The United States was a minor player in World War Two

Is the role of the United States in the second world war overrated? The title is to create a talking point - the U.S. was one of the big three at Yalta - but by that point Russia had already made the turning point of the war. Your thoughts.

 

Yes, this seems to be known worldwide apart from America - mabye they get taught history different there but it is common knowledge japan was already on it's knees when America bombed it.

 

You are doing the exact opposite of what you accused Hollywood of doing. You are downplaying the US role as much as Hollywood plays it up. Also you have to realize that Hollywood is in the business of doing things over the top, sentimentalizing, romanticizing, etc. And their first audience is an American audience so it makes sense that they would romanticize things that would play well to Americans. I'm sure every society does this but the difference is that our pop culture is our biggest export so everyone sees it and in times like this where we are less popular in the world, people abroad will cherry pick things to try to "expose" our less attractive characteristics. In this case that were are being arrogant, self-aggrandizing and with an implication that we are actually incapable of doing anything right and simultaneously that everything is our fault.

There's no question that we got in the war late, but to say our role was minor is just silly and I think it will be seen as such to all but the most hardened and biased US haters.

Let's look at it another way. Of the countries that Germany did not bomb directly or cross over the border into, who had the biggest role? I think the US involvement was pretty damn big considering we were an ocean away and weren't directly threatened by German bombs and artillery.

 

You mean like U-471 - about the U.S. capturing a German enigma machine - which in fact was done by British sailors historically speaking. The problem with Hollywood is that it reinvents history and presents it as fact.

Another problem with Hollywood is that although they make movies for an American audience - these films are seen worldwide and contribute to anti-American feelings around the world - I mean a film like Rambo would hardly make the average Vietnamese citizen happy would it?

 

Yes and yet people around the world keep consuming our media. They consume and bitch, consume and bitch. I'm not going to defend all Hollywood does. I agree Hollywood puts out a bunch of crap, but these aren't documentaries people! It's entertainment, even if it's crappy entertainment.

Oh, and the point about the D-day landing forces only being 40% American; wasn't that the biggest contingent by country?

 

I don't think America played a minor role. Details apart, its participation was critical and that's undeniable, unless one wants to mud the issue just because. The war was very complex and some countries did more than others in different stages/areas of the conflict.
What I think was underrated is Russia's role. By far the most dead and they did huge accomplishments.

 

wasn't that the biggest contingent by country? - close - both Britain and the U.S. put 2 divisions ashore each, the U.S. would probably sneak ahead if you include the Airborne forces.

 

According to Wikipedia (if it's correct) there were more Americans in the overall battle than any other country. With Britain having 61,715 to the US's 73,000, of which 15,500 were airborne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy

 

About seven years back, people debated who was more important to the three time champion Los Angeles Lakers. Was it Shaq or Kobe? Shaq left and his new team soon were champions while Kobe stayed and the Lakers floundered for years. I believe I was right in siding with Shaq.

Well let's look at WWII in this way. If you imagine the US choosing to be neutral rather than joining the fight, how would things be today in Londonsburg, Parisfurt, and Münscow?

 

My thoughts? Sheer crap.

I have long said that the Soviet contribution has never been given the full airing it deserves, and the pissing match of history between Patton and Montgomery has unfortunately beclouded the contributions made by Great Britain's soldier in the war.

But I also hate the "relative contribution" malarkey. We did it together:

(See http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=585404&highlight=soviet&page=3 for discussion).

 

Yeah, I can't see ANY problems stemming from that anology.

 

Which one would you want today?

At that time, I informed the Lakers that if they kept Shaq and traded Kobe I would cancel my season seats. Shaq was awesome for the Lakers and was and is a great player. At the end of his Laker career he was half-assing it and quit giving anywhere near 100%, especially on defense. His one championship in Miami (looking at Miami and Shaq) appears to have been a fluke.

I can't tell you how much better the Lakers are having kept Kobe and ditched Shaq.

During those three championships Shaq was more valuable, because that was the game plan. The offense, correctly, ran through Shaq. Shaq had more of an impact. But I don't think Shaq would have won titles for the Lakers without Kobe.

 

country pop. Milt. deaths civilian Jewish hol. total % of pop.

Poland 34,849,000 160,000 2,440,000 3,000,000 5,600,000 16.07%
United Kingdom 47,760,000 382,600 67,800 450,400 0.94%
United States 131,028,000 416,800 1,700 418,500 0.32%
Soviet Union 168,500,000 10,700,000 11,400,000 1,000,000 23,100,000 13.71%
Germany 69,623,000 5,533,000 1,600,000 160,000 7,293,000 10.47%

It seems Poland was the country that got the most damaged by WWII.

 

Sorry the figures are hard to read - DP condense them. The figure that really shows Poland got screwed was the final percentage, 16% was the percentage of the population that died.

 

You should never forget the US role in the Pacific, and the P-38 Lightening and the P-51 Mustang were the chief bomber escorts. Also, not to forget US Generals led the Allied War effort. And yes, the Nuke... which scared the hell out of Soviet Union, China, and Egypt.

 

In addition to the US combat forces, the US was the arsenal of the free world. US factories supplied allied forces with billions of dollars of lend-lease arms and supplies.

 

Wisdom, I agree. I am merely talking about the defeat of Hitler. It doesn't do anyone any good to deny the blood spilt by the Soviet soldier, or the genius displayed by Soviet commanders, in kicking Hitler's ass through Eastern Europe - an unheralded stand of bravery and tenacity. Just as it doesn't do anyone any good to ignore the crimes committed by those troops, and commanders, against the German populace in the slogfest.

 

Pretty good article on WWII and such by Pat Buchanan.

Was It 'The Good War'?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan76.html

Excerpt

 

Do you honestly think russia would have beating germany by itself? No, Germany had to split its forces into two to fight two large armies and still almost had some key victories. With just russia fighting in the war, Germany would have came up with a great coutner attack.