Revisionist history being taught in Europe?

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.