Replies

The USSR destroyed German armies in the East. This leeched off men and weapons from the West. In the West, the Germans had absolute control of the Atlantic coast. By reducing their manpower, America and Britain had a chance to liberate western Europe. I appreciate the point. I do think the U.S. has plenty to offer up to support the idea that it was no slouch in the war effort. I view your point to be something like a coach saying he could have won the game with just his third baseman on the field. It doesn't work that way. The war effort required a lot of team members. Which one was most important, is something I'm not prepared to argue, because you can't aruge an issue like this without denegrating someone's efforts. I don't think it's a worthy argument to involve ones self in.

We could just as easily say that we drew in more troops to the West to relieve the USSR. To a certain extent, it would be true. Italy and points north, and the French Atlantic coast and points east covers a lot of territory. It took a lot of German and it's allies' troops to administer these regions. In late 1942, the U. S. entered the war in Europe with it's military campaigns in Northern Africa and Italy. We put over one million troops on the ground around the Mediteranian. By the end of the war, we had over four million in other parts of Europe. And that's just our troops. With all these forces on the ground, it still took over 2.5 years for the allied forces to bring the war to Berlin.

We didn't. None the less, we sent our men to Europe to do the right thing -- true

Okay then, the U. S. S. R. broke the back of the Germans in Western Europe? -- as I described above, yes, the actions on the Eastern front (which, let me remind me couldn't have been done without American military supplies) is what broke the back of the Germans. The losses suffered on the Eastern front meant that they had to understaff the Western. And Germany and it's allies losses from Northern Africa to Italy, to Northern Europe required Germany to expend men, munitions, and equipment there also. We had over four million (just our) men on the European continent, and yet it took eleven months to move to Berlin. Take a look at a map of Europe, look where the D-Day forces landed, and how far that was from Berlin. After you've done that, I think it's going to dawn on you that the German forces in Western Europe were no empty threat due to operations elsewhere. There was fierce fighting in Western Europe. And at the same time, the U. S. was mired in a touch and go war in the Western Pacific as well.

Russian forces were fighting on their own continent. We were moving our men and logistics about 3,000 miles in opposite directions around the planet. Please don't try to tell me how easy the U. S. S. R. made things on us. It's going to be lost on me.

I guess the saturation bombing of German forces and factories across Europe into Berlin wasn't really necessary then. -- no, I didn't say that -- on the contrary it WAS necessary -- I said "the Soviets broke the back" -- if we hadn't done saturation bombing and fought in Italy, etc. then the Soviets would have been controlling all of Germany and probably France as well

Cronos, you're losing me here. When you break someone's back, the fight is over. Was the fight over when Europe was invaded by the allies on D-Day? No.

Western Europe, in particular the French were horrendously slimy -- France was protected from the USSR by a mass of nations, hence they thought they could withdraw from NATO as they didn't directly face a threat.....

Yes, that's true. It was an inhumane way to reward people who had pulled the French's bacon out of the fire in two world wars in the 20th Century.

nice discussion :)

First, lets talk about the thing we agree on -- the French suck :)

I used to be a francophile when I was learning French in high school but then I learnt more about how the French have screwed over christendom ever since Philip the Fair.

They screwed over the knights Templars, who were defenders of Christendom

Then during the 30 years war, France, supposedly Catholic, supported the Calvinists/Lutherans against the Catholic Austrians, just to weaken the Hapsburgs and at the same time courted the Moslem Ottomans

If they hadn't done this, the Austrians would have pushed out the Turks from Europe in the 1690s itself

Then of course Napoleon and 1914, 1939, 1955 etc

And don't forget that Vietnam was triggered by the French not leaving their colonies in time (compare the former colonies of the English to that of the French -- the US, India, Canada, Australi etc. may have a fierce rivalry with England, may even fight it, but they have a grudging respect, or at worst a love-hate relationship -- in contrast nearly all the French colonies detest France)

We could just as easily say that we drew in more troops to the West to relieve the USSR. -- that is true. There was pressure by Stalin for the Western allies to relieve the Russians on the Eastern frotn

With all these forces on the ground, it still took over 2.5 years for the allied forces to bring the war to Berlin. -- well, that's because the punch up from Italy is difficult -- Italy is difficult to conquer (and that's what the Romans also found out, it took them centuries) due to its mountainous nature

On the other hand, once you get east of the Rhine you are on the vast Eurasian flatland that extends all the way to the ural mountains

From the Rhine to the Volga, armies can walk across easily, there are just rivers that slow down armies, not mountains.

That's why this area has been a constant struggle between Germanics, Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Mongols, etc.

yet it took eleven months to move to Berlin. -- true, and breaking the Atlantic wall was a stupendous effort

Operation Dragoon was the left hook to the right hook Normandy landings

But then breaking out of the French region was halted due to the failure of the invasion of the Netherlands (Operation Market Garden)

The Rur river and the nature of Flanders territory slowed the movement as did the Gothic line along the Italian mountains -- that was how 1944 ended

But by June 1944 the Soviets had taken over Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe (Eastern Poland, etc.) and southern Europe -- Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia --> they were halted by the Finns in the continuation war

With the Eastern front lost, the Germans desperately tried to launch a counter-offensive in the Ardennes in the Battle of the Bulge but failed and at the same time the Soviets pushed through to the Oder and invaded Germany proper

Ok, I'm rambling -- I repeat that the bloodletting on the eastern front is what "broke the back" of the Germans -- but they kept fighting. They lost when they lost nearly a million experienced men on the Eastern Front. They could not recover

But they kept fighting

in a way it was good -- it taught the Germans an everlasting lesson that war is not the way.