Every since becoming interested in WWII the one thing that has really bothered me was the American perception of the war. At least as far as Europe was concerned anyway.
U-571 anyone?
Part I - American Propaganda
Not to take anything away from those men that fought and died, but the documentaries that are ra-ra america are always like "Huge losses", "Brutal, bitter - fighting" and what ever other phrases they say to make it seem like the american suffered so much but persevered.
I was having a conversation with a few friends, and I asked them "Why do the Americans think these were such crazy battles?". We were talking about a documentary on the Pacific that we recently watched. He replied "I think its because the fighting was so close quarters, so personal". The narrator made Iwo Jimi sound like it was the most intense battle of the entire was with insane casualties. To me this summed up the whole American (media anyway) attitude towards the war. What a bunch of BS.
STALINGRAD.
At Stalingrad both sides lost more men in 6 months then the Americans did in the entire war. And you can't get much more close quarter and brutal fighting then room to room in -40 degree weather.
Iwo Jima Casualties
Japan - 21,844 killed
USA - 6,821 killed
Stalingrad
German - 750,000 Killed, missing or wounded
Soviet - 478,741 killed or missing
I mean come on, not even in the same ball park on the same continent.
In fact only a few months ago, someone argued with me to the point of yelling that Americans could do no wrong. "They never bombed civilians like the Germans did", he said. I just laughed. That didn't even warrant a response. Sorry to say this was a Canadian that who was all Ra-Ra America. But he only knows what he saw on TV. Those few American Propoganda documentaries that make people believe the war couldn't have been won without them.
Part II - D-Day Wasn't for Hitler.
It also confirmed something I was starting to suspect the more I got into Flames of War and learned more about the different theatres and battles.
The Americans did not win the war for anyone. Not to belittle their contribution but lets look at some time lines.
Most people consider Stalingrad the turning point in the war... debatable.
So, February 1943 the Soviets starting pushing back towards Germany.
The Americans were getting their ASS kicked at the Kasserine Pass.
In July 1943 the Battle of Kursk happened basically at the same time the Allies landed in Sicily. Yes this helped pull German troops off the line at Kursk but the Germans had no reserves. The Soviets were already on their way to Berlin before the Allies landed in Europe.
Now back to this show "Behind Closed Doors". All 3 leaders were going behind each others backs to wheel and deal. And the more I find out about Churchill the more I think he just wanted more territory for the British Empire. Nothing different then Stalin.
Apparently, the Allies told Stalin they would land in Europe in 1942, but didn't. They then told him again they would land in 1943 (D-day) but didn't. You are pissing off an already UBER paranoid psycho. This show basically says they continually lied to Stalin, and each other. Then they started having meetings behind each others backs. Churchill was the worst of all of them in my mind.
Great show, how much truth there is to it, I have no idea. But, it was pretty convincing.
Conclusion
The only reason the Allies landed in 1944 was because they realized "HOLY SHIT" the Russians really are on their way to Berlin without us. They had to land, not to stop Hitler, but to stop the Soviets from taking all of Europe.
And the more I learn about Churchill the more I'm convinced he is solely responsible for the entire Cold War. Think about it. How the Allies carved up Europe in WWI caused WWII. And what the Allies did in at the end of WWII caused the cold war.
Ya, Stalin was looking for territory the whole time, but so was Churchill. Which isn't the image of Heroism we were all led to believe about Churchill, or any "Allied - Democratic" leader.
I don't think the Allies were ever worried about Germany.
Patton Was Right!
When you finally break it all down, ALL WARS are about money or power. Look it up. Civil War was never about freeing the slave it was more politics than the goal. Mexican-American War? Spanish American War? Revolutionary War. Vietnam was directly related to stopping Communism. War is hell.
ReplyDeleteLike most things in life I think the truth is somewhere in between. I took a course about the politics of WW2 at college with a brilliant professor, and I can corroborate the stuff you mentioned about the Americans promising to land again and again. Another little story: Bagration is steamrolling the Germans, the Western allies are wondering if there will be any of Europe left for them. They try to pressure Stalin to halt in the name of "maintaining their supply lines" (tsk tsk, did they forget about that during the Bulge period?). Stalin is advancing on Warsaw, and the Poles in the ghetto see their opportunity and rise up. Twenty miles from Warsaw, with the Germans reeling and suffering from a substantial rebellion behind their lines, Stalin orders a halt. Now the western allies are pleading with him to continue, but Stalin doesn't want an armed, independent Polish fighting force post-war. So he goes to Roosevelt and Churchill and basically says "Sorry, our supply lines are over-stretched". The Poles are crushed, and the Soviet advance resumes
ReplyDeleteAnd why were the Soviets steamrolling the Germans during Bagration? American 4 wheel drive and winches provided continuous supply lines. Not to mention equipment that was moving troops and arming them as well.
ReplyDeleteDid the American win the war that we see in the movies no, but like university kids pushing away from common North American religions and politics after 4 months of living on campus far too many are swayed by the new thought of the Soviet beast. It was powerful but it needed a ton of help from the rest of the world or it would have similarly been crushed. Or are we just forgetting the entire lend lease program?
The Soviets were a Major part of the victory, no doubt about it.
As for the 'OH MY GOD THEY'RE ALMOST IN BERLIN!' Theory, unless I'm missing some mass conspiracy, D Day was June 6th, and Bagration began on June 22nd.
Wow! Where to begin. First off, read more. A lot more. Start with the history of the air war over Europe. Then read about how the US fought a two front war against huge industrial powers while supplying ALL the allies with tanks, planes, trucks, guns, ammo, food, uniforms, ships and just about anything else you can think of. The Soviets did most of the bleeding during the war without a doubt but without the Western Allies, particularly the US, all would have been lost.
ReplyDeleteI'm not denying anything the Americans did in the war.
DeleteAll i'm saying is Documentaries are built to "ra-ra we are the only ones that did anything. "
Having said that, the bombing wasn't as effective as Americans would have you believe. That's why they changed to civilian targets.
Christ, in my mind the Konigstiger is an engineering marvel, to be able to design and manufacture that monster at at that stage of the war.
Germany could have never won the war, even if the Americans didn't enter the war. They are too land locked with no natural resources. You can bomb all the factories you want, if you don't have materials to build or run your tanks, it makes zero difference. If Stalingrad turned out different and the Germans made it to the Urals I might have been different.
Bagration is actually my whole point. that got the Russians into Poland while the Americans were just starting in France.
I enjoyed reading ths. From this side of the world (NZ and Australia) we think it is a bit of a joke that America thinks it won WW2 for all of us. The joke is often about how long it took for the US to enter the war (once the Germans were on the run in North Africa). However they had reasons for that like getting production and economy on a War footing.
ReplyDeleteWW2 like previous wars saw a re-setting of just who is the Industrial super power of the globe. The end saw the USA emerge as that power.
Churchill and the allies may not have opened a Western front as fast as the Russians would have liked but they supplied a hell of a lot of secret data from the Enigma code to them (and matarials). The secret information was a HUGE reason behind Kursk being a disaster for the German armys.
Yes Churchill was a brute but hey, total war may do that. Britain was heavily bombed and starved as well, an invasion was even planned. Total destruction of Germany so it could never happen again....hmmmmm..that's one option.
Patton wanted to keep going to Moscow to finish the job. The Cold War started before WWII ended. Just too many political differences there.
Read a lot more as it gets very interesting the more you learn.
@Kage... Really? Just starting in France? Are we forgetting Italy?
ReplyDeletequote from my post.
Delete"In July 1943 the Battle of Kursk happened basically at the same time the Allies landed in Sicily. Yes this helped pull German troops off the line at Kursk but the Germans had no reserves. The Soviets were already on their way to Berlin before the Allies landed in Europe."
I certainly agree with you about the Russians winning the war, although British and American strategic bombing helped them a lot by drawing the majority of the Luftwaffe from the eastern front, giving the VVS a much easier time gaining air superiority by 1944.
ReplyDeleteAs to the second front, from everything I've read, the "continuous lying" about the second front was because the Americans wanted to open one right away, and Churchill and the British wanted to wait. Admittedly, landing in France in 1942 would probably have been a disaster, but Marshall was expecting to go ahead with it (Vinegar Joe Stilwell was slated to command).
But Churchill held onto the same peripheral strategy that the British have used in all their continental wars since the 100-yr war. Using naval superiority, he wanted to isolate the continent and leave the majority fighting to an ally, whom Britain would supply. When the wars were against the French, that ally was Prussia and/or the Hapsburgs; after German unification they turned to the French and the Russians/Soviets. The British would supply their ally while taking overseas possessions, adding to their empire. That's how they took Canada, during the 7-year war, and then drove the French out of India during the American Revolution.
Churchill held to this strategy beautifully as long as he could persuade the Americans to attack what were essentially secondary objectives, none of which could lead to Germany's defeat: North Africa, and then Italy. In fact, Churchill was strongly advocating an invasion of Greece and the Balkans instead of France. It was only to keep all of Germany and likely France from coming under Soviet influence that Churchill agreed to Overlord.
great discussion guys. a lot of great points and opinions goes to show how little we know about what "really" went on. Being on a global scale its impossible to know.
ReplyDeleteKage -
ReplyDeleteGood topic and one that will generate a lot of discussion, passion and thoughts.
My view can be summed up by a simple economic statistic used (GDP). If I recall correctly:
German war effort as a percentage of GDP: 98%
Soviet: 96%
UK (not Commonwealth): 95%
USA: 48%
Think about that number for a second. The USA, even while supplying the Allies with weapons (that the British improved on, but the US would NEVER use because "we didn't invent it here" - I am looking at YOU Firefly!), we still had the economic resources to make Hershey Chocolate bars...
It wasn't a bread vs. guns argument in the States. We got both. Yes, there was rationing, but nothing compared to the UK from '40-'45.
In the end, we all are a byproduct of the education and jingoism that we are surround by. So yes, an American will think the USA won the war. A Russian (former Soviet I guess) will think they won the war. Etc, Etc, Etc...
My view?
Europe becomes Nazi owned for many, many years if they eliminate the Brits at Dunkirk.
We lose if Britain doesn't win the air war in '40 and postpone Sea Lion (which a super-majority of historians believe would have been successful).
We are in a world of hurt if Germany can supply North Africa and keep the DAK moving east.
We are in a world of hurt if Malta falls.
We lose if either Hitler focuses on Moscow or Caucas - but not both.
We lose if Stalingrad falls.
We lose if Pearl Harbor doesn't happen in the first place because FDR could NOT have gathered enough votes in Congress to get war declared on Germany. Let's not forget that Germany and Italy declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor... then the US declared war on Germany and Italy...
We lose if the USA cannot provide just enough materiel to UK and Soviets.
We lose if D-Day isn't successful.
On and on and on...
The short of it is that the Allies were victorious in WW2 because of the ALLIES. Not one or the other.
But being an American and subject to jingoism... imagine what would have happened if the USA had put forth maybe 75% of GDP... ; - )
In the immortal words of "Team America, World Police": America, F%#@ Yeah!
Both Germany and Russia invaded and divided up Poland. It was the even that caused the UK to declare war. Only Germany gave back the land afterwards.
ReplyDeleteAll of the countries involved wanted to extend their influence over other countries. Except perhaps for Canada, who just wanted to play with the big boys.
My compliments!
ReplyDeleteI am Russian (born in the USSR), I do not want to affect policy - won the war ordinary people! Yes, the USSR had to bear the brunt of the fighting (this is obvious - because the enemy stronger in Germany was not around and the main fighting took place in the European theater, I would say - in Eurasia), but ordinary people and fought at Stalingrad and on Iwo Jima and at the beach Omaha. And in fact, the winner of the few people left ordinary people
Interesting post but it has a big flaw. Patton was right about what? You never actually state what he claimed. When I saw the title, I thought you meant that Patton was right and that the (western) allies should have kept rolling all the way to Moscow. Clearly that is not the point that you wish make...
ReplyDelete@WEBGriffen: I think you nailed it. The Allies won because they helped each other, regardless of the motivations of the leaders involved. To vastly oversimplify, The Soviets bought time with blood, the UK kept the Axis from focusing on one campaign at a time, and the United States turned the military industrial complex into high gear producing equipment for everybody. If any one piece was removed then the world would be a very different place today, which is why it is such an interesting period to game.
Very interesting post and discussion, and as usual with such a topic there are so many ifs, buts and maybes... One point you make, about the Western Allies having to invade, to avoid the Soviets taking all of Europe for themselves, makes interesting reading indeed and puts me in mind of comments Germans soldiers allegedly made to the Western Allied Soldiers (I believe in Italy) being that they [the Germans] believed the Western Allies would make peace with the Germans and join them in throwing back the Soviets... A sadly deluded view, but perhaps they were right in the long term view, if we look at the resulting cold war and Russian communist occupation of Eastern Europe post WWII.
ReplyDeleteThis results in another thunderous 'what if'... and I think this might be the reading between the lines of the original blog post - both Patton and probably Churchill knew the next war would be against the Soviets, so why stop now, we've got all the gear we need here and now to make a start...