Revisionist history being taught in Europe?

[TheSatyr]

As some one who goes to multiple wargame sites I'm seeing more and more Europeans downplaying the USA's role in WW2.

They say things like "The USA's role in WW2 was minor and the USSR would have won the war on it's own".(Probably true,but the war would have gone on longer...and more countries would have been under the Communists thumbs when it was over.). Or,"The Pacific Theater was unimportant".(even though the Pacific War was the final nail in the coffin of European Colonialism in that region...except for a few exceptions like Hong Kong and Shanghai).

Another thing I'm seeing is a growing call for more WW2 games without any USA involvement.

Maybe I'm just seeing things that aren't there,but to me there seems to be an ongoing effort in Europe to downplay the USA's accomplishments in WW2.

A case in point being when SH4 was announced. A number of Europeans on the board immediately started complaining that it was going to be a sim of US subs,instead of it being what they wanted...which was yet another U-Boat sim. All the while claiming that the US boats didn't deserve having a game based on them because "they didn't do anything during the war" Losing 52 boats,sinking a large number of Japanese warships and destroying over half of what was the 3rd largest merchant fleet at the beginning of the war being "not doing anything" I guess.

I guess I'm just tired of seeing my Country's past accomplishments put down,denigrated and downplayed and the memory of our dead being insulted both in the PTO and the ETO just because of the world's views of the present administration. I've reached the point where I feel that if there is ever another war in Europe that the USA should just stay the hell out of it and let the Europeans kill each other all they want.

[waste gate]

This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Some how it doesn't suprise me too much. Europe is on its way to another continental war. Nationalism is on the rise and political correctness and revisionist history will allow a new war to start in the not too distant future. The Germans will loose again.

That is my opinion.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I've always wanted them to make a WW2 game from the other sides perspective. It'd be a nice change to see what it was like to have the Allies closing in and having few places to run to.

But naturally, if I'd said that anywhere other than here, no doubt I'd get people calling me a Nazi or a Commie or some other name.

[Subnuts]

This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Some how it doesn't suprise me too much. Europe is on its way to another continental war. Nationalism is on the rise and political correctness and revisionist history will allow a new war to start in the not too distant future. The Germans will loose again.


How are the Germans going to lose if the Americans aren't around to singlehandedly kick their asses? :rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Some how it doesn't suprise me too much. Europe is on its way to another continental war. Nationalism is on the rise and political correctness and revisionist history will allow a new war to start in the not too distant future. The Germans will loose again.


How are the Germans going to lose if the Americans aren't around to singlehandedly kick their asses? :rotfl:

The Americans did not do it single handedly.

Keep it clean men.

[waste gate]

This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Some how it doesn't suprise me too much. Europe is on its way to another continental war. Nationalism is on the rise and political correctness and revisionist history will allow a new war to start in the not too distant future. The Germans will loose again.


How are the Germans going to lose if the Americans aren't around to singlehandedly kick their asses? :rotfl:

Perhaps that is the reason the Brits are keeping their Trident capability and the French aren't even debating whether or not to keep their nuclear arms. They know the Germans only too well.

[SUBMAN1]

As some one who goes to multiple wargame sites I'm seeing more and more Europeans downplaying the USA's role in WW2.

They say things like "The USA's role in WW2 was minor and the USSR would have won the war on it's own".(Probably true,but the war would have gone on longer...and more countries would have been under the Communists thumbs when it was over.). Or,"The Pacific Theater was unimportant".(even though the Pacific War was the final nail in the coffin of European Colonialism in that region...except for a few exceptions like Hong Kong and Shanghai).

Another thing I'm seeing is a growing call for more WW2 games without any USA involvement.

Maybe I'm just seeing things that aren't there,but to me there seems to be an ongoing effort in Europe to downplay the USA's accomplishments in WW2.

A case in point being when SH4 was announced. A number of Europeans on the board immediately started complaining that it was going to be a sim of US subs,instead of it being what they wanted...which was yet another U-Boat sim. All the while claiming that the US boats didn't deserve having a game based on them because "they didn't do anything during the war" Losing 52 boats,sinking a large number of Japanese warships and destroying over half of what was the 3rd largest merchant fleet at the beginning of the war being "not doing anything" I guess.

I guess I'm just tired of seeing my Country's past accomplishments put down,denigrated and downplayed and the memory of our dead being insulted both in the PTO and the ETO just because of the world's views of the present administration. I've reached the point where I feel that if there is ever another war in Europe that the USA should just stay the hell out of it and let the Europeans kill each other all they want.
I don't believe the Soviets could have won. Regardless who says what, the US an its ALlies tied up a tremendous amount of German hardware on the Western Front. I think Germany and the Soviets would have ground to a halt at somewhere inside Russia and some sort of ceasefire would have been formed if the US wasn't involved. Just my opinion.

Your statements that you make that other people have said sound almost like the Iranian pres saying the Jews were never murdered by Germany! DOn't believe it.

-S

[Skybird]

I do not realise an intention here. But I know that many people over here got tired of "USA here", "USA there", and "nothing without USA".

How to weight the war efforts of the many countries is not easy to judge. USA was a great contributor of weapons and materials, and these were one decisive factor to beat Nazi Germany. But without wanting to downplay American losses (ranking amongst the lowest of all major nations) - the real heavy deathtolls were payed by other countries, bot Allies and Axis. Without the not less decisive stubborness of the British, and the not less decisive self-sacrificng combat-spirit of the Russians, these material contributions would have been not sufficient by themselves.

Maybe one only needs to see the US efforts and sacrifices in an exaggerated way, then opinions putting them into relation to other nations' investements maybe appear to sound as downplaying the US role completely. See the complete picture. US was one participant in the war - but not the only one.

[SUBMAN1]

See the complete picture. US was one participant in the war - but not the only one.
That is true, the Brits were a major contributor, and the Russians self sacrafice (Well, this is a missnomer since it wasn't self sacrafice, it was Stalanist forced sacrafice or excution - which is more noble?).

However, Germany had the power to take on Russia and the British at the same time. Only when the Americans entered the war did things turn.

One more thing people forget, AMerica almost single handedly defeated the Japanese at the same time it was forcing its way across Europe.

Its amazing to see people write that America had no hand in WWII. Its actually disgusting and the half million US troops that died over there must be turning in their graves.

-S

PS Do people think for a second that Japan would start attacking Russia from the opposite side if it wasn't worried about AMerica? Russia would have been defeated and we would all be speaking German right now.

[joea]

See the complete picture. US was one participant in the war - but not the only one.
That is true, the Brits were a major contributor, and the Russians self sacrafice (Well, this is a missnomer since it wasn't self sacrafice, it was Stalanist forced sacrafice or excution - which is more noble?).



Good points but I strongly disagree with the bold, I've read enough and spoken (IRL and on the net) with enough researchers and especially Russian and those from other ex-Soviet republics to know the patriotic feeling in Russia was genuine. Foreign devils are always worse than one's own, besides, the Slavs faced extermination in a way even Stalin's oppression did not...and believe it or not there was a great deal of genuine enthusiasm for communist ideals.

[waste gate]

But without wanting to downplay American losses (ranking amongst the lowest of all major nations) - the real heavy deathtolls were payed by other countries, bot Allies and Axis.

For one reason only:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
George S. Patton

We were there to win!!

[SUBMAN1]

See the complete picture. US was one participant in the war - but not the only one.
That is true, the Brits were a major contributor, and the Russians self sacrafice (Well, this is a missnomer since it wasn't self sacrafice, it was Stalanist forced sacrafice or excution - which is more noble?).


Good points but I strongly disagree with the bold, I've read enough and spoken (IRL and on the net) with enough researchers and especially Russian and those from other ex-Soviet republics to know the patriotic feeling in Russia was genuine. Foreign devils are always worse than one's own, besides, the Slavs faced extermination in a way even Stalin's oppression did not...and believe it or not there was a great deal of genuine enthusiasm for communist ideals.

I hear ya, but what about the advance or be shot portion of it? That is what I mean. ANyway, yes, they were very patriotic and probably most of them didn't need this warning.

-S

[joea]

Well, my info is that has been exaggerated somewhat. If you're thinking about Stalin's "Not a Step Back" order it was issued in the summer of 1942 or therabouts when the situation, after the miracle of saving Moscow in 41, had been reversed.

Anyway, the revisionist history in Europe I am concerned about is the rise of the xenophobic and anti-semetic extreme right. :down:

[Skybird]

But without wanting to downplay American losses (ranking amongst the lowest of all major nations) - the real heavy deathtolls were payed by other countries, bot Allies and Axis.

For one reason only:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
George S. Patton

We were there to win!!
I know that quote and used it myself in the past. However, concerning the context of this topic of how to weight war contributions, it is more or less useless. The Russians lost 24 million people, soldiers and civilians alike, and God knows how many their cities laid in ruins afterwards. How to calculate that with material deliveries from the US and Britain? that's why I said the US were one war faction - amongst others only. And if any of these allies could have won the war all by himself, the Alliae maybe never would have formed up, for there would have been no need for it.

[Skybird]

Well, my info is that has been exaggerated somewhat. If you're thinking about Stalin's "Not a Step Back" order it was issued in the summer of 1942 or therabouts when the situation, after the miracle of saving Moscow in 41, had been reversed.

Anyway, the revisionist history in Europe I am concerned about is the rise of the xenophobic and anti-semetic extreme right. :down:
Give the young people a future perspective and a possebility to have a job in fair conditions, and the problem for the most will shrink dramatically again. It is not by random chance that neonazism is strong in those areas of Germany where the economic future is grim and availability of jobs is low. Poverty is good hunting ground for extremists - political and religious as well. The strength of the alpha wolf needs the weakness of the others.

Anti-Semitism and Neo-Nazism will never be zero, though. If it would remain at controllable and non-threatening levels, we should be satisfied, I think - pragmatism.

[waste gate]

But without wanting to downplay American losses (ranking amongst the lowest of all major nations) - the real heavy deathtolls were payed by other countries, bot Allies and Axis.

For one reason only:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
George S. Patton

We were there to win!!
I know that quote and used it myself in the past. However, concerning the context of this topic of how to weight war contributions, it is more or less useless. The Russians lost 24 million people, soldiers and civilians alike, and God knows how many their cities laid in ruins afterwards. How to calculate that with material deliveries from the US and Britain? that's why I said the US were one war faction - amongst others only. And if any of these allies could have won the war all by himself, the Alliae maybe never would have formed up, for there would have been no need for it.

You feel its useless because it doesn't support your argument not because it is wrong. The German people started the war and moved across Europe almost un-hindered until the US got involved, whether thru Lend-Lease or actual combat.
Either way if it were not for the US, Germany would be governed under French or Soviet authority. You should be very grateful for our assistance during WWII.

As J.F. Kennedy said ; 'I am a jelly doughnut'.

[Skybird]

You seem to not wanting to get what I said. How to calculate losses in lifes against material contributions in the main, was my example question? Russia alone would not have made it. America alone would not have made it. Britain alone would not have made it. Lend-Lease, suggested French raise and living under Soviet dominance has nothing to do with all this thread.

You may be surprised, but I find it unreasonable to expect other people to be ETERNALLY thankful for something, no matter what (especially when oneself has not contributed to that past cause). If you expect them to be that, you effectively turn them into your slaves. My thanks goes to those soldiers who today are old and actively fought in WWII and helped to overcome tyranny. My sympathy goes to those soldiers from all countries, Axis and Allies as well, as long as they were victim of circumstance, not active perpetrator of war crimes or active supporters of dictators. My respect goes to all those soldiers from all countries who despite themselves being thrown into war managed to keep their humanity or find it again after the war, and resisted to fall for blind hate for that part of mankind being labelled "the enemy".

All you others who have been born after that, and talk about your fathers or grandfathers only - I owe you nothing concerning WWII. For you had nothing to do with WWII. Maybe the word "WE did this and that for you" is a bit inappropriate, for that reason.

Too many suffered dearly - just for living in the wrong time, and the wrong place.

[waste gate]

Lend-Lease, suggested French raise and living under Soviet dominance has nothing to do with all this thread.

Sure it does because that is the ultimate end to your country. With limited resources, Germany could not have triumphed. The victors would have been either France/Britain or the Soviet Union, with the French demanding some if not ultimate control over German territory. Don't forget the heavy tyranny subjected on the French by the Germans.
The Soviets with their (24 million dead) at German hands, would have demanded the other half of the territory. Ask those coming from the former 'East Germany" what that was like.


You may be surprised, but I find it unreasonable to expect other people to be ETERNALLY thankful for something, no matter what. If you expect them to be that, you effectvely turn them into your slaves.


I think you should be eternally thankful that a nation that believes in freedom and self determination, the United States, was in a position to help you in the face of certain slavery under a French or Soviet regime. I'm not asking for tribute and I'm certain that no US citizen would. That would make you a slave. A bit of appreciation as to where you are as opposed to where you could be.

[Skybird]

I think you should be eternally thankful that a nation that believes in freedom and self determination, the United States, was in a position to help you in the face of certain slavery under a French or Soviet regime.
Wishing for something is one thing - actually getting it is something different. We refuse to be your eternal vasalls.
That's my good-bye in this thread.

[waste gate]

Lend-Lease, suggested French raise and living under Soviet dominance has nothing to do with all this thread.

Sure it does because that is the ultimate end to your country. With limited resources, Germany could not have triumphed. The victors would have been either France/Britain or the Soviet Union, with the French demanding some if not ultimate control over German territory. Don't forget the heavy tyranny subjected on the French by the Germans.
The Soviets with their (24 million dead) at German hands, would have demanded the other half of the territory. Ask those coming from the former 'East Germany" what that was like.


You may be surprised, but I find it unreasonable to expect other people to be ETERNALLY thankful for something, no matter what. If you expect them to be that, you effectvely turn them into your slaves.


I think you should be eternally thankful that a nation that believes in freedom and self determination, the United States, was in a position to help you in the face of certain slavery under a French or Soviet regime.
Wishing for something is one thing - actually getting it is something different.
That's my good-bye in this thread.

The rise of German Nationalism? Look out Europe it is coming! The Germans will loose again.

[Penelope_Grey]

However, Germany had the power to take on Russia and the British at the same time. Only when the Americans entered the war did things turn.

That is not strictly true SUBMAN, the tide began to turn as early as late 1941 when Rommel was beginning to lose in Africa, to the British I might add ;):up:. Of course, the battle of Stalingrad and the onset of the Russian Winter, that was what stopped the Armies of the Reich dead in their tracks.

Though Lend-Lease cannot be ignored for its usefulness and assistance not to mention American finance. And Kudos where its due the invasion of German controlled territory and Germany itself.

Though, America can pat herself on the back all she wants, fact remains, if Japan had not have attacked Pearl Harbour, America might have been quite happy to remain neutral and watch Europe and Asia tear itself apart slugging it out to the finish.

Not that I would blame them for doing that. But I think where a lot of this "revisionist" idea is coming from is that America for decades has churned out a variety of films showing themselves to be the hero of the hour and the one that singlehandedly saved the world from the evil of the Reich, oh and Britain and France and the other allies whoever they are lent a hand too. Take U-571 for example, the most recent one, according to that the US Navy got an enigma box before the Royal Navy did.

I think its all to easy to look back and say oh America, without them we'd have been stuffed, end of. The devil is in the detail, maybe this is all being read wrong and perhaps history is focussing on our accomplishments in the war and what the European powers did to fight the Nazis and the successes we made. Thats not to say that the contributions of the USA are overlooked, we know full well you singlehandedly stuffed the Japanese and assisted us at the same time in the final battles with the Reich, and with lend lease and money etc. And yeah, I think most of us know in Europe without America things could have been a LOT more ugly than they were.

To my mind, if you can pat yourselves on the back for what you succeeded in doing in the war, why can't we do the same for our successes in the war? A long time has been spent looking at what Uncle Sam did and being grateful, maybe, people want to know what we did.

That's what I think anyway. :)

[waste gate]

You are a very thoughtful young lady, Penelope_Grey.
Britain certainly deserves its place in history for fighting the German hord.
The US 'peace/isolation' movement was very strong at the outset of the 'European' war. Charles Lindberg (first solo cross Atlantic flight) was a spokesman for letting Europe fight its own war. Much like today, the opposision wanted to let those fighting for freedom languish.

I have no problem what so ever giving the British, Canadians, Australians even the French due credit for their efforts. Very galant they were.

Galantry, however, does not win wars, or peace, undenialable force and uncommon foresight does.

[fatty]

No big deal, revisionist history is nothing new. There is a passage IRC in The Rape of Nanking about the modern day Japanese and the chapters in their history books downplaying the massacres. I was visiting the Wright Brothers memorial at Kill Devil Hill, NC one summer. I remember standing at a display about the Me-262. A young child, presumably American, asked his mother when World War II started, and she replied "1941."

Things like this have always been contorted, twisted, and shaped in all manners of ways. I find it best not to quibble too much about who saved whose bacon. It was good versus evil, and good won, not the U.S., not the S.U., etc...

[Penelope_Grey]

Well thankyou :), though personally, I feel debate like this is useless because anything to the contrary of what happened is pure conjecture. You can say, without USA Europe would not have beat the Nazis, and I could say, well, yes we could have. And we'd go round and round in circles. History is a lot like Science, if you stick to the facts and interperet them as objectively as you can what you get is as close to accuracy as it can be without being there youself.

Personally I see it from the point of view we know what America did and how invaluable their assitance was but its nice to see what we accomplished before the American forces joined us. There is nothing wrong with that, much like there is nothing wrong with you knowing and learning about what you did to beat the Japanese.

My comment to the thread starter is simply this. Just because Europe is examining what Europe did to fight and help beat the Nazis, does not mean that Europe is denying that simple of all facts, America fought with us, both financially and then physically. What is most important to remember above all else, the Nazis were beaten and got rid of.

[TteFAboB]

Don't judge Europe by its gamers or its youth (of mind). The time you spend playing a game is a time you don't spend reading a book. These opinions aren't worth 2c.

If you want to judge the entire continent you'll need more than anecdotes. I'd say: compare SHIII sales with SHIV sales in Europe. And if somebody knows how to calculate this: compare the piracying of SHIII with that of SHIV. Compare reviews and scores.

See you in a few months then, when I get this data on my hands.

[Mush Martin]

You seem to not wanting to get what I said. How to calculate losses in lifes against material contributions in the main, was my example question? Russia alone would not have made it. America alone would not have made it. Britain alone would not have made it. Lend-Lease, suggested French raise and living under Soviet dominance has nothing to do with all this thread.

You may be surprised, but I find it unreasonable to expect other people to be ETERNALLY thankful for something, no matter what (especially when oneself has not contributed to that past cause). If you expect them to be that, you effectively turn them into your slaves. My thanks goes to those soldiers who today are old and actively fought in WWII and helped to overcome tyranny. My sympathy goes to those soldiers from all countries, Axis and Allies as well, as long as they were victim of circumstance, not active perpetrator of war crimes or active supporters of dictators. My respect goes to all those soldiers from all countries who despite themselves being thrown into war managed to keep their humanity or find it again after the war, and resisted to fall for blind hate for that part of mankind being labelled "the enemy".

All you others who have been born after that, and talk about your fathers or grandfathers only - I owe you nothing concerning WWII. For you had nothing to do with WWII. Maybe the word "WE did this and that for you" is a bit inappropriate, for that reason.

Too many suffered dearly - just for living in the wrong time, and the wrong place.

I often find lucidity in your posts but In the case of your closer here
I feel they were speaking in the Public first person denoting We the people
of our nations in descency and good spirit offered help to your nations
now here I speak of the peoples or folk of nations not governments or
buisness interests. America won world war 2 for herself and over her
enemies and allies. good for her the world now has an economic focal
point which for all her flaws can wield a calming influence over those
peoples who deal in power and politics around the world not the folk
of a nation. it may not seem like it but all the world won WW2
America Britain Russia France Gemany Japan Italy China Brasil Canada.

we toss back and forth and measure ourselves against each other
and test. but in truth as historians here at SS we should be aware
that we are all of us better off than our parents or our parents parents.

MM

[Iceman]

Indeed how can contributions be compared in such a conflict...some gave all...but not all gave any.The true test is when need is there how it is met...It is so difficult to forsee how things are going to play out in a given situation and how a country should react...I mean we all know it is not a perfect world...we have starvation and greed still,pollution ALL Totally controllable by "WE" humans yet...we continue as in the first days when cain slew his brother able....we are animals who's only hope lies in the mercy of the creator.WE learn nothing from history.Like a dog that returns to his vomit.

[AVGWarhawk]

However, Germany had the power to take on Russia and the British at the same time. Only when the Americans entered the war did things turn.

That is not strictly true SUBMAN, the tide began to turn as early as late 1941 when Rommel was beginning to lose in Africa, to the British I might add ;):up:. Of course, the battle of Stalingrad and the onset of the Russian Winter, that was what stopped the Armies of the Reich dead in their tracks.

Very True!


Though Lend-Lease cannot be ignored for its usefulness and assistance not to mention American finance. And Kudos where its due the invasion of German controlled territory and Germany itself.

Though, America can pat herself on the back all she wants, fact remains, if Japan had not have attacked Pearl Harbour, America might have been quite happy to remain neutral and watch Europe and Asia tear itself apart slugging it out to the finish.


Hitler knew US would enter the war. Hitler wanted to set the date. Japanese beat him to it. US could not stay neutral. Hitler would have looked at like aiding the enemy. The US was for a tidy sum of money. Besides, the uboats starting sinking US vessels and US warships. Kind of hard for Hitler to hide that. It was only a matter of time. Japan set the time.


Not that I would blame them for doing that. But I think where a lot of this "revisionist" idea is coming from is that America for decades has churned out a variety of films showing themselves to be the hero of the hour and the one that singlehandedly saved the world from the evil of the Reich, oh and Britain and France and the other allies whoever they are lent a hand too. Take U-571 for example, the most recent one, according to that the US Navy got an enigma box before the Royal Navy did.


In a nutshell.....HOLLYWOOD booha! It is all about money. No one wants to pay to see their boys fail. U-571 was pure rubbish! The only two movies about the British I know is Battle of Britian and Bridge over the river Kwai. Everything else is Hollywood imagination and twisting of the truth for the gain of dollars. Furthermore, the Brits had an enigma box from a German weathership before the capture of the enigma off a uboat.


I think its all to easy to look back and say oh America, without them we'd have been stuffed, end of. The devil is in the detail, maybe this is all being read wrong and perhaps history is focussing on our accomplishments in the war and what the European powers did to fight the Nazis and the successes we made. Thats not to say that the contributions of the USA are overlooked, we know full well you singlehandedly stuffed the Japanese and assisted us at the same time in the final battles with the Reich, and with lend lease and money etc. And yeah, I think most of us know in Europe without America things could have been a LOT more ugly than they were.

To my mind, if you can pat yourselves on the back for what you succeeded in doing in the war, why can't we do the same for our successes in the war? A long time has been spent looking at what Uncle Sam did and being grateful, maybe, people want to know what we did.

That's what I think anyway. :)


I do believe without the US helping the war would have gone on for years. But, as luck would have it, we became Allies and fought side by side for a common good. The best part is the US and Britian have stayed Allies:up: As far as being grateful to the US. Not so much. Maybe grateful for the young men and women who gave up their youth to fight for another in their own country. Be grateful for the people not the act itself.

[CCIP]

I'd point to the other side of it - shouldn't we all be finally happy that things like the Eastern Front are getting their due attention? I've been pretty shocked with some (non-military-enthusiast) lack of knowledge about the Soviet role in the war, and many other campaigns.

I don't know about the Soviets winning alone - but what I can tell you is that any historian that thrives on "what-ifs" is NOT a historian but a quack. That is not how you get your facts and teach history.

As for the Soviet "fighting because Stalin said so" - ridiculous. Considering the absolute ruthlessness of the German occupation, which everyone knew about, I don't think it's any surprise that the Soviets fought the way they did. Use of suicide tactics was rather widespread - orders might force soldiers to go out and fight, but only a personal and fanatical belief in your cause will get you to blow yourself up, or fly your plane into the enemy, or something along those lines.
Likewise, it should be kept in mind that there is a very unfortunate Russian trait which predates the Soviet era by centuries - the disregard for human lives in war efforts. It wasn't Stalin who invented it - far from.

Anyway, as for 'who won the war' - well of course everyone won the war. I don't know what war exists in someone's fantasies, but the WWII that happened COULD NOT have been won without the British; COULD NOT have been won without the Soviets; COULD NOT have been won without the US; COULD NOT have been won without everyone else - nor without Hitler's lovely mistakes.

[SUBMAN1]

That is not strictly true SUBMAN, the tide began to turn as early as late 1941 when Rommel was beginning to lose in Africa, to the British I might add ;):up:. Of course, the battle of Stalingrad and the onset of the Russian Winter, that was what stopped the Armies of the Reich dead in their tracks.

I don't agree. I would call it - some successes. The Germans were still completely capable of mounting offensives and even still did when the US entered into Africa. It could have turned back at the British at any point up until that point.

Though Lend-Lease cannot be ignored for its usefulness and assistance not to mention American finance. And Kudos where its due the invasion of German controlled territory and Germany itself.

I never said that the UK wasn't a part of it - and they were an important part of it. I doubt this would have happened though if the US couldn't build 10 tanks to 1 German tank and then deploy them!

Though, America can pat herself on the back all she wants, fact remains, if Japan had not have attacked Pearl Harbour, America might have been quite happy to remain neutral and watch Europe and Asia tear itself apart slugging it out to the finish.

Are you kidding? I hope so. It was well known at the time as well as well known now that we were looking for an excuse to come to the aid of our British brothers. Germany wanted to wait but Japan knew that the US would enter at some point whether they attacked or not, and to stall the US in the Pacific, decided to strike first.

Not that I would blame them for doing that. But I think where a lot of this "revisionist" idea is coming from is that America for decades has churned out a variety of films showing themselves to be the hero of the hour and the one that singlehandedly saved the world from the evil of the Reich, oh and Britain and France and the other allies whoever they are lent a hand too. Take U-571 for example, the most recent one, according to that the US Navy got an enigma box before the Royal Navy did.

That movie was terrible. I hope you aren't serious about this. I don't think anyone in America took it seriously either. It was Hollywood cr*p. I've never been disappointed as much as that after walking out of the theatre, nor did I see anyone else thinking they got their moneys worth. The British had the first enigma machine as I know it. But if you know anything about Enigma machines, this only works for so long as new rev's come out and are distributed. They need to capture throughout the war. The US got one off the US coast somewhere as well.

I think its all to easy to look back and say oh America, without them we'd have been stuffed, end of. The devil is in the detail, maybe this is all being read wrong and perhaps history is focussing on our accomplishments in the war and what the European powers did to fight the Nazis and the successes we made. Thats not to say that the contributions of the USA are overlooked, we know full well you singlehandedly stuffed the Japanese and assisted us at the same time in the final battles with the Reich, and with lend lease and money etc. And yeah, I think most of us know in Europe without America things could have been a LOT more ugly than they were.

Please don't say 'final' battles - that is complete rubbish as you UK'rs like to say. I think you would have never defeated Germany without the US help. You would have ended in a stalemate.

To my mind, if you can pat yourselves on the back for what you succeeded in doing in the war, why can't we do the same for our successes in the war? A long time has been spent looking at what Uncle Sam did and being grateful, maybe, people want to know what we did.

That's what I think anyway. :)

I don't think a single person could ay that the British did nothing in the war. The proper question is, could America have defeated the Germans without their help? The answer is no. Could they have defeated them without the help of the Soviets? The answer is no. Technically, the US could have, but in actuallity, it would have been long and bloody unless the atomic bomb was used. The long and bloody part is the very reason the US could not take on Germany and win - it has to do with democracy. In a democracy, the people cannot and will not wage war for over a certain number of years. The same thing is happening today in Iraq. The same thing is also happening to the British in Iraq. It is an impossibility. The people tire of the war and pullout out. The only time this is not a factor is when you have no choice due to invasion. This is the down side of any democracy.

WWII was won in the west because both the British and the Americans worked together. Without either, Germany would probably still be controlled by the Third Reich. I think the Soviets would have continued on longer if the West gave up, but doubt they would have defeated Hitler either. Only the combination of all three saved the day.

One more thing - The atomic bomb was given the go ahead for Nagasaki and Horoshima simply because the US gov didn't think the American people had the stomach to finish the job. They were probably right.

Just my 2 cents.

-S

[Penelope_Grey]

I don't agree. I would call it - some successes. The Germans were still completely capable of mounting offensives and even still did when the US entered into Africa. It could have turned back at the British at any point up until that point.

Yes but, it didn't. The British forces in Africa were getting the better of the Germans which is why U-Boats were being directed to the Med to help secure the German supply lines. A' La Das Boot. It was Britain that first turned the tide in the Africa situation, before America landed a single soldier there. This is what I mean, the whole point, I'm not downplaying America's role, that's impossible to do. But, to say that all we did was "some successes" yes they were capable of retalitating and did but the fact remains the British were beating back the Germans there before America came along into that fight. Not saying America didn't help it was a HUGE help, made a big difference in the continuation of the fighting everywhere, but can we please have some kudos for when we took on Germany one on one and succeeded?

What about the Battle of Britain, was that just "some success" too SUBMAN? Or did we or did we not defeat, single handed, the German Luftwaffe and throw a wrench into Hitler's plan to conquer us? We may have been lucky, and, resorted to treachery to get it done (bombing German cities) but this is my key argument, I want to see the British forces get the credit for the efforts we made against one hell of an evil Gentleman with a funny facial hair arrangement.

Are you kidding? I hope so. It was well known at the time as well as well known now that we were looking for an excuse to come to the aid of our British brothers. Germany wanted to wait but Japan knew that the US would enter at some point whether they attacked or not, and to stall the US in the Pacific, decided to strike first.

No, I am not kidding. What is also well known, is that the American Government was the one who wanted to come into the war, most of the American population was not interested in joining the fight. As was posted here previously by waste Gate. It took Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, and a declaration of war from Japan's ally Germany before America said "ok, lets get it on".

That movie was terrible. I hope you aren't serious about this. I don't think anyone in America took it seriously either. It was Hollywood cr*p. I've never been disappointed as much as that after walking out of the theatre, nor did I see anyone else thinking they got their moneys worth. The British had the first enigma machine as I know it. But if you know anything about Enigma machines, this only works for so long as new rev's come out and are distributed. They need to capture throughout the war. The US got one off the US coast somewhere as well.

I am serious. I wouldn't mention it in a serious discussion if I was not serious. Yes it was a terrible film and not good enough to use as toilet paper. But the fact remains its just one recent example in a long line of hollywood extravagance where America once again covers herself in glory and singlehandedly thrashed the Germans. What bothered me at the time, how many people will watch that and think that it was America that got the enigma machine?

Please don't say 'final' battles - that is complete rubbish as you UK'rs like to say. I think you would have never defeated Germany without the US help. You would have ended in a stalemate.

Doesn't really matter what you or I think what could have happened without the US help, because events didn't pan out that way. Right on up till the invasion (1944 onward), fact remains, Germany's chief opponents were us, and the Russians, not the US. I agree though, chances are without the US involvement, bringing the Nazis down could have been extremely difficult and perhaps ended in a stalemate. Probably would have, some shaky peace would have to be cobbled together. The real truth is we can thank our lucky stars that it didn't and the Nazis were got rid of.

I don't think a single person could ay that the British did nothing in the war. The proper question is, could America have defeated the Germans without their help? The answer is no. Could they have defeated them without the help of the Soviets? The answer is no. Technically, the US could have, but in actuallity, it would have been long and bloody unless the atomic bomb was used. The long and bloody part is the very reason the US could not take on Germany and win - it has to do with democracy. In a democracy, the people cannot and will not wage war for over a certain number of years.

I think you'd have had to resort to Atomic bombs to beat the Germans if you tried to fight them alone. But having said that, what I think could have happened is irrelevant because events didn't pan out that way. Pure conjecture nothing more.

The same thing is happening today in Iraq. The same thing is also happening to the British in Iraq. It is an impossibility. The people tire of the war and pullout out. The only time this is not a factor is when you have no choice due to invasion. This is the down side of any democracy.

Well to my mind Iraq should not have been invaded at all. But that is another can of worms entirely. Besides, now is the time to pull out, Saddam is dead, and a new government set up so therefore time they stood on their own two feet.


Yes, it was a team effort in bringing down the Reich. But, all three had their own stand alone accomplishments and if there are books which say well done Britain for your successes, or books that say well done mother russia for your accomplishments, then that is not overlooking America as seems to be suggested here in this thread, because god knows America in various media forms has certainly patted herself on the back for her, credit where it is due, considerable efforts in WW2.

[STEED]

I don't believe the Soviets could have won. Regardless who says what, the US an its ALlies tied up a tremendous amount of German hardware on the Western Front. I think Germany and the Soviets would have ground to a halt at somewhere inside Russia and some sort of ceasefire would have been formed if the US wasn't involved. Just my opinion.

Sorry Subman1, but you over looked some issues. First of all Germany could not fight a long war they had one all mighty weakness, that was oil. Germany may a critical error attacking the golden goose of U.S.S.R the logistical planning was dreadful no long term planning what so ever and no planning for winter. Hitler said it in his own words "We must take Russia in six months or it all would be for nothing." The German army was running in to problems as early as July 1941 out running there supply's.

By August / September 1941 they had a big problem on there hands which they had to deal with, that problem was Kiev. There is no way they could drive to Moscow with such a large pocket there in Kiev. The result was they had lost there chance for Moscow, around this time Hitler was changing his plans left, right and centre. Kiev no Stalingrad no Leningrad back to Kiev, Moscow again and so on.

Operation Typhoon was to far late in the day, over two thirds of there tanks had broken down and they called upon horse power how poor was that. Hitler had lost the gamble and lost many troops in the not one step back order.

You look at the soviet losses they were incredible and yet they fought on with what they had. Hitler now moved against Stalingrad in 1942 and yes the Germans were on the move again but they failed to learn the lessons of 1941. And here is the key thing Stalin ordered Operation Mars against Kharkov which ended in a mess but Stalin backed off and let his generals get the job done, unlike Hitler who took it upon himself to run the whole of the Ost Front.

Here is another thing the Germans missed out on in August and September on the Southern front, they controlled the Sky's and could have bombed the major oil fields which would had resulted in a major problems for a good six months to the Russians, but no they had to take them and no one planned out how the hell they were to get that oil back to Germany.

Stalingrad saw the loss of the elite six army and part of the fourth Panzer army for what?


The Soviets now had the upper hand they knew the German tactics, true the Germans stopped the Southern front collapsing when they pulled off the remarkably recapture of Kharkov in March 1943. But Army Group centre suffered a defeat which resulted in another Hitler blunder.

Kursk 1943 saw the last major German assault and the greatest tank battle of WW2. Hitler lost the gamble and was taken by surprise when the Russians went over to the attack after blunting the Germans. Germans losses at this battle resulted in the greatest defeat to come.

1944 saw the destruction of Army group Centre when the Russians launched Operation Bagration and the liberation of Eastern Europe. Yes the Soviets made some bad errors one was the Battle of the Seelow Heights and Berlin 1945 saw them shelling there own side in error.

Germany bled her best troops white in Russia and we in the West faced second line troops, granted not all the time. Hitler failed on his planning of Russia failed to fully motorise the troops failed to produce large number of tanks failed in logistics the list just goes on and on. The German army was the greatest army in 1940/41 but they were wasted on a lost cause with Russia. Even with no supply's from us Russia would had still won by 1946/7 one more thing Germany production was not stepped up until 1943 and by then it was to little and to late.

Subman1, this is not a history lesson just food for thought.

[SUBMAN1]

Yes but, it didn't. The British forces in Africa were getting the better of the Germans which is why U-Boats were being directed to the Med to help secure the German supply lines. A' La Das Boot. It was Britain that first turned the tide in the Africa situation, before America landed a single soldier there. This is what I mean, the whole point, I'm not downplaying America's role, that's impossible to do. But, to say that all we did was "some successes" yes they were capable of retalitating and did but the fact remains the British were beating back the Germans there before America came along into that fight. Not saying America didn't help it was a HUGE help, made a big difference in the continuation of the fighting everywhere, but can we please have some kudos for when we took on Germany one on one and succeeded?

Yes - you did good. I never said the British didn't. Rommel however was not stupid and in war, one days successes could turn into ones defeat tomorrow. The idea that you could have defeated Rommel back to Germany is pure conjecture.

What about the Battle of Britain, was that just "some success" too SUBMAN? Or did we or did we not defeat, single handed, the German Luftwaffe and throw a wrench into Hitler's plan to conquer us? We may have been lucky, and, resorted to treachery to get it done (bombing German cities) but this is my key argument, I want to see the British forces get the credit for the efforts we made against one hell of an evil Gentleman with a funny facial hair arrangement.
You did not defeat the Luftwaffe. You only stopped them here - and it was a commendable job. It also set them back force wise. Don't think they wouldn't have been back if things started to work out better on the Eastern Front.

No, I am not kidding. What is also well known, is that the American Government was the one who wanted to come into the war, most of the American population was not interested in joining the fight. As was posted here previously by waste Gate. It took Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, and a declaration of war from Japan's ally Germany before America said "ok, lets get it on".
Last time I checked, the American people had little say on whether or not troops were deployed at any one time. So I don't buy that.

I am serious. I wouldn't mention it in a serious discussion if I was not serious. Yes it was a terrible film and not good enough to use as toilet paper. But the fact remains its just one recent example in a long line of hollywood extravagance where America once again covers herself in glory and singlehandedly thrashed the Germans. What bothered me at the time, how many people will watch that and think that it was America that got the enigma machine?
The people that would believe this are the very same people that would rather watch something else at any given theatre instead. So don't think this was any sort of factor. This movie would have flopped out of the box office if the UK didn't manke a big stink about it in every news media. No one liked it!

One more thing - Hollywood has little clue on the values of the American people. They get even more clueless as time goes on. Do not think any movie they make will reflect the views of our nation. Quite the contrary.

Right on up till the invasion (1944 onward), fact remains, Germany's chief opponents were us, and the Russians, not the US.
Ah hello? Anyone home? That is pure garbage! I won't even bother to moment on it.

I think you'd have had to resort to Atomic bombs to beat the Germans if you tried to fight them alone.
Only as the result of a waning public desire to support the war. Politicians vote to send the troops in, however sooner or later over the course of many years, politicians can be voted out of office. This is where the Ameican people can strike back at decisions they do not like.

On the fight - not only could the US field more troops, it could outproduce Germany and this is truely the one factor that defeated them - the US could ourproduce the neccesary hardware - and this hardware we also gave to the British - even before we entered into this war prior to 1941. Quite simply put - the UK would have been over-run on every field had the US not supplied the neccesary hardware to fight back. This is why subs were deverted to stop it.

Well to my mind Iraq should not have been invaded at all. But that is another can of worms entirely. Besides, now is the time to pull out, Saddam is dead, and a new government set up so therefore time they stood on their own two feet.
That is your opinion. He was not invaded persey. We had a duty to defeat him. If we had not, this is how you would win a war against the US - your start the war, complete your objectives, surrender to the US, and then kick their inspectors out and forget about any ceasefire agreements that were put in place after the fact. Easy. Simple. Sounds strangely similar to what Hitler pulled.

Why do people keep insisting this was an invasion? The war from 1991 was not over! I guess it sounds better for the opposition.


Yes, it was a team effort in bringing down the Reich. But, all three had their own stand alone accomplishments and if there are books which say well done Britain for your successes, or books that say well done mother russia for your accomplishments, then that is not overlooking America as seems to be suggested here in this thread, because god knows America in various media forms has certainly patted herself on the back for her, credit where it is due, considerable efforts in WW2.
Pluses and minuses in that quote. I've said my peace about it above though so I won't even bother.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Subman1, this is not a history lesson just food for thought.
I agree for the most part. Germany needed Africa for the oil as well. Oil was its biggest weakness. I still doubt that they would have been defeated completely like they were however without the work of all three nations.

Also, as said above, we can thank Hitler for some of his grave errors.

-S

[STEED]

Subman1, this is not a history lesson just food for thought.

I agree for the most part. Germany needed Africa for the oil as well. Oil was its biggest weakness. I still doubt that they would have been defeated completely like they were however.

Also, as said above, we can thank Hitler for some of his grave errors.

-S

Hear, hear.

If Germany had a different leader who was not a psychopath then well, what if.........?

And if the Communist had failed to take Russia?

So many what ifs.

[STEED]

One thing is for sure WW2 helped America out of recession and I am grateful for there sacrifice in Europe for there help to bring down a monster and his evil vision.

[Penelope_Grey]

Yes - you did good. I never said the British didn't. Rommel however was not stupid and in war, one days successes could turn into ones defeat tomorrow. The idea that you could have defeated Rommel back to Germany is pure conjecture.
Never did I say back to Germany. I said that the Africa corps were being beaten back as in they were not gaining any more ground and the British forces was pushing into theirs. When America came in to join Montgommery that was it they really were done for. Then there was the thrust up into sicily and Italy and then Italy folded when Mussolini was sacked by the King, and that was that, fenito Benito. (Couldnt resist)

You did not defeat the Luftwaffe. You only stopped them here - and it was a commendable job. It also set them back force wise. Don't think they wouldn't have been back if things started to work out better on the Eastern Front.
We didn't defeat them? Hitler gave in trying to best us in the battle of britain, he gave up, therefore, we won the battle of Britain. Might not be a KO type Victory, and yeah, the RAF only won on points, but they still won. Never was so much owed by so many to so few and all that.

Last time I checked, the American people had little say on whether or not troops were deployed at any one time. So I don't buy that.
What type of explanation is required here, it took a devastating attack on Pearl Harbour before the american population was ready to fight? How can that not be bought?

Ah hello? Anyone home? That is pure garbage! I won't even bother to moment on it.
I made a mistake here. The Americans were over here fighting the germans my brother told me about the flying fortresses taking off in the day and bombing Germany and the gathering of the invasion forces to go to France, and the thrust up through Italy which was consolidated with German troops. I never actually studied the fight in Italy so I was not aware what the American role was. I knew about north Africa but well, there were gaps. I only had pieces and thought it was a complete picture.:oops:

Only as the result of a waning public desire to support the war. Politicians vote to send the troops in, however sooner or later over the course of many years, politicians can be voted out of office. This is where the Ameican people can strike back at decisions they do not like.
So basically it was a poltical thing to make sure they got reelected. I understand now.

On the fight - not only could the US field more troops, it could outproduce Germany and this is truely the one factor that defeated them - the US could ourproduce the neccesary hardware - and this hardware we also gave to the British - even before we entered into this war prior to 1941. Quite simply put - the UK would have been over-run on every field had the US not supplied the neccesary hardware to fight back. This is why subs were deverted to stop it.
Well can't contradict anything there except for two words, gave and supplied. Nothing was given and supplied, Britain paid for every bit of American gear you sent out. Which is only fair!

That is your opinion. He was not invaded persey. We had a duty to defeat him. If we had not, this is how you would win a war against the US - your start the war, complete your objectives, surrender to the US, and then kick their inspectors out and forget about any ceasefire agreements that were put in place after the fact. Easy. Simple. Sounds strangely similar to what Hitler pulled.

Why do people keep insisting this was an invasion? The war from 1991 was not over! I guess it sounds better for the opposition.
A large military force enters another country forcefully, that is an invasion. Not only that, the UN did not sanction the measures. And the UK is as guilty as the US is for invading Iraq. Immaterial of 1991, the war was over, and had been over for well over a decade. Bush turned his guns on Iraq for a reason, and whatever reason that was we don't know yet, and Blair went along with him very readily. There were no WMD's there, and so lots of people are left wondering, why was Iraq invaded?

Then along comes aid for oil? I wonder, was it for oil all along like many claim?

[bradclark1]

Just a German military trivia thing:
20% - Western front
80% - Eastern front

But in all the what if's of could the Soviet Union have won on their own you have to take into account the western bombing campaign and it took both English and American bombers to do it. Just one of them would have been wiped from the sky. It took both and it destroyed the German industry and demorilized the nation. I think without the bombing the Soviet Union could have been fought to a truce, I won't say victory and there also would have been a third world war when one or the other could build up enough to restart.
So what happened happened and alternate histories didn't happen.

[STEED]

Rommel was better than Montgomery in many ways and if he got the supply's he needed then it would had be a different situation. Hitler was far to busy with the Ost Front and that front got most of the supply's.

We payed a price in the Italian campaign 1943-1945. Air/Field Marshall Kesselring fought a brilliant tactic defencive war against the Allies, Kesselring held us up for four months at Casino.

[Skybird]

Agreed on the whole posting, except this:
It took both and it destroyed the German industry and demorilized the nation.
If the bombing war against european cities in WWII showed one thing, than this: that you do not brake public morale by it, but in fact even strengthen it, and raising more stubborness: "Jetzt erst recht!". That was true for the people in many countries and cities being haunted by this terrible tactic, London, Hamburg, Warsaw, etc. Maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the two exceptions to mention, but they were exceptions in more than just this understanding, I think.

the assumption that bombing cities helps to shatter the enemy people's fioghting spirit has been discussed by historians and contemporary militaries since WWII. I see little evidence for this assumnption being true. Latest example was "Shock and awe" in 2003, which only had an imminent effect that did not last long, and completely failed to impress the wide public ihn general. Compared to the city war in WWII, it was a harmless effort anyway, I admit that.

The deep fall in public moral in German cities, or better: rubble-fields, came AFTER the war was over. But desperation did not last long, it seems.

My grandparents, not talking often about that time, said things on this theme that I feel would also back me here.

[STEED]

Agreed, except this: if the bombing war against european cities in WWII showed one thing, than this: that you do not brake public morale by it, but in fact even strengthen it, and raising more stubborness

This is a very true fact. :yep:

[bradclark1]

Agreed on the whole posting, except this:
It took both and it destroyed the German industry and demorilized the nation.
Okay, my bad, you are backed up on morale by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effect_on_mo rale

[SUBMAN1]

Never did I say back to Germany. I said that the Africa corps were being beaten back as in they were not gaining any more ground and the British forces was pushing into theirs. When America came in to join Montgommery that was it they really were done for.
You told me 10 times above that you would have defeated Germany. I'm glad you agree that this is not the case - this is why I wrote that.

The Afrika (I believe this is how you spell it from a German persepctive) corps were in no way done when the Americans arrive as you say. So much they were not done, that they thousands upon thousands of green Americans. Patton would probably want to slap you about now! :D

We didn't defeat them? Hitler gave in trying to best us in the battle of britain, he gave up, therefore, we won the battle of Britain. Might not be a KO type Victory, and yeah, the RAF only won on points, but they still won. Never was so much owed by so many to so few and all that.
I'd call it more like stalling them as their attention was needed else where. My definition of defeat means they are no longer effective.

What type of explanation is required here, it took a devastating attack on Pearl Harbour before the american population was ready to fight? How can that not be bought?
You must not know too much about American politics to say this. This was not a decision from the American people, but one from our Government. They were just waiting for an excuse to enter fracefully. If this didn't come, we wouls have entered anyway.

I made a mistake here. The Americans were over here fighting the germans my brother told me about the flying fortresses taking off in the day and bombing Germany and the gathering of the invasion forces to go to France, and the thrust up through Italy which was consolidated with German troops. I never actually studied the fight in Italy so I was not aware what the American role was. I knew about north Africa but well, there were gaps. I only had pieces and thought it was a complete picture.:oops:
If you study it, it was a race between Patton and Montgomery. Patton won the race, and Monty was a little ticked about it.


So basically it was a poltical thing to make sure they got reelected. I understand now.
Got it. That explains the above then. That is how it works over here. G. Bush didn't ask the American people to send troops to Iraq or Afganistan. He actually is the first President since WWII to even bother to ask our own Congress if it is OK to send troops into Iraq, and he didn't have to as President. The American people have little choice in it - as well as even our Congress who can only cut funding for it after the fact. That is why they call the American President the 'Commander In Chief'. He has the ultimate say on when and where our troops go and what they are going to do.

Well can't contradict anything there except for two words, gave and supplied. Nothing was given and supplied, Britain paid for every bit of American gear you sent out. Which is only fair!
I can't argue that. However, the American Government didn't have to supply anything.

I guess you can say we 'gave' you pilots to help fight the Battle of Britain. So there! :p We gave you something!

A large military force enters another country forcefully, that is an invasion. Not only that, the UN did not sanction the measures. And the UK is as guilty as the US is for invading Iraq. Immaterial of 1991, the war was over, and had been over for well over a decade. Bush turned his guns on Iraq for a reason, and whatever reason that was we don't know yet, and Blair went along with him very readily. There were no WMD's there, and so lots of people are left wondering, why was Iraq invaded?

Then along comes aid for oil? I wonder, was it for oil all along like many claim?
Largly incorrect. Only a Ceasefire with terms was in place - terms that were brushed aside by Saddam. The guns were turned towards Saddam as a defensive measure for Kuwait. The invasion word is up for debate in this case, but on a technicality, it conceed that it could be used either way.

By the way - The time it took for this to happen doesn't matter if its one week or 20 years. Time is irrelevant when only a Cease fire is in place. The war was far from over. If you surrender as country, you must abide by the terms of the ceasefire or face the consequences. Saddam hadden complied for 5 to 7 years.

On the WMD front - they are there. More evidence popped up that they had been moved prior to anyone caring. i will find an article on that for you from the head inspector in Iraq. Either Iran or Russia has them now.

-S

PS. Found it - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21924

[bradclark1]

as well as even our Congress who can only cut funding for it after the fact. That is why they call the American President the 'Commander In Chief'. He has the ultimate say on when and where our troops go and what they are going to do.

The president has the authority to send troops anywhere but he has to get congressional approval within 60 days.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) to wage war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) without the approval of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress). The War Powers Act of 1973 is also referred to as the War Powers Resolution (Sec. 1).

The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[joea]

Agreed, except this: if the bombing war against european cities in WWII showed one thing, than this: that you do not brake public morale by it, but in fact even strengthen it, and raising more stubborness
This is a very true fact. :yep:

Maybe little effect on morale, but some effect on industry, and a big effect on German anti-air defence. How many 88s were based in Germany? How many fighters? In fact it was indirectly the bombing campaign (once long range escorst were possible) that defeated the Luftwaffe.

Also let's not forget the differencel, at least initially, between US bombing in Europe was not aimed at moral but "precision" targets, while the British went for area bombing. Not saying how precise it in fact was (and the RAF got better at hitting targets at night, and the US eventually went for area bombing in Japan).

Also, there was effect on industry and transport and oil. Production may have continued, even increased, but new weapons were delayed, one example being the Type XXI. Not to mention the quality of a lot of tanks, jets etc. was not up to par.

[Skybird]

Agreed, except this: if the bombing war against european cities in WWII showed one thing, than this: that you do not brake public morale by it, but in fact even strengthen it, and raising more stubborness
This is a very true fact. :yep:

Maybe little effect on morale, but some effect on industry, and a big effect on German anti-air defence. How many 88s were based in Germany? How many fighters? In fact it was indirectly the bombing campaign (once long range escorst were possible) that defeated the Luftwaffe.

Also let's not forget the differencel, at least initially, between US bombing in Europe was not aimed at moral but "precision" targets, while the British went for area bombing. Not saying how precise it in fact was (and the RAF got better at hitting targets at night, and the US eventually went for area bombing in Japan).

Also, there was effect on industry and transport and oil. Production may have continued, even increased, but new weapons were delayed, one example being the Type XXI. Not to mention the quality of a lot of tanks, jets etc. was not up to par.
I remember several docus that said the opposite - the Allied bombing campaign was very well aimed at trying to shatter public morale as well. While hitler certainly tried the same when he launched against the British, Poles and Russians.

The US generals involved wanted to enforce this strategy entering modern war doctrine. So while you are right on the industrial effects of the bombing war, the attempted braking of morale was absolutely an intention here, too.

But all this led to heated debates already during the war, and even more so after the war. Even today military hawks think they can brake public morale by tyrannizing the civil population. Quite the opposite was true back then, and as I see it: is still true today.

P.S. :Hm, I realise that my memory maybe fails me, it could be that I mix up the different strategic preferences of British and American air generals here. I'm too lazy to check it out in the books now. Could be that it was like you said: "Also let's not forget the differencel, at least initially, between US bombing in Europe was not aimed at moral but "precision" targets, while the British went for area bombing."

[joea]

Oh I agree with the ineffectiveness of trying to break the moral by bombing, just adding other factors that need to be considered as well.

[STEED]

Bombing non military targets achieved very little as we know, I suspect it's more to do in the propaganda war and making our citizens feel better and of course pay back. Military targets like factories, industrial plants, transport and so on would have indeed been more affective.