point that the attacks that have happened on each side of the pond have been different in nature.   I think it's fair to say that neither side fully understands the perspective the other has.  That is why we try to continue these threads:  so people can gain a greater understanding of where the other guy is coming from.

[your_adress_here 11]

Why are you guys arguing about this? Can you answer that?

[masochist 111]

Originally posted by: your_adress_here Why are you guys arguing about this? Can you answer that?quote>

I really think it's been set up as a fireplace for anti-American sentiments, using WWII as a sort of igniter; not to invite it, but to contain it in one spot.  That's just how it looks to me.

I both agree with and passionately loathe this thread already.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: your_adress_here

Why are you guys arguing about this? Can you answer that?quote>

An excellent question.    I only have two points:

A)  Don't make assumptions and then assign motives to people based on those assumptions

B)  Follow the rules:  Discuss the issues, not each other.

And, since A is a subset of B, there really isn't anything more to discuss.

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: 6underground SkiGeek, The "Americans saved the day" is the tone of which his statement was made, you just quoted him saying:

Jealous that we kicked your ass in two wars, maybe?quote>

How can that be interpreted in any other way than arrogance? Or the sentiment of "Americans saved the day" which was echoed later?

This is exactly the quote i was talking about, whether he was clear about that before he said that, is irrelevant, because he lost his patience and resorted to arrogance AFTER. How is that not observable?

In fact, it just supports my opinion that when pushed some Americans will resort to arrogance if they feel their back is pushed against the wall. In which case, that occurred exactly.quote>

This doesn't exactly sound like anything to get excited over. Also, note that he said: "Kicked your Ass", which implies winning, or beating someone, note assisting them or saving them.

Now then, back on topic:

I would have to say a lot of American's problem with the who-did-what issue has to come from pop culture.

If you look at just about any war movie/game/show, what does it depict?

The US coming in, guns blazing, and saving everyone from the Nazis. And since about 98% of Americans learn everything from pop culture, what happens? Everyone now assumes that the US is super awesome and that every other country needed saving or what have you.

Now, time to ready the fire extingusher for this this thread.

[patriots_1228 51]

IMO this arguement will never end.

The Nazis and Hitler were the greatest evil mankind has ever encountered, and we had an epic struggle and in the end, mankind together overcame him. Think of all the different races, nations, peoples, religions, etc. that fought in WWII! Its only natural that we sit here bickering trying to claim mankinds greatest victory for our own nation.

[ktxus05 0]

we (USA) may not have single-handidly whooped the nazis, but the allies (or should i say ally, since only great britain was left when we entered WWII) would have had a damn hard time winning if it hadden't been for us! now WWI another matter, we really didnt help any more that britain in that one.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: 6underground

Jealous that we kicked your ass in two wars, maybe?quote>

How can that be interpreted in any other way than arrogance? Or the sentiment of "Americans saved the day" which was echoed later? quote>

This is a classic example of tone not carrying properly through text. I meant that in tongue-in-cheek manner. I was kidding. Belfastuniguy raised the question of why Britain would be jealous of America and I just kinda threw that out there in sarcastic manner. Again, look at the second line. Don't just take the first one out of context.

Besides which, as I said before, the "two wars" I was referencing were the American Revolution and the War of 1812. In reference to why Britain would be jealous. Those were the two wars we fought against them and won. Why on earth would they be jealous of us for wars we fought on their side in?

In fact, it just supports my opinion that when pushed some Americans will resort to arrogance if they feel their back is pushed against the wall. In which case, that occurred exactly. quote>

Um, no it's not. Seriously. I reiterate: I was kidding.

[sakarr 1]

Originally posted by: ktxus05 we (USA) may not have single-handidly whooped the nazis, but the allies (or should i say ally, since only great britain was left when we entered WWII) would have had a damn hard time winning if it hadden't been for us! now WWI another matter, we really didnt help any more that britain in that one.quote>

 

No, it was not just ally. You are completely forgetting the Soviet Union. They are the ones who turned this war with the glorious victory of Stalingrad, and once destroying Hitler's army there, continued the push to destroy the Fascists. The Normandy and Italian invasions by the Americans were welcome distractions, but i think if they had not happend the Soviets could have continued and finished off the Nazis on their own. However, without the Soviets fighting in the east, i don't think the American invasion could have had much effect, as Hitler would have his full attention to the west to be able to crush it.

[skyliner22 16]

Oh dear, this thread would just open up a can of worms. There are a lot of people out the for some reason so passionately involved in WWII and they will just come in here and express their opinions. Just to get into the discussion a bit, I think that the US did provide some assitance but as others have said the victory was one for the team. England was getting hammered by the Nazis and the US provided help, and at D-Day both sides allied together brought down the Nazi regime. However in the Pacific, it was soley US support with some help from Australia and China.

[jglei701 8]

The common American rallying cry is "We saved Europe." And truly, without the American industrial muscle, Europe might have a very different makeup today.

But once the Allied forces evacuated at Dunkirk in May 1940 and France fell to the Nazi's in Nov 1942 (though the Vichy puppet government had held control of France and been hostile towards Britain as of July 1940), it was Britain against Nazi Germany. And the Brits were forced to leave much of their weaponry behind and scoot across the channel. Medieval cannons were being pulled from museums in preparation for the impending Nazi Operation Sealion, the invasion of Britain. Men were training at hand to hand combat because they didn't have guns to repel the impending attack. And Churchill made it known that Britain was going to fight... with the famous "finest hour" speech was delivered in June of 1940 and kept the resistance alive in the hearts of the British people. And they stood alone throughout 1940 and much of 1941, though in August of '41, Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter, renouncing the aggression of the Axis powers, though this didn't effectively do anything substantive other than confirming that we were behind the Brits... though still technically neutral.

But for almost exactly a year, after Dunkirk, the Nazi's just solidified their reign in Europe, moving into south eastern Europe and the Balkans, but they didn't launch an assault. They bombed Britain and it took the full will of Churchill pleading, demanding, calling on his people to hold fast.

But then Hitler decided to begin Operation Barbarossa, opening up a new Northern front. He struck against his Soviet Allies and took a peaceful front where he would not have been attacked (seemingly...) and made war. And this refocusing of materials and manpower against the Soviets nearly succeeded... but alas he had the same success as Napoleon 119 years earlier. Hitler began on June 22, 1941 (interestingly, Napoleon began HIS invasion on June 23rd) in his invasion attempt of the Soviet Union and kept at it until Dec 5th... when they pulled back from their invasion attempt of Moscow. Had Germany started their attack against the Soviets a few weeks earlier in the spring, they might have succeeded... instead, the Soviets began a counter attack on Dec 6th around Moscow and keep it. The Germans redoubled their efforts and took Sevastopol in July 1942 and begin their drive towards Stalingrad. They don't reach Stalingrad until September... and by November the Soviets begin one, and in January another counter offensive around Stalingrad. By February, the Nazis surrendered. They went to war with Russia in the fall and winter and though they almost accomplished their feat, they almost starved or froze to death.

So, from Feb 2nd 1943 on, the Soviets were driving towards Berlin and Germany.

And on June 6th, 1944, the Allies landed on the beaches at Normandy on D-Day.

By no means am I trying to say that the Americans didn't help win the war... surely we did. But had Hitler not tried to invade Russia, I'm not convinced that even America could have wrestled Europe from his grasp. It was over 3 years from the evacuation at Dunkirk until D-Day. If Hitler had put those efforts into a full scale attack on Great Britain, the war may have been effectively over before America even entered.

The nationalism in Great Britain and the U.S. after WWII was heightened by the fact that we won the war... of course. But this really did lead to some of the animosity of the Soviets against the West in the Cold War. 20 million Russian died in WWII. Over half were civilians. And some say this estimate may be low by as many as 10 million people.

[jglei701 8]

I just want to highlight some ideas from above... with Hitler's decision to not attempt to invade GB right away and turn his attention to the north(east), it gave GB (and later the US) an opportunity to fully arm and prepare for the assault on Berlin.

It must be noted, however, that, while the US helped the Brits on the Western and Southern fronts, they carried the great majority of the burden in the Pacific. And as difficult as it was to wrest a beachhead in Europe, American troops island hopped... they wrested beaches each time they attacked a new island. My grandfather established beachheads on Leyte, Luzon and Okinawa. In the island hopping campaign, the US established beachheads on several other islands. In each situation, it had to be fully TAKEN. And it isn't to say that from D-Day on in Europe the American's were just "also rans..." My other grandfather served in Germany with the push towards Berlin and it is entirely likely that the Soviets would not have been able to succeed in driving all the way to Berlin without the Allies from the West and South pushing had as well. Truly, it was an allied effort, though truthfully as well, the old saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" held true here... as seen over the course of the next 40 years with the Cold War.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 IMO this arguement will never end.

The Nazis and Hitler were the greatest evil mankind has ever encountered, and we had an epic struggle and in the end, mankind together overcame him. Think of all the different races, nations, peoples, religions, etc. that fought in WWII! Its only natural that we sit here bickering trying to claim mankinds greatest victory for our own nation.quote>

 

QFT.

Unfortunately, some of my fellow Americans get swallowed up by extreme patriotism and just assume that we've won every war in history, which of course isn't true. Well, except the Punic Wars of course, we totally kicked Carthage's butt!

[yoshikoroyimara 5]

Or should it be said that it was in fact Hitler (and Tojo) that saved Europe? If it wasn't for Hitler's mistake of suddenly going against "neutral" Russia instead of pursuing Great Britain, and Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor (excuse for US to enter the war), then what situation would we be in now? However, this argument should not be taken to strongly mainly for the fact that if we keep this up, then basically it would spiral down to, say, what panthersimcity4 typed about Carthage...what if Carthage won? Then Europe during WWII would be saved! (which is, of course, true, but stupid...)...I just felt like adding my two cents as part of my donation to the needy...and as panthersimcity4 should know (according to his signature): "for it is in giving that we receive"

[jglei701 8]

But those two "if" statements had broad, broad implications in WWII, and specifically the topic at hand... rereading the title: "The Role of Various Countries in WWII." When Germany assaulted Russia, it changed Russia's role. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, it changed the U.S.'s role. Now, of course, the assault on Russia changed Germany's role, as did the bombing of Pearl Harbor changed Japan's roll, and ultimately changed Germany's roll again.

Germany took it upon herself to invade Russia... but Japan took it upon herself to directly involve the U.S., which had broad-reaching implications for Germany. Based on the general status quo that existed in Western Europe after Dunkirk (bombings excluded), Germany seemed fairly content to hold its winnings, and Britain was in no place to launch an assault... the UK was holding on for dear life. True, when Germany attacked the USSR they opened up a front that hadn't existed previously... but the Western front was quiet... until the U.S. got involved, thanks to Japan.

[Deathtoall 28]

Side point here but Australia was actually the first country to defeat Japan on land, on the Kokoda Track in PNG alone, with the help of the local people who got nicknamed "fuzzy-wuzzies". 10,000 army of well trained soldiers (Japan) versusing about 6-7000 reserves (AUS). Considering Australia is still part of Britian that would be considered a "Technical English win".

China was a country during WW2 but wasn't actually very organised and there was only colonies in the costal areas. The Vietnamese didn't like the Japanese but didn't like the French either remember that and most of the other nations around this time didn't really have the military to defeat Japan. Alot where still French/English colonies aswell (bar Phillipines which was US and those of the Dutch and Portugese). So i think casting them aside is quite rough.

The war would be quite different if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour. The US helped enormously in both theartes but it's effect was the greatest in Pacfic Ocean. Thats not to say that their efforts in Europe are to go unoticed. The Allies did it together, including USSR, Britain and the US. France had been taken but dont over-look the efforts of the French Underground, they helped enormoulsy with D-Day. I would say that the US did "save the allies asses in WW2" but thats just being self-indulgent saying it in an argument. Aswell as being totally immature to resort to saying that if you can't win an argument and need to try and guilt-trip the person.

The US ensured British survival (England - 942 years without invasion) and when the USSR got involved Germany was toast. Britain needed the USSR and US and vice versa.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 IMO this arguement will never end.

The Nazis and Hitler were the greatest evil mankind has ever encountered, and we had an epic struggle and in the end, mankind together overcame him. Think of all the different races, nations, peoples, religions, etc. that fought in WWII! Its only natural that we sit here bickering trying to claim mankinds greatest victory for our own nation.quote>

 

That is possibly the most sensible, logical and truthful statement in this whole thread.

Let's not forget that just about every continent in the world was involved in WWII. Australia and NZ fought in Europe too, and then there was the Nazi campaign in Northern Africa.

It was truely a triumph for humanity over a horrific regime, not sure anyone country can say they won. That said it maybe be possible for one country to say they did more, but as I said earlier, that depends where you live, because the winning of the war was significant to different countries for different reasons.

Also, I REALLY want to stress something here:

England was getting hammered by the Nazisquote>

 Please not this again. England did not fight in WWII. The UK did. It is insulting to the memories of the dead Irish, Scottish and Welsh soldiers who died in WWII when people say it was only England. I know what you are referring to, but it's simple ignorance to refer to the UK as England.

The first shots of WWII over British soil were fired just 20 miles from where I am now, in the Firth of Forth near Edinburgh.

Alot where still French/English coloniesquote>

England never had colonies. England did not have an Empire. Great Britain had colonies and an Empire. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are as much a valid part of that as England. It's insulting to us when we played a huge part in the Empire and get no recognition.

Please people, it's just downright false Geography to refer to the UK as England.

Anyway.

Ski: Good to see you again. I have been pottering around a bit, mainly the CJs, hopefully I'll stick a bit longer this time.

[Boggy1 45]

Muzzy! Long time no see, you should really hang out in chat more often, we miss you!

I'm going to agree with patriots; it's the most likely explanation.

I don't really have a gripe with Americans who believe that they hammered Germany solely during the war. I consider it a false opinion; but thats generally all it is, an opinion. We shouldn't get angry over this, it's inconsequential. Who won? Who dealt the final blow to Germany? It's all relative to each person. The War was so ridiculously complex, it included so many factors. It's pointless to argue about it. We're all on the same sides, and we all want the common good. Each of us helped defeat the Nazi's; it was a combined effort.

[Duke87 1,070]

It's true that there's a sense of American pride here. Especially among war veterans.

My father is a doctor. He's seen several patients who fought in WWII. So of course that will come up in conversation. And when it does, he'll of course mention how his father (my grandfather) fought in WWII. And he'll get happy reactions like "Oh! What division was he in!?"

When he then informs them that his father fought in the Italian air force, the smile instantly disappears from their face.

He loves doing this and he loves telling stories about him doing it.

We both enjoy having a little fun at other people's expense in this kind of manner, actually.

Wonder where I get it from...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz

Also, I REALLY want to stress something here:

England was getting hammered by the Nazisquote>

 Please not this again. England did not fight in WWII. The UK did. It is insulting to the memories of the dead Irish, Scottish and Welsh soldiers who died in WWII when people say it was only England. I know what you are referring to, but it's simple ignorance to refer to the UK as England.

. . .

England never had colonies. England did not have an Empire. Great Britain had colonies and an Empire. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are as much a valid part of that as England. It's insulting to us when we played a huge part in the Empire and get no recognition.

Please people, it's just downright false Geography to refer to the UK as England.

quote>

I know there is confusion on this point.   I know Wiki doesn't always get things right but they do provide this diagram.

 

It doesn't show when the various terms came into use so it doesn't answer everything.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

That's a very good diagram, good way of presenting it, thanks for showing it, Ski. Maybe I should staple it to my head in discussions like this, then I might not have to get so worked up about it. Haha!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz

 That's a very good diagram, good way of presenting it, thanks for showing it, Ski. Maybe I should staple it to my head in discussions like this, then I might not have to get so worked up about it. Haha!quote>

Thanks, Muzz.    Stapling might help keep it sorted.  

This is a classic example of a picture telling the story better than words do. 

I know that I get confused when people start saying things like "The British Isles are not the same as the British Islands, and the Isle of Man is part of the British Islands but isn't part of the United Kingdom or Great Britain, and Northern Ireland is part of Ireland but it's part of the United Kingdom too but the rest of Ireland is not."     I think the picture is easier to understand.

[Duke87 1,070]

Personally I think it's just easier to say "Britain" or "the UK" and go with it. People don't seem to mind. It's referring to the whole country as "England" that sets them off. And I can't blame them. I'd get pretty annoyed if people kept referring to the entire US as "New York".

Which would be the same kind of thing except you're dealing with 50 states instead of just 4... ah, I believe "countries" is the technically correct term. Yes, they have a country made up of four countries along with some other smaller islands. Yes, it's freaking confusing. I almost think they do it on purpose so they can act smarter when outsiders mess it up.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz

Also, I REALLY want to stress something here:

England was getting hammered by the Nazisquote>

 Please not this again. England did not fight in WWII. The UK did. It is insulting to the memories of the dead Irish, Scottish and Welsh soldiers who died in WWII when people say it was only England. I know what you are referring to, but it's simple ignorance to refer to the UK as England.

. . .

England never had colonies. England did not have an Empire. Great Britain had colonies and an Empire. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are as much a valid part of that as England. It's insulting to us when we played a huge part in the Empire and get no recognition.

Please people, it's just downright false Geography to refer to the UK as England.

quote>

I know there is confusion on this point.   I know Wiki doesn't always get things right but they do provide this diagram.

 

It doesn't show when the various terms came into use so it doesn't answer everything.quote>

I could pick pedantic holes in that and note that Portsmouth is not part of Great Britain but still part of England But thats just me being annoying.

But seriously

WW2 was a group effort, the real problem here lies within the US media rather than the US itself. Films like 'U571' bring people up to believe the US did everything when the events that film was based on for example, were carried out by the Brits not the Americans.

Call of Duty is a good example of sharing out the credit for the war. Players in CoD play as US, UK and Russian soldiers and experience three fronts rather than most films where it tends to be the US. A truly accurate movie would exploit the 'group effort' of the allied front, this could help prevent arguements like this by educating the general population more on each countries contributions.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Yeah, people here tend to be uneducated in Geography. Some people even think Africa is an entire country.

Of course there's also "the Iraq" and "the Asian countries"

[belfastuniguy 18]

instead of just 4... ah, I believe "countries" is the technically correct term. Yes, they have a country made up of four countries along with some other smaller islands. Yes, it's freaking confusing. I almost think they do it on purpose so they can act smarter when outsiders mess it upquote>

Indeed.

Hence we STRONGLY dislike when people refer to the constituent countries (counties within a country...) of the UK as provinces, principality or anything else that does not properly describe them.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Indeed.

Hence we STRONGLY dislike when people refer to the constituent countries (counties within a country...) of the UK as provinces, principality or anything else that does not properly describe them.quote>

Although, semantics aside, are they really (politically speaking) any different from states of the US or provinces of most other countries?

I know the history is very different but I'm thinking in terms of what they are now, not how they got to be such.

[belfastuniguy 18]

provinces of most other countriesquote>

Depends, I'd need an example. Though I'm sure not a lot of provinces in some countries have their own regionally election governments/assemblies. Each region can also change the educational standards and curriculum, something US States cannot do. There are stark differences between the education in Northern Ireland that in England for example. In other ways US States have more powers in times of state income taxation, though remember that UK is not a Federal state and as such some of those powers are completely unnecessary.

You can't really disregard the history though, that's the very reason we are a 'kingdom', we have all at some point been individual countries, unlike the states in the USA. Hence we retain the right to be called a country. Not as if the term was just made up and applied to us.

[TheSixCents 0]

Personally, the English snatched N.I from us (Ireland) in '21. (Sorry Micheal). But that is beside the point...

I think WW2 was the Canadians fault. I mean what do you expect God to do when they allow Gay-Marriage?