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.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

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]

Originally Posted by 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 without the work of all three nations.

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

-S

[STEED]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

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:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Agreed on the whole posting, except this:

Okay, my bad, you are backed up on morale by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...fect_on_morale

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

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!

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.

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...e.asp?ID=21924

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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 to wage war without the approval of 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]

Originally Posted by STEED

This is a very true fact.

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.