Victory Day

[Marvin the Martian]

Believe me, when debating Europeans I am more than willing to defend American contributions in both wars. But to say we contributed more than anyone else, "by far" is ludicrous beyond comprehension. In WW1, not even close. In WW2, in the Pacific, yes. In WW2, Europe, it was Russia that bore the brunt. We were very limited in what we could do coming in late, and sea invasions were impossibly difficult, and our bomber pilots took tremendous casualties. Our contributions were very heroic. But the Wehrmacht died in the steppes of Russia.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114435902192931017

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Believe me, when debating Europeans I am more than willing to defend American contributions in both wars. But to say we contributed more than anyone else, "by far" is ludicrous beyond comprehension. In WW1, not even close. In WW2, in the Pacific, yes. In WW2, Europe, it was Russia that bore the brunt. We were very limited in what we could do coming in late, and sea invasions were impossibly difficult, and our bomber pilots took tremendous casualties. Our contributions were very heroic. But the Wehrmacht died in the steppes of Russia.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114435902192931017

The Wehrmacht died once Hitler split it in two. The Russians were under equipped, poorly trained and ground them down thanks in part to Germany’s long supply lines and lack of will.

They bore more price than we paid but I don’t necessarily that means they were more important. Fighting smart and professionally is far more conducive to success than is surviving sieges

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The Wehrmacht died once Hitler split it in two. The Russians were under equipped, poorly trained and ground them down thanks in part to Germany’s long supply lines and lack of will.

They bore more price than we paid but I don’t necessarily that means they were more important. Fighting smart and professionally is far more conducive to success than is surviving sieges

Our strategy "steel, not flesh" and it was a damn fine strategy. German generals made fun of American officers for not using tactics to take a strongpoint, but called in airpower. The simple fact is they were jealous, our casualties were far lighter because of that.

Russia didn't have that ability, her army was poorly trained and underequipped. Sadly, they still fight with "flesh, not steel" today. For whatever reason, Germany never realized how many Russians could be put into the army. Hitler and some of the top staff believed the encirclements of 1941 had defeated Russia. Some knew better, in The Allies Strike Back, Holland mentions a few commanders toward the end of '41 who went to Hitler and urged peace because they knew they no longer could win. But they were the rare breed, nor did they stay in their commands. The German army had no chance. I don't know why Hitler believed conquering Moscow would end the war, it did Napoleon no good to take Moscow. Why would it be any different for Germany? Maybe, just maybe, entering as liberators, they could have. But coming as conquerors, I don't know any way they knock Russia out.

Had Russia somehow folded, our ability to land at Normandy would have been very poor. I don't know if we could have fought through the mountains from Italy, but I doubt it. That's why I wouldn't say we had the greatest contribution in Europe, Germany's war was always going to be lost in Russia.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

Our strategy "steel, not flesh" and it was a damn fine strategy. German generals made fun of American officers for not using tactics to take a strongpoint, but called in airpower. The simple fact is they were jealous, our casualties were far lighter because of that.

Russia didn't have that ability, her army was poorly trained and underequipped. Sadly, they still fight with "flesh, not steel" today. For whatever reason, Germany never realized how many Russians could be put into the army. Hitler and some of the top staff believed the encirclements of 1941 had defeated Russia. Some knew better, in The Allies Strike Back, Holland mentions a few commanders toward the end of '41 who went to Hitler and urged peace because they knew they no longer could win. But they were the rare breed, nor did they stay in their commands. The German army had no chance. I don't know why Hitler believed conquering Moscow would end the war, it did Napoleon no good to take Moscow. Why would it be any different for Germany? Maybe, just maybe, entering as liberators, they could have. But coming as conquerors, I don't know any way they knock Russia out.

Had Russia somehow folded, our ability to land at Normandy would have been very poor. I don't know if we could have fought through the mountains from Italy, but I doubt it. That's why I wouldn't say we had the greatest contribution in Europe, Germany's war was always going to be lost in Russia.

I agree with all of this. I’m just saying that their poor approach to warfare and higher toll in human lives doesn’t mean they were more instrumental than anybody else.

 

[BradStevens]

Our strategy "steel, not flesh" and it was a damn fine strategy. German generals made fun of American officers for not using tactics to take a strongpoint, but called in airpower. The simple fact is they were jealous, our casualties were far lighter because of that.

Russia didn't have that ability, her army was poorly trained and underequipped. Sadly, they still fight with "flesh, not steel" today. For whatever reason, Germany never realized how many Russians could be put into the army. Hitler and some of the top staff believed the encirclements of 1941 had defeated Russia. Some knew better, in The Allies Strike Back, Holland mentions a few commanders toward the end of '41 who went to Hitler and urged peace because they knew they no longer could win. But they were the rare breed, nor did they stay in their commands. The German army had no chance. I don't know why Hitler believed conquering Moscow would end the war, it did Napoleon no good to take Moscow. Why would it be any different for Germany? Maybe, just maybe, entering as liberators, they could have. But coming as conquerors, I don't know any way they knock Russia out.

Had Russia somehow folded, our ability to land at Normandy would have been very poor. I don't know if we could have fought through the mountains from Italy, but I doubt it. That's why I wouldn't say we had the greatest contribution in Europe, Germany's war was always going to be lost in Russia.

From everything I've ever read, I think you're spot on tactically.

Has another nation ever sacrificed so much, though, to liberate other nations as the United States did in WW II? The U.S. didn't then conquer them, but instead funded their reconstruction along with the nations they defeated. Isn't that a very rare (is it unique?) occurrence in human history?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I agree with all of this. I’m just saying that their poor approach to warfare and higher toll in human lives doesn’t mean they were more instrumental than anybody else.

I agree with this. But it's a really hard thing to quantify -- who contributed how much and how little, how the war would've gone without the US, or without Russia, or the Brits.

The only history we have is the one that actually happened. Anything else is counterfactual.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

From everything I've ever read, I think you're spot on tactically.

Has another nation ever sacrificed so much, though, to liberate other nations as the United States did in WW II? The U.S. didn't then conquer them, but instead funded their reconstruction along with the nations they defeated. Isn't that a very rare (is it unique?) occurrence in human history?

It absolutely is. But, let's face it, while we didn't conquer Europe, we benefitted a great deal in other ways from our efforts in WW2. I've never viewed it as an act of altruism -- or even one having much to do with self-defense.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

From everything I've ever read, I think you're spot on tactically.

Has another nation ever sacrificed so much, though, to liberate other nations as the United States did in WW II? The U.S. didn't then conquer them, but instead funded their reconstruction along with the nations they defeated. Isn't that a very rare (is it unique?) occurrence in human history?

Certainly, what we did was rare. Part of it was the lesson of WW1, we didn't want the reparations to create issues in the future. Part of it was wanting a partner against the USSR. And part of it was the idealism of America, something Wilson had but lost at the peace conference in WW1. It was even more pronounced in the Pactific where we had to overcome the desire for vengeance to rebuild Japan. As much as I don't like MacArthur the General, he was a great military governor.