[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bob The Shrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME]'To have the United States at our side was, to me, the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won afterall!..Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.'
- Winston Churchill, December 1941
[/QUOTE]
You may realize that in December '41, Churchill was not exactly in a position to judge the Americans' influence?
You may also realize that autobiographies are considered one of the LEAST objective documents (being highly biased SECONDARY sources) by professional historians? I name John Tosh and Séan Lang (both university professors) and their book "The Pursuit Of History" as just one example discrediting autobiographies (and Churchill's example specifically) for their inaccuracy.
The only thing an autobiography effectively shows, is the mind-set of the author at the time of writing, and how he would distort history, allowing one to derive the aims of the author at the time, as well as things like dominant mores at the time of writing.
In short: your example is a VERY weak argument.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
You'd be surprised, Donna. I've heard members of my own family say it, with a straight face, right before I went to France. "They just hate us because we had to go over there and bail them out in WWII" my aunt told me. This is the same aunt I currently don't speak with anymore for other judgemental comments she's made about me and my family.
I've also spoken with GA's who teach Western Civ 2 classes who have said that when they talk about Russia being an ally, students are surprised! A number of them even say, "But the US won that war, no one else!" The GA's have come to the conclusion it comes from the way the information on WWII is presented to students...primarily US based, Pearl Harbor emphasized, everyone else mentioned in passing. I once saw a history textbook for high schoolers that DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THAT THERE WERE RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS TO THE NAZI's!
I've also spoken with GA's who teach Western Civ 2 classes who have said that when they talk about Russia being an ally, students are surprised! A number of them even say, "But the US won that war, no one else!" The GA's have come to the conclusion it comes from the way the information on WWII is presented to students...primarily US based, Pearl Harbor emphasized, everyone else mentioned in passing. I once saw a history textbook for high schoolers that DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THAT THERE WERE RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS TO THE NAZI's!
TQ - my quote is not meant to be an argument - it was meant as an example of how leaders will always say 'the right thing' to bolster morale amongst Allies.
Anyway, the whole point of my original post was to try and point out that no one country should be able to claim that they did the most to win the war.
I apologise for somewhat helping in changing the original course of this thread.
Anyway, the whole point of my original post was to try and point out that no one country should be able to claim that they did the most to win the war.
I apologise for somewhat helping in changing the original course of this thread.
"I apologise for somewhat helping in changing the original course of this thread."
Are we in a thread? I was beginning to imagine we were all having coffee together in Paris. Or whatever people have in Paris.
Are we in a thread? I was beginning to imagine we were all having coffee together in Paris. Or whatever people have in Paris.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"I apologise for somewhat helping in changing the original course of this thread."
Are we in a thread? I was beginning to imagine we were all having coffee together in Paris. Or whatever people have in Paris.[/QUOTE]
That would be sex. And we're definitely not having that! ;-P
Are we in a thread? I was beginning to imagine we were all having coffee together in Paris. Or whatever people have in Paris.[/QUOTE]
That would be sex. And we're definitely not having that! ;-P
1) Without the contribution of the United States in WWII, the war would have been lost by the allies. Should they have by chance won, they would have won by Pyrrhic proportions.
2) The United States did not make the largest contribution to the war.
2) The United States did not make the largest contribution to the war.
""They just hate us because we had to go over there and bail them out in WWII"
I've had American pals who've said that to me before... without fail, if they're under the age of 80 or whatever, I basically say to them "That's funny, I didn't see you at Normandy".
I've had American pals who've said that to me before... without fail, if they're under the age of 80 or whatever, I basically say to them "That's funny, I didn't see you at Normandy".
Some of us are.
Right...crap. I hate this new 'Speed Dating in the Dark'.
Right...crap. I hate this new 'Speed Dating in the Dark'.
The American Empire is no different from all the ones which preceded it. Bush will even use a dead man (Gerald Ford) to give the media a nice happy emo moment and plead for national unity before requesting a troop surge. I'm not the only one who thought in 1999/y2k GWB would make a horrific prez, and the facts bear out that position...consider the misprosecution of the war on pan-Arab nationalism (Abu Ghraib, extreme rendition, Haditha), failure to address Katrina, and the growing disparity of wealth, education, and health care between the rich and poor in the USA, which is at its worst since the 1920s. This from a president who can't even get through a National Guard stint from start to finish. Klausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelii would all take turns spanking the panty-waist frat boy who's playing commander in chief. There's a lot of innocent blood on the hands of the US Supreme Court which installed GWB. Why hold Bush responsible? He took the oath of office, not me!
As for who is more successful at manipulatuing world events, Bin Laden's agenda perhaps influenced a decline in democracy in Russia, the nuclear ambition of Iran, the attacks of Hezbollah on Israel, perhaps even the ascendency of Hugo Chavez, and the terrible fighting in Africa. Forgot to mention North Korea. Not to mention the deteriorating economic condition of the United States, or the USA PATRIOT act's clear evisceration of the "inalienable" right to privacy. Then there's China's challenge to the US in 2001 with the February and April fly-bys of a 'renegade' pilot. Keep in mind, of course, the CIA trained and armed Bin Laden. I really ought to post a picture of myself in Pakistan 1990.
Lies, torture, and illegal war, Mr President, how do you even keep the score? Who's the real terrorist? Now, Haystacks and friends, we're all Queen fans here and I don't really wanna beef with you, but be real! There is no just cause here for the racist war on pan-Arab nationalism. Forget calling it a war on terrorism, that's propaganda. There are no WMDs in Iraq, and US federal law prohibits targeting individual leaders of foreign countries, so the only way to explain this action (Operation Iraqi Freedom)is to recognize that secretly, Bush is anarchist and the rule of law means nothing.
Who was the last living member of the Warren Commission, with the gravity-defying "magic bullet theory" ? Gerald Ford.
Consider for a moment that 9/11 was inevitable... did we really need a leader with no military background? Bush is a Skull, John Kerry is a Bones. "The hangman equals death, the devil equals death, death equals death!" Republicrats all.
Tora tora Urdu janta ji. Bahut tez!
As for who is more successful at manipulatuing world events, Bin Laden's agenda perhaps influenced a decline in democracy in Russia, the nuclear ambition of Iran, the attacks of Hezbollah on Israel, perhaps even the ascendency of Hugo Chavez, and the terrible fighting in Africa. Forgot to mention North Korea. Not to mention the deteriorating economic condition of the United States, or the USA PATRIOT act's clear evisceration of the "inalienable" right to privacy. Then there's China's challenge to the US in 2001 with the February and April fly-bys of a 'renegade' pilot. Keep in mind, of course, the CIA trained and armed Bin Laden. I really ought to post a picture of myself in Pakistan 1990.
Lies, torture, and illegal war, Mr President, how do you even keep the score? Who's the real terrorist? Now, Haystacks and friends, we're all Queen fans here and I don't really wanna beef with you, but be real! There is no just cause here for the racist war on pan-Arab nationalism. Forget calling it a war on terrorism, that's propaganda. There are no WMDs in Iraq, and US federal law prohibits targeting individual leaders of foreign countries, so the only way to explain this action (Operation Iraqi Freedom)is to recognize that secretly, Bush is anarchist and the rule of law means nothing.
Who was the last living member of the Warren Commission, with the gravity-defying "magic bullet theory" ? Gerald Ford.
Consider for a moment that 9/11 was inevitable... did we really need a leader with no military background? Bush is a Skull, John Kerry is a Bones. "The hangman equals death, the devil equals death, death equals death!" Republicrats all.
Tora tora Urdu janta ji. Bahut tez!
I think the one who is probably laughing his ass off is Osama Bin Laden.
He killed 3,000 people, and 5 years later he's pretty much ignored because the blame was put on somebody else.
He killed 3,000 people, and 5 years later he's pretty much ignored because the blame was put on somebody else.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bob The Shrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Anyway, the whole point of my original post was to try and point out that no one country should be able to claim that they did the most to win the war. [/QUOTE]
Agreed, Bob. But I do think it's strange how all of you argue how Russia did more, or France, or Britain... no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They ran like little rats after that. And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives, of which had already taken more than their share of casulties. And would the US had been able to help had the Soviets not been taking the brunt of the Nazi regime?
Agreed, Bob. But I do think it's strange how all of you argue how Russia did more, or France, or Britain... no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They ran like little rats after that. And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives, of which had already taken more than their share of casulties. And would the US had been able to help had the Soviets not been taking the brunt of the Nazi regime?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bob The Shrek wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Anyway, the whole point of my original post was to try and point out that no one country should be able to claim that they did the most to win the war. [/QUOTE]
Agreed, Bob. But I do think it's strange how all of you argue how Russia did more, or France, or Britain... no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They ran like little rats after that. And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives, of which had already taken more than their share of casulties. And would the US had been able to help had the Soviets not been taking the brunt of the Nazi regime?[/QUOTE]
You are extremely daft in your response. I'll break it up into segments, as the whole bulk of stupidity is too much to swallow at once.
"no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima."
Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender. It was just to scare the Soviets.
"They ran like little rats after that."
Apart from the racist connotations (I can't expect any better from you), it's also extremely stupid. They had lost already. No one 'ran' after the bombs.
"And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives"
How? They weren't taking the bulk of the Japanese force at that point. They were too busy being attacked by the British in Greece (yes, England fought its ally).
Please, make sure you've got your history straight before you argue either side.
Agreed, Bob. But I do think it's strange how all of you argue how Russia did more, or France, or Britain... no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They ran like little rats after that. And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives, of which had already taken more than their share of casulties. And would the US had been able to help had the Soviets not been taking the brunt of the Nazi regime?[/QUOTE]
You are extremely daft in your response. I'll break it up into segments, as the whole bulk of stupidity is too much to swallow at once.
"no one mentions the war really ended when the US exploded the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima."
Apart from the fact that the bombs fell the other way 'round: Japan had already prepared an unconditional surrender, but the Americans didn't know that yet, so the first bomb fell. The second one came AFTER the surrender. It was just to scare the Soviets.
"They ran like little rats after that."
Apart from the racist connotations (I can't expect any better from you), it's also extremely stupid. They had lost already. No one 'ran' after the bombs.
"And it saved a whole lot of Soviet lives"
How? They weren't taking the bulk of the Japanese force at that point. They were too busy being attacked by the British in Greece (yes, England fought its ally).
Please, make sure you've got your history straight before you argue either side.
The Hiroshima bombings in August 1945 saved millions of the Soviet lives, of course! Especially since the war was over for us in May 1945.....
Italy, Japan and other "nazi friends" weren't as important as Germany was for us. The Russian contribution to a victory over Japan was very insignificant in comparison with the contribution of the USA (and I'm not afraid to say it and I'm not hiding that truth behind "we all did that" philosophy...)
Who wrote your history books? McCarthy?
Italy, Japan and other "nazi friends" weren't as important as Germany was for us. The Russian contribution to a victory over Japan was very insignificant in comparison with the contribution of the USA (and I'm not afraid to say it and I'm not hiding that truth behind "we all did that" philosophy...)
Who wrote your history books? McCarthy?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Who wrote your history books? McCarthy?[/QUOTE]
I fear you may be closer to the truth than you think.
Who wrote your history books? McCarthy?[/QUOTE]
I fear you may be closer to the truth than you think.