New History Channel Program

[Bronk]

Yeah... I'm really at a loss as to what Bronk is on about.

What I'm on about is you like to try convince others the US did little for the war to liberate EUROPE.  While leaving out the facts on how little certain euro countries did squat to liberate EUROPE.
How do you think the map western europe would look after the war if the US placed the PAC as priority instead of europe?

[Die Hard]

Link works fine more me.

That's weird. The link to the site works yes, but not to tables 89 and 90 which you referred to earlier. Can you post direct links to those two tables please?

[Die Hard]

What I'm on about is you like to try convince others the US did little for the war to liberate EUROPE.  While leaving out the facts on how little certain euro countries did squat to liberate EUROPE.

There are several european countries listed on the chart and only a few of them had more deaths than America. I guess those that made the chart didn't care to list every country in the world, just the top 15 allied nations. Do you think the chart is wrong and Norway merits to be in the top 15?

How do you think the map western europe would look after the war if the US placed the PAC as priority instead of europe?

A lot of Soviet "democratic republics" I guess.

[jimson]

The Russians would have won regardless of what I or you think. Many argue, and not without reason, that Germany lost the war at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 before America even joined the war. There are a few interesting threads on that very subject if I remember correctly. I think Angus wrote a paper on the Eastern Front or something.

What a guy, that Stalin.

He already had the Nazis whupped and didn't need us, yet he graciously kept begging us to hurry and open a second front because he wanted us to share in his victory and have tremendous influence in post-war Europe.

How insulting for you to say the US role in defeating the Nazis was "insignificant."

Who pushed the German forces out of North Africa, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg?

Not the Russians, but the British and Americans.

While the Russians might have won without us, they didn't have to and they hadn't had the war won before we got there. Tens of thousands of dead GI's prove that.

I'm guessing the war would have lasted much longer than 3 to 6 more months without our efforts and there would have been more like a few hundred thousand more dead Russians rather than just a few.

[Die Hard]

A few hundred thousand sounds about right. Maybe even a million or more. A million more would be about 5% increase in their total loss of lives during the war. However, after the summer of 1943 the Germans never again had the strategic initiative; they were on a long, but relentless retreat to Berlin. The western Europeans should be grateful that we intervened and saved them from the Russians, but Germany's fate was sealed a year before D-Day, some historians even say two or three years before. I'm sorry if you find these facts insulting, but I am in no way disrespecting the soldiers who fought and died in the war, regardless of their nationality.

[DREDger]

....but Germany's fate was sealed a year before D-Day, some historians even say two or three years before. I'm sorry if you find these facts insulting, but I am in no way disrespecting the soldiers who fought and died in the war, regardless of their nationality.

While that may be true, it was also because Germany was fighting a two front war.  You can't simply look at historic events in a vacuum, to do so is to be intellectually disengenuous.

Were it not for the offensive capablility the USA brought to the equation, Germany would have had the ability to focus all their warmaking resources against Russia.  England did not have the ability to fight an offensive war against Germany, it was purely defensive.  And the Russians recieved great amounts of material support from the USA as well.

If you take America out of the equation, it would have been much much different.  Germany could have maintained its gains in western Europe with minimal effort and focused everything East.  Airplanes, troops, tanks, gas...everything. 

[fudgums]

While that may be true, it was also because Germany was fighting a two front war.  You can't simply look at historic events in a vacuum, to do so is to be intellectually disengenuous.

Were it not for the offensive capablility the USA brought to the equation, Germany would have had the ability to focus all their warmaking resources against Russia.  England did not have the ability to fight an offensive war against Germany, it was purely defensive.  And the Russians recieved great amounts of material support from the USA as well.

If you take America out of the equation, it would have been much much different.  Germany could have maintained its gains in western Europe with minimal effort and focused everything East.  Airplanes, troops, tanks, gas...everything. 

Diehard doesn't get that.

[jimson]

A few hundred thousand sounds about right. Maybe even a million or more. A million more would be about 5% increase in their total loss of lives during the war. However, after the summer of 1943 the Germans never again had the strategic initiative; they were on a long, but relentless retreat to Berlin. The western Europeans should be grateful that we intervened and saved them from the Russians, but Germany's fate was sealed a year before D-Day, some historians even say two or three years before. I'm sorry if you find these facts insulting, but I am in no way disrespecting the soldiers who fought and died in the war, regardless of their nationality.

Facts don't insult me and I believe much of what you say is true, however, much is conjecture that cannot with certainty be validated.

While that may be true, it was also because Germany was fighting a two front war.  You can't simply look at historic events in a vacuum, to do so is to be intellectually disengenuous.

Were it not for the offensive capablility the USA brought to the equation, Germany would have had the ability to focus all their warmaking resources against Russia.  England did not have the ability to fight an offensive war against Germany, it was purely defensive.  And the Russians recieved great amounts of material support from the USA as well.

If you take America out of the equation, it would have been much much different.  Germany could have maintained its gains in western Europe with minimal effort and focused everything East.  Airplanes, troops, tanks, gas...everything.  

Exactly.

The only thing for certain is the fate of the German advance in the east was sealed.

Had they been able to concentrate all their forces against the Russian advance, the war could have ended in something less than unconditional victory.

Another point:

If I recall correctly, Germany had it's own atomic weapon program. Whose to say that whatever difference the US involvement effected in the duration of the war might not have been the time that Germany's program could have come to fruition.

Deployment of atomic weapons in the east would have dramatically changed the equation.

But it's all conjecture isn't it?

[sandwich]

In a minute way perhaps. If the Pony had never existed the only difference would be more P-38's and new long-range Spitfires (they were being developed but canceled when the P-51 became available) over Berlin.

Instead of Ponies we could have had 38k's... 

[Simba]

"Germany's fate was sealed a year before D-Day, some historians even say two or three years before."

Looking at the large picture of history, I can't help thinking that Germany was screwed the day it elected a mad sod named Hitler to the Reichstag.

 

[stodd]

i don't understand why america invaded france in WW2, france was not even at war with america.

[Die Hard]

Double post.

[Die Hard]

While that may be true, it was also because Germany was fighting a two front war.  You can't simply look at historic events in a vacuum, to do so is to be intellectually disengenuous.

Were it not for the offensive capablility the USA brought to the equation, Germany would have had the ability to focus all their warmaking resources against Russia.  England did not have the ability to fight an offensive war against Germany, it was purely defensive.

...

If you take America out of the equation, it would have been much much different.  Germany could have maintained its gains in western Europe with minimal effort and focused everything East.  Airplanes, troops, tanks, gas...everything. 

The Germans held western Europe with minimal effort.

The German forces stationed in Germany and western Europe after Operation Barbarossa in 1941 were reserve units, training units and front line units rotating from the Russian front to rebuild their strength. In 1943 Russian and eastern European "volunteer" units known as "osttruppen" were transferred to France after suffering from mass desertions on the Russian front. There were never more than 9 German divisions in Africa during the war; for most of the war there were no more than 3. From the summer of 1941 to January 1944 there were never more than 56 German divisions stationed in western Europe; for most of that time there were less than 40. Even on D-Day when the Germans knew the invasion was imminent there were only 66 divisions stationed in western Europe, and 1 in 6 German soldiers in France were "osttruppen" and of negligible combat efficiency. August 1943 there were 226 German divisions on the Russian front, including Finland, the Balkans and South Eastern fronts. February 1945, with the Allied armies marching on the Rhine, there were still only 68 German divisions on the western front. At the same time there were 186 German divisions on the eastern front. In May 1945 with Hitler contemplating suicide in his bunker there were 89 German divisions frighting the Russians; only four divisions were left to fight the Western Allies. (Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS 1939-1945, by Georg Tessin.)

And the Russians recieved great amounts of material support from the USA as well.

From page 4:

Three to six months perhaps? A few more dead Russians? The Allied strategic bombing campaign in Europe proved a failure. It wasn't until late 1944 that the German industry really started to feel the impact and by that time all the important battles on the Eastern Front had already been lost by the Germans and they were in full retreat. Moscow 1941-42, Stalingrad 1942, Kursk 1943. Truth be told the only important American contribution to the victory in Europe was the lend-lease support given to the Russians.

If I recall correctly, Germany had it's own atomic weapon program. Whose to say that whatever difference the US involvement effected in the duration of the war might not have been the time that Germany's program could have come to fruition.

Read up on it. It would never have come to fruition.

[jimson]

Well, it seems to me that there were some pretty tough fights from Africa through Sicily to D-day and the Battle of the Bulge etc, fights that likely wouldn't have happened except for American involvement.

That those German forces killed, captured, redirected and otherwise neutralized during action against the western allies would have made no difference if they had intact, and in desperation been recalled to the defense of the German homeland from a Russian invasion is something I cannot understand how you can be sure of.

Oh well, I'm done here.

[morfiend]

Funny I cant find the Norwegians on that list... wonder why that is?

 I also dont see the canuk either. As a child I was told we won the war,we sent our mosquitoes over there to pester the germans and if that didnt work we were prepared to send our black flies to deal the final blow.As luck would have the germans succomed to bengay fever and quit so the blackflies were unneeded and put into storage.

 Ya I guess every country has their own prospective of what happened in the war....


 

Lest we forget.