Community

we do get fairly one sided stories on WW2 that minimizes the contributions of the allies and almost makes it seem as if we rescued everyone singlehandedly....I know that we lost an average of 1500 men per week in both ww1 and ww2, I also know that london lost 1% of its population during the 9 or so months of the blitz from what I have heard....those are big numbers.....I am not sure what the story is regarding the French....I do acknowledge that this war was faught on their soil....and that is something we here may not yet ( and hopefully won't) understand. We were an important part of the history of modern europe though.....a fact that should not be taken for granted in my opinion....
One point on thanking Russia. I will not accuse you of a lack of understanding on Russias part in the war.....It was a distraction for Hitler, that could well have cost him the war......I just hate to thank someone responsible for more senseless slaughter of innocent human life than anyone else in modern history including Hitler....

I would refer you to http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm for WWI Casualties - the French lost 1.38 million in 4 years of fighting, the Americans lost 117,000 in a year. These numbers do not include wounded(the numbers are at the site). Consider as well that France had a fraction of the population that the US had - I recall from a posting last week that 6 out of 10 French men aged 18-28 were either killed or seriously mamed in WWI. Think of the impact on the US if they had lost 60% of the men in uniform.

As for the Americans impact on major battles...take a look at the list - Somme, Ypres, Passchendale, Vimy Ridge - none of them American Battles. The Americans did releive the stressed allied forces and did participate in offensives like the Meuse and Argonne. But its hardly bailing out the French and English who fought some tougher harder campaigns at the same time.

As for WWII http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Casualties.htm
The Russians lost 13 million - think of it! Whereas the US lost 295,000. Granted many of those lost were because of poor preparation, suicide tactics etc, but Stalin fought with what he had on hand - and that was people. The size and scale of the battles on the Eastern front was far larger than anything that happened in Europe. So far from being a distraction, it was the main event. You can argue that without the western allies, Stalin might have defeated Hitler on his own, granted that it would have taken longer and been bloodier.

I would argue that Hitler was more concerned with Russia than western Europe. He attacked western europe because they stood up for Poland, and because Hitler and Stalin had a "peace treaty", he considered France the more immediate threat. He didn't want to be at war with England - there was some evidence he tried to treaty with England after the fall of France - let us keep France and we will leave Britain alone - meaning he already had his eye eastward for his "lebensrum" - living space. The conflict between Hitler and Stalin was inevitable, the peace treaty a holding device.

Its arguable whether Hitler or Stalin killed more civilians. Stalin starved millions pre-war, Hitler killed many through gas chambers, and in an attempt to pacify occupied Russia through terror. Hitler murdered approximately 6 million jews and close to that many slavs, poles, gypsies and others in an attempt to "clean out" eastern europe. The numbers are fuzzier for Stalin.

James

Hiding evidence and "erasing" people from existence...once Stalin eliminated people, groups ...etc...he would go after all records of their exsistence to eliminate them to from what I understand....I am no expert though....I do watch different documentaries on it from time to time though........

Scott

He wanted people to know what he had done - he was proud of it. So they kept pretty meticulous records. He arrogantly thought he'd never lose or be captured or come to trial, so he didn't bother about "evidence".

The numbers estimates vary widely - Stalin is attributed to between 8 and 20 million Deaths in hir reign of terror. Many died of starvation(Ukraine) or in the great purge(most of Stalin's competent generals pre WWII).

Hitler killed 12 million alone in concentration camps, and millions more civilians in Eastern Europe. This doesn't count the POWs that each side allowed to starve to death.

So - depending on your sources, they are both responsible for a horrendous number of deaths - hard to determine which one is worse.

James

You bring up something on Hitler that caught my attention. I was watching a program on the History Channel that had to do with Hitler and his second lost book that was never published. It really outlined what he really wanted to do. The book was pretty straight forward. He believed that the Arayan nation was the only legitmate race in Germany and in the world and wanted to expand his Arayan nation. He stated that in order to expand Germany's Arayan nation, Germany need to aquire more land. According to his book, he planned to control Western Europe, which included France, Belgium, THe Netherlands, etc. He never included Britain. He figured he would have a "treaty" with Britain in which they would keep their colonies and pocessions at the time. Hitler was also signing a treaty with Facist Italy, where Italy would control the Meditterean. The US in Hitler's eyes was never a threat. A couple decades before WWII started, many Germans or Arayans were migrating to the US. He saw those that migrated to the US and North America as a strong people because of the sucesses they made after setting there. But Hitler changed his mind about the US after he saw the intermingling with German immigrants and other nationalities, mostly Jewish. His plan was to take over Western Europe, then conquer Russia, then focus on the US. His plans didn't call for attacking the US until around 1943 or 44. Obviously we got into the war sooner. The program was quite interesting. I will find some links and post them if I can find them later. I mostly typing this from memory of the show.

I think we disagree on this as there were several major battles in the WWI that the Doughboys took it to the enemy. I key indicator of the American influence on the war was the fact that we entered the war in 1**7 and it ended a little over a year later.
I will disagree with your comments on the Second World War as well but perhaps we could take it to a different discussion.

Got a little off topic on that one!

I love history and especially history of that time period. I agree with what you said completely.

I think we should all take credit for defeating Hitler. As for the effort put in by the UK and US and other allies, it's interesting to look at the D-Day statistics.

Men landed

Gold 24,970 UK
Sword 28,845

Juno 21,400 Canadian

Utah 23,250 US
Omaha 34,250

Honours about even.The US had about 15,00 airborne troops and we had 7,500. US casualties were much higher because the airborne troops had a higher percentage of casualties and because of the problems at Omaha.

I think I will grudgingly concede that you "helped" but not that you saved our a$$es$!

I get so much more reasonable when I get home.

Neil

It was not the only contribution....but it was allies standing side by side......against a mutual threat.....