Auschwitz

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

America had and and continues to have some of the most courageous troops in the world

Opinion.

Their skill, dedication and effectiveness is admired the world round

Skill? You mean their weapons.

Dedication? You mean their patriotism.

Effectiveness? They aren't that effective.

Around the world? If the world begins & ends on America's shores.

In two world wars they have tipped the balance in the Allied favour

I agree. But how much of an achievment was it really?

America was a fresh pugilist entering a fight between sluggers who were hurt & tired.

And, along with the dollar, this freshness was all they really brought. And they hesistated for a long, long time....

In WWII especially, the U.S. Army proved the resiliance and sheer toughness of their troops

Did they? Maybe so.

Then again, if the Americans did this, expect the French, Brits, Dutch & the rest to have proven this two-fold. Then again, only the Americans were doubted & there was fire to be found near this smoke, although I agree that it was not found in this case.

Despite this bit of recognition I still stand by my comment that the American troops were dealing with a different set of parameters than the rest of the armies involved.

For a time Hitler believed American soldiers to be the "weak-links" in the Allied war effort

Out of the 'big' nations - Britain, America, France & Russia - Russia was the weak link.

But, as we both know, this was due to lack of equipment, direction, food etc. Had it not been for this Hitler would've been right IMO.

The invasion of France and later Battle of the Bulge proved this ludicrous assumption wrong.

How so? Because they sent in large numbers?

All evidence points to the fact that the majority of U.S. troops were of the highest calibre

Simply untrue.

 

[Silleone]

damn, calcuo schooling the fucking out of zero cool, also lmao at zero cool saying "Their skill, dedication and effectiveness is admired the world round", aahahahahaaha, that shit sounds like some kind of rambo crap.

 

[Zero Cool]

Opinion.

Skill? You mean their weapons.

Dedication? You mean their patriotism.

Effectiveness? They aren't that effective.

Around the world? If the world begins & ends on America's shores.

I refer to their achievements in cosistently facing huge obstacles and overcoming them e.g. D-Day, Iwo Jima, Korea etc. To say American troops aren't that effective is blatently incorrect. American troops are argubaly the most effective in the world. Their training and technical ability is rarely matched.

Did they? Maybe so.

Then again, if the Americans did this, expect the French, Brits, Dutch & the rest to have proven this two-fold. Then again, only the Americans were doubted & there was fire to be found near this smoke, although I agree that it was not found here.

Despite this bit of recognition I still stand by my comment that the American troops were dealing with a different set of parameters than the rest of the armies involved.

What?

Out of the 'big' nations - Britain, America, France & Russia - Russia was the weak link.

But, as we both know, this was due to lack of equipment, direction, food etc. Had it not been for this Hitler would've been right IMO.

Notice I said soldiers not armies

How so? Because they sent in large numbers?

No because they fought courageously and skillfully against a determined opponent. In the Battle of the Bulge especially American troops faced harsh resistance and overcame it with valour.

Simply untrue.

I'm struggling to reason as to why you view American troops in such a dim-light. From Belleau Wood all the way up to the present day American soldiers have been widely regarded as some of the best on the planet.

 

[Zero Cool]

damn, calcuo schooling the fucking out of zero cool, also lmao at zero cool saying "Their skill, dedication and effectiveness is admired the world round", aahahahahaaha, that shit sounds like some kind of rambo crap.

Unfortunately Silleone is the type of infantile reject this board is currently plauged with

 

[Pain Of Depth]

damn , it's horrible kids aren't being taught about this in school I think ever kid in europe learns this in school ...

what angers me the most to' , is that America & it's allies didn't destroy the train routes to auschitz & other camps , they knew about it!

 

[Silleone]

Unfortunately Silleone is the type of infantile reject this board is currently plauged with

lol, "infantile", did u just read that up in the dictionary, anyway, your shit bout American troops being regarded as some of the best on the planet is bullshit, its your opinion, if anything, i think the world views them as idiots.

edit

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I refer to their achievements in cosistently facing huge obstacles and overcoming them e.g. D-Day, Iwo Jima, Korea etc. To say American troops aren't that effective is blatently incorrect. American troops are argubaly the most effective in the world. Their training and technical ability is rarely matched.

D-Day? And there I was thiking it was an Allied effort....Britain & Canada didn't help? If they did, as we know, then America ddn't exactly overcome a 'huge obstacle'....they had a helping hand.

Iwo Jima? Fair enough, America were up against a sturdy enemy with a good position but America sent in over 50,000 marines - some say nearing 70,000 - & the Japs had about 22,000. Of these 22,000, about 200 were taken prisoner indicating the Japs were fighting to the death as per usual. While this can be seen as a plus for American effectiveness - & I agree, to an extent - you can also see how the American soldier pales in comparison to the Japanese with around 25,000 American casualties & around 7,000 dead.

As for the emboldened text, this is what I have been saying - American military 'superiority' comes from their weapons rather than the men themselves. If you said that & nothing more I would agree with you fully.

What?

Read again.

Notice I said soldiers not armies

OK. Then Hitler was right. There is no way in hell that American soldiers fought with as much heart as the Russians. Everything was on the line for the Russians.

You can say that American soldiers had better training, but minus the advance weapons that don't mean shit. You said yourself, you were talking of 'soldiers' so surely you agree here.

No because they fought courageously and skillfully against a determined opponent. In the Battle of the Bulge especially American troops faced harsh resistance and overcame it with valour.

And this proves.....? The Russians came up against obstacles just as harsh. Tell me again why the Americans fighting like you say, proves that they are not the weakest link? If they aren't the weakest, then presumably someone else is? Who?

I'm struggling to reason as to why you view American troops in such a dim-light. From Belleau Wood all the way up to the present day American soldiers have been widely regarded as some of the best on the planet.

It isn't the individual American soldier I have a problem with. It is their army as a whole, their government & people's clouded views of their achievments & stature.

Anyways, regardded as some of the best?

By who? Besides yourself......

Remember if you want to praise their weaponry, do so.

Don't use it as a blanket to elevate the American soldier.

 

[Silleone]

zero, why are u so patriotic?

 

[Zero Cool]

D-Day? And there I was thiking it was an Allied effort....Britain & Canada didn't help? If they did, as we know, then America ddn't exactly overcome a 'huge obstacle'....they had a helping hand.

Iwo Jima? Fair enough, America were up against a sturdy enemy with a good position but America sent in over 50,000 marines - some say nearing 70,000 - & the Japs had about 22,000. Of these 22,000, about 200 were taken prisoner indicating the Japs were fighting to the death as per usual. While this can be seen as a plus for American effectiveness - & I agree, to an extent - you can also see how the American soldier pales in comparison to the Japanese with around 25,000 American casualties & around 7,000 dead.

The debate is on the quality of American troops therefore I refer only to them. Behind every weapon must come a man. In every conflict that they have been involved in, the American soldier has proved himself to be of the highest calibre. Attributing American military success solely to their weaponry is totally incorrect. While clearly this has played a major role the soldiers behind them are amongst the toughest in the world, every conflict from Korea to Vietnam to present day Iraq testifies to this.

As for the emboldened text, this is what I have been saying - American military 'superiority' comes from their weapons rather than the men themselves. If you said that & nothing more I would agree with you fully.

Simply untrue. In WWI the Americans had no significant weapons advantages (they were infact at a disadvantage against the Kaiser's well-trained Shocktruppen) and still emerged victorious. Again in WWII without significant hand-to-hand advantages they again emerged victorious. Their opponents were all of the highest calibre. It's clear from any sensible reading of the situation that the Americans success cannot just be attributed to their weaponry.

OK. Then Hitler was right. There is no way in hell that American soldiers fought with as much heart as the Russians. Everything was on the line for the Russians.

You can say that American soldiers had better training, but minus the advance weapons that don't mean shit. You said yourself, you were talking of 'soldiers' so surely you agree here.

The Russian was a courageous soldier I agree. But let's not forget in every campaign until the winter of 1941, the Wehrmact systematically bludgeoned the Red Army. When America entered the war and Russia began recieving significant Allied military aid then did their fortunes improve. Without Allied (principally American) help Hitler's armies would have conquered the Red Army and achieved the desired lebensraum in the east. As an aside the best troops in WWII were those of the Waffen SS not the Russians.

And this proves.....? The Russians came up against obstacles just as harsh. Tell me again why the Americans fighting like you say, proves that they are not the weakest link? If they aren't the weakest, then presumably someone else is? Who?

By who? Besides yourself......

Remember if you want to praise their weaponry, do so.

Don't use it as a blanket to elevate the American soldier.

I use nothing to blanket the calibre of the American soldier as his success speaks for itself. The Russians came up against a harsh opponent in the Wehrmacht however it was an opponent on the back foot and being punished from all sides. The Russians also possessed a seemingly endless supply of men. One on one the Red Army proved they were little match for the superior German forces. No matter what way you try and spin it, American troops in every conflict from the War of Independence to the present day have proved themselves of the highest quality. To pretend otherwise is a misconstrual of the facts.

 

[Morris]

Did you forget America's policy of isolationism? They weren't supposed to be getting into anything......but they'd happily make money off it.

It had nothing to do with money. We let the Allies indebt themselves to us from the beginning of the war because we had sided with Britain for the past 100 years or so.

Remember also, like I said, America was selling goods to Germany.....yeah they sure helped the Allies there. Then Pearl Harbour happened, America got worried & joined the war.

The United States hadn't been selling military equipment to Germany for 4 decades. The United States was part of an Allied effort to keep Germany's economy afloat during the reparations after World War I, but Germany wasn't allowed to have a standing military after the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. None of us were sending them military supplies: the Germans broke the treaty by manufacturing their own arms, training their civilians for military purposes and conscripting a mobilized force of about 5 million soldiers.

Pay America back?? I want you to specify if you're talking about repayment of debts incurred through purchase of materials etc. - ie. during war - or if you're talking about the Martial Plan.

I'm talking about the repayment of debts incurred through the purchase of materials during the war. The Marshall Plan went to the reconstruction of all of Europe, not just our Allies.

There were instances of Allied deficit spending for our materials which will never be paid back. FDR did a deal by which he sent various battleships to the British in exchange for air bases on the North American continent that neither of us had any use regardless.

Let me tell you now though, the Allies paid America in money & blood. I mean, if America had supported the Allies from the start instead of just when she got scared, the war wouldn't have been as devastating & these 'debts' would not have been incurred.

I've already demonstrated how the United States was both militarily and economically supporting the Allies by 1940. Besides, Hitler had overrun Western Europe by June of 1940.

Moreover, if you tried to explain to any military leader how they could go from peacetime in America to conscripting millions, shipping them across the Atlantic and trying to land them against the Nazis in the span of 10 months from September 39 to June 40, they'd ask you if pigs could fly after they laughed their asses off at you. It took years of planning, the opening of an Italian front and the Soviet-German front just to successfully land 1 million men across a couple miles wide English Channel. If only things were so easy.

If you're upset that Hitler was allowed to overrun Western Europe, you should be mad primarily at the Russians for signing the nonagression pact that they knew Hitler was going to break by 1942 at the latest.

And how can I do this? Maybe because Russians were charging down their enemy with anything they could lay their hands on, while America decimates areas before sending in any of their 'heroic' citizens.

So you want to prove your heroism by sacrificing troops? When the Russians got within artillery range of Berlin, they stayed back and bombarded Berlin with artillery 24 hours a day for 14 days with an artillery line of over 50 miles. You want to talk about flattening a region before sending in the troops?

If you know anything about the art of war, you know that the defense has an inherent advantage. It's completely senseless to send men into what you call "heroic" charges if they can't carry the position. Thus you clear as much as possible with artillery and airplanes. Every nation in World War II fought in that manner.

Oh right I get it, you were trying to tell me that America doesn't classify oil as a 'military material'. OK, great point.

We traded oil to Japan, not Germany, during the 1930s. Moreover, Japan wasn't part of the European war, or part of the war at all, until Pearl Harbor. By the time Japan had committed to the Axis in the Tripartite treaty, we had embargoed them, mostly due to their presence in Manchuria and China.

LOL!! Put that down to the inadequency of American troops who constantly overestimate their worth while underestimating their enemy.

Actually, put that down to the fact that the Japanese fought to the death, had heavily fortified the Pacific islands, didn't hesitate to commit suicide etc. If the American troops were inadequate, what's that say about the Nazi and Japanese forces that they defeated?

It's not coincidence America fail time & time again & take mass (military) casualties whenever they 'fight'.

The United States suffered over 500,000 casualties in a war fought completely on the continents of Africa, Europe and the Pacific Ocean. Hell, the United States suffered 1 million casualties fighting itself in the 1860s, hundreds of thousands in a limited time during World War I etc.

And there I was, thinking we were discussing America in World War II, not America before they joined the war.

Are you debating that Americans were not fighting in World War II by 1940? Hell, we had Americans fighting for China against the Japanese in the mid 30s. We had Americans fighting for the RAF against the Luftwaffe by Fall 1940.

America can't take the credit for some individuals having heart, balls & morals.

It was an Administration policy by 1940 to protect Allied convoys. They weren't individual decisions.

Remind me of the 3 fronts on which America was fighting.

American troops fought in the Pacific theater from 1941-1945.
We fought in North Africa in 1942-1943, with a corps under Eisenhower in the West helping to squeeze Rommel's Afrikan Corps off the continent with British General Montgomery from the East.
American troops opened a front through the invasion of Sicily and Italy from late 1943 until the end of the war.
American troops helped the RAF in Western Europe, and obviously played a fairly large role in Operation Overlord and the invasion in 1944. Outside of the initial British soldiers retreating across the Channel from Dunkirk in 1940, the United States had more soldiers fight on the continent than the British.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Behind every weapon must come a man

True, but even a coward can fire a gun.

In every conflict, before and after WWII the American soldier has proved himself to be of the highest calibre. Attributing American military success solely to their weaponry is totally incorrect. While clearly this has played a major role the soldiers behind them are amongst the toughest in the world, every conflict from Korea to Vietnam to present day Iraq testifies to this.

Highest calibre? In your opinion.

Now you are either putting words in my mouth, or making very loose assumptions.

When did I say that weaponry was the sole factor? I didn't so retract that.

I don't see how you can gauge a soldier's toughness when he has such a big advantage over his enemy.

Sorry for missing out Korea in my earlier post, I had meant to answer it's been brought into the discussion.

I was going go into something but first I want to know for sure, do you think Korea was a victory for America or her troops?

As for Vietnam, American troops & their commanders were overconfident, underestimating their enemy - many have testified to this.

Due to the this - & the obvious territorial advantages of the VietCong - American soldiers were tactically outclassed by peasants. On a grander scale than the Japanese did at Iwo Jima, the American soldier is made to look significantly poorer in light of the VietCong.

And we all know how well they're doing in Iraq.....

It is little problem for a country of America's strength & wealth to overthrow a regime, to keep hold of a country is something they just aren't skilled enough to do.

Simply untrue. In WWI the Americans had no significant weapons advantages (they were infact at a disadvantage against the Kaiser's well-trained Shocktroops) and still emerged victorious. Again in WWII without significant hand-to-hand advantages they emerged victorious. Their opponents were of the highest calibre. It's clear from any sensible reading of the situation that the Americans success cannot just be attributed to their weaponry

Sensible reading would tell you that I am not attributing American success strictly to their weaponry - but it is by far the biggest factor.

I would like you to elaborate on the disadvantages the Americans faced.

The Russian was a courageous soldier I agree. But let's not forget in every campaign until the winter of 1941, the Wehrmact systematically bludgeoned the Red Army. When America entered the war and Russia began recieving significant Allied military aid then did their fortunes improve. Without Allied (principally American) help Hitler's armies would have conquered the Red Army and achieved the desired lebensraum in the east. As an aside the best troops in WWII were those of the Waffen SS not the Russians.

The Russians did suffer great loss, but in spite of this they kept going. Like I said before, with little to no equipment they marched to their death. They were significantly more tough than the American soldier.

Do you mean to prove my point? When the dollar comes into play, Russian troops become more effective. Think what US troops would be without the dollar behind them.

Would he have conquered the Red Army? I agree that Hitler had a very good chance but that is an assumption & one which, given the Russian mindstate & leadership, is still only a guess. I think that if the Red Army fell, Russia would have had to have lost nearly all her men & women & possibly children too. If there were shortages in the army, you can be sure they would be shored up. I mean, as they stood, the Russians were already fighting like peasants against tanks. Basically, they would have died before being conquered & up against that, no-one can be assured victory. And if you are looking for living space, razed ground won't be too suitable.

I never mentioned who was the best. That is another argument &, indeed, another thread.

The Russians came up against a harsh opponent in the Wehrmacht however it was an opponent on the back foot and being punished from all sides

And I suppose the Americans - fresh in the war - came up against soldiers who weren't weary & soldiers who were being welcomed from all sides?

The Russians were fighting the same oppenent for longer, harder & with lesser equipment.

The Russians also possessed a seemingly endless supply of men. One on one the Red Army proved they were little match for the superior German forces

Endless supply of men but no weapons. Testimony to their spirit that their peasants fought as they did.

Of course they were little match, they didn't have an arsenal.

No matter what way you try and spin it, American troops in every conflict from the War of Independence to the present day have proved themselves of the highest quality. To pretend otherwise is a misconstrual of the facts.

By 'highest quality', do you mean they are the niftiest with the latest weapon, particularly when faced with ill-equipped armies, tired armies or poorly trained peasant armies?

 

[Zero Cool]

Highest calibre? In your opinion.

Now you are either putting words in my mouth, or making very loose assumptions.

When did I say that weaponry was the sole factor? I didn't so retract that.

That's what you seemed to be implying. If not, I apologize.

I don't see how you can gauge a soldier's toughness when he has such a big advantage over his enemy.

Sorry for missing out Korea in my earlier post, I had meant to answer it's been brought into the discussion.

I was going go into something but first I want to know for sure, do you think Korea was a victory for America or her troops?

As for Vietnam, American troops & their commanders were overconfident, underestimating their enemy - many have testified to this.

Due to the this - & the obvious territorial advantages of the VietCong - American soldiers were tactically outclassed by peasants. On a grander scale than the Japanese did at Iwo Jima, the American soldier is made to look significantly poorer in light of the VietCong.

And we all know how well they're doing in Iraq.....

It is little problem for a country of America's strength & wealth to overthrow a regime, to keep hold of a country is something they just aren't skilled enough to do.

This is an endless circle. Your bias against America is blinding you to reality. As Morris has said if American troops are inferior what does this say about the opposition they defeated? They have more than enough skill to keep a hold of Iraq and from a military standpoint are doing an excellent job (under 2000 casulaties in nearly two years constitues a victory in my book), underestimate the American troops resiliance at your peril.

Sensible reading would tell you that I am not attributing American success strictly to their weaponry - but it is by far the biggest factor.

I would like you to elaborate on the disadvantages the Americans faced.

The German troops who faced the Americans (der Shocktruppen) were battle-hardened soldiers with great knowledge of France and it's terrain. They were amongst the highest quality soldiers in WWI. The Americans on the other hand were brand new to the war and so struggled to adapt. For the first few weeks they were brushed aside with relative ease. However they battled through and at Belleau Wood proved their effectiveness by stopping the German advance in it's tracks. They then battled on and helped drive the Germans back to the Hindenburg Line. If this doesen't prove the quality of the American soldier, what does?

The Russians did suffer great loss, but in spite of this they kept going. Like I said before, with little to no equipment they marched to their death. They were significantly more tough than the American soldier.

If this was so even an understrength German army would have annihilated the Russians. The Siberian shock troops who faced the Germans in winter 1941 were among the best equipped of the war, it was these troops who played a major role in pushing back the German advance in 1941 and advancing on Germany in 1944-'45. With the aforementioned Allied aid the Red Army was a well equipped force, not the bow and arrow pesants you seem to be implying.

Do you mean to prove my point? When the dollar comes into play, Russian troops become more effective. Think what US troops would be without the dollar behind them.

That is conjecture. The U.S. Army possesses great weponry and it's soldiers use this to the maximum advantage therefore they are high quality soldiers. How can you judge them on that which they do not have? It is useless to debate what the American soldier would be like without the dollar, the American Army's success is not made up solely of overwhelming military superiority as you seem to think. War is a battle of the mind not the brute. The Americans have consistently proved they are more than adept at it.

By 'highest quality', do you mean they are the niftiest with the latest weapon, particularly when faced with ill-equipped armies, tired armies or poorly trained peasant armies?

As has been pointed out in both world wars the Americans did not face ill-equiped peasents but strong military forces with more or less similar weapons. In both cases (Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, Battle of the Bulge etc.) their mettle shone through. The American is not the donkey you are projecting but rather a well-trained, well-equipped, formidable fighting force.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

It had nothing to do with money. We let the Allies indebt themselves to us from the beginning of the war because we had sided with Britain for the past 100 years or so.

Oh my God!

I have never heard of anyone who denied that America sold - that would be SOLD - materials to the Allies in order to make money. If money had nothing to do with it, why didn't the Allies receive the weapons free of charge? Or at least at a charge which gave no profit?

The United States hadn't been selling military equipment to Germany for 4 decades. The United States was part of an Allied effort to keep Germany's economy afloat during the reparations after World War I, but Germany wasn't allowed to have a standing military after the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. None of us were sending them military supplies: the Germans broke the treaty by manufacturing their own arms, training their civilians for military purposes and conscripting a mobilized force of about 5 million soldiers.

Excuse me, when did 'goods' equaly 'military equipment'? And like I said, oil.

Also, there's no point adding bits of information like 'conscription' & the 'Treaty of Versailles' to fill out your posts.

The latter is useless as everyone knows about this & your mentioning it implies you are trying to school me with something of little relevance.

As for the ToV, since when has a piece of paper stopped America doing what she wants? And with lucrative monies involved, the capitalist machine goes into overdrive.

I'm talking about the repayment of debts incurred through the purchase of materials during the war. The Marshall Plan went to the reconstruction of all of Europe, not just our Allies.

Like I said, the Allies are paying heavily to this day.

'Reconstruction all of Europe'? LOL!!

I suppose you include Russia in that? Ha! That was a snide offer & everyone knows it.

Regardless, that 'aid' came with conditions. You do know that America dictated what countries spent that money on don't you?

And America looks out for who? Exactly.

That money went to fund projects America felt would benefit her.

There were instances of Allied deficit spending for our materials which will never be paid back. FDR did a deal by which he sent various battleships to the British in exchange for air bases on the North American continent that neither of us had any use regardless.

Air bases of no use? What, were they non-existant? There is no such thing as a useless functional air base. And if they were of no use why did they take them?

And a deal where 50 old Destroyers - note the 'old' - were given in exchange for eight air bases isn't exactly the deal of the century.

I've already demonstrated how the United States was both militarily and economically supporting the Allies by 1940. Besides, Hitler had overrun Western Europe by June of 1940.

'Supported'? Yes. 'Raped' could also be applied in a long term assessment of the situation.

Moreover, if you tried to explain to any military leader how they could go from peacetime in America to conscripting millions, shipping them across the Atlantic and trying to land them against the Nazis in the span of 10 months from September 39 to June 40, they'd ask you if pigs could fly after they laughed their asses off at you. It took years of planning, the opening of an Italian front and the Soviet-German front just to successfully land 1 million men across a couple miles wide English Channel. If only things were so easy.

I can't remember saying that America were not prepared for war. I guess that nullifies this whole section.

I will say though, that the war had been going on for a while then &, keeping an eye on the situation, obviously America will have made preparations. Add to this the fact that - as you have indicated with your points about American pilots aiding the RAF - America's population was aware of the situation & you have people all set to join up. I mean, the soldiers who wanted to go, will have just been waiting for the word. Civilians who wanted to go, will have jsut been waiting for the word. America had a ready army & when coupled with US propaganda, the Americans will've signed up swiftly.

If you're upset that Hitler was allowed to overrun Western Europe, you should be mad primarily at the Russians for signing the nonagression pact that they knew Hitler was going to break by 1942 at the latest.

Why would I be upset?

There you go again, mentioning things that everything is aware of & hold little relevance to refuting my points.

So you want to prove your heroism by sacrificing troops? When the Russians got within artillery range of Berlin, they stayed back and bombarded Berlin with artillery 24 hours a day for 14 days with an artillery line of over 50 miles. You want to talk about flattening a region before sending in the troops?

I'd rather talk about 20 million dead Russians. They had suffered a lot, were weakened, weary & ill-equipped. Plus, the Russians were wary of taking more losses as they felt the Allies - particularly the Americans - might just plough through Germany & straight into Russia. Something which later proved to be not so far-fetched with the admissions from US generals that they had supported this route of action although, ultimately, it wasn't given the go ahead.

If you know anything about the art of war, you know that the defense has an inherent advantage. It's completely senseless to send men into what you call "heroic" charges if they can't carry the position. Thus you clear as much as possible with artillery and airplanes. Every nation in World War II fought in that manner.

Is it senseless? Normally I would agree but unfortunately the Russians didn't have the luxury of such weapons & were faced with a merciless enemy. Sitting back, would mean defeat. In this war of attrition, numbers & heart was all the Russians really had. They consciously slowed down the Nazi advance with their blood & that is 'heroic'.

We traded oil to Japan, not Germany, during the 1930s. Moreover, Japan wasn't part of the European war, or part of the war at all, until Pearl Harbor. By the time Japan had committed to the Axis in the Tripartite treaty, we had embargoed them, mostly due to their presence in Manchuria and China.

American businesses did trade with Germany.

Henry Ford. Not American Government, but aided the Nazis. Prescott Bush is another.

Actually, put that down to the fact that the Japanese fought to the death, had heavily fortified the Pacific islands, didn't hesitate to commit suicide etc. If the American troops were inadequate, what's that say about the Nazi and Japanese forces that they defeated?

The Nazis had fought a long war on several fronts. They were tired & stretched - physically & financially. The Japanese were also fighting quite a few enemies & were not as tehcnologically advanced as the Americans.

The United States suffered over 500,000 casualties in a war fought completely on the continents of Africa, Europe and the Pacific Ocean. Hell, the United States suffered 1 million casualties fighting itself in the 1860s, hundreds of thousands in a limited time during World War I etc.

Exactly.

Are you debating that Americans were not fighting in World War II by 1940? Hell, we had Americans fighting for China against the Japanese in the mid 30s. We had Americans fighting for the RAF against the Luftwaffe by Fall 1940.

If I'm not mistaken America joined the war in December 1941? Sure you had been fighting the Japanese but they weren't part of WWII at the time. And yeah, individual Americans were fighting - we have established that & I have given credit where it's due.

It was an Administration policy by 1940 to protect Allied convoys. They weren't individual decisions.

American pilots were sent to Britain to protect Allied convoys? Elaborate.

American troops fought in the Pacific theater from 1941-1945.
We fought in North Africa in 1942-1943, with a corps under Eisenhower in the West helping to squeeze Rommel's Afrikan Corps off the continent with British General Montgomery from the East.
American troops opened a front through the invasion of Sicily and Italy from late 1943 until the end of the war.
American troops helped the RAF in Western Europe, and obviously played a fairly large role in Operation Overlord and the invasion in 1944. Outside of the initial British soldiers retreating across the Channel from Dunkirk in 1940, the United States had more soldiers fight on the continent than the British.

Tell me which of these fronts Britain wasn't fighting on?

 

[Zero Cool]

Is it senseless? Normally I would agree but unfortunately the Russians didn't have the luxury of such weapons & were faced with a merciless enemy. Sitting back, would mean defeat. In this war of attrition, numbers & heart was all the Russians really had. They consciously slowed down the Nazi advance with their blood & that is 'heroic'.

You sound like a page straight out of Stalin's propaganda manual. As has been said, with proper harnessing of their economy and Allied aid the Russians were not the bow and arrow peasants you are making out but a formidable fighing force. The Russian air force was far superior to the Germans' in the final years of the war and helped to flatten cities such as Berlin. Refrain from misconstruing the facts to help prove your point.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

This is an endless circle. Your bias against America is blinding you to reality. As Morris has said if American troops are inferior what does this say about the opposition they defeated? They have more than enough skill to keep a hold of Iraq and from a military standpoint are doing an excellent job (under 2000 casulaties in nearly two years constitues a victory in my book), underestimate the American troops resiliance at your peril.

Take away the dollar & you have........very little.

The German troops who faced the Americans (der Shocktruppen) were battle-hardened soldiers with great knowledge of France and it's terrain. They were amongst the highest quality soldiers in WWI. The Americans on the other hand were brand new to the war and so struggled to adapt. For the first few weeks they were brushed aside with relative ease. However they battled through and at Belleau Wood proved their effectiveness by stopping the German advance in it's tracks. They then battled on and helped drive the Germans back to the Hindenburg Line. If this doesen't prove the quality of the American soldier, what does?

How long had the Germans been fighting for at this time?

I would also like to know the numbers involved on both sides?

What positions were the Americans fighting at, at this point?

Like I said before, the Russians stopped the Nazi advance with greater odds against them.

If this was so even an understrength German army would have annihilated the Russians. The Siberian shock troops who faced the Germans in winter 1941 were among the best equipped of the war, it was these troops who played a major role in pushing back the German advance in 1941 and advancing on Germany in 1944-'45. With the aforementioned Allied aid the Red Army was a well equipped force, not the bow and arrow pesants you seem to be implying.

I think I said that the Russians 'marched to their death.'

That is conjecture. The U.S. Army possesses great weponry and it's soldiers use this to the maximum advantage therefore they are high quality soldiers. How can you judge them on that which they do not have? It is useless to debate what the American soldier would be like without the dollar, a good Army is not made up solely of overwhelming military superiority as you seem to think. War is a battle of the mind not the brute. The Americans have consistently proved they are more than adept at it.

Do the soldiers use it to the maximum? Often when a country has better weaponry, only their soldiers can be used to judge how good that weapon can be. Who knows, had the Russians had it, they may've proved to be better than the Americans. My point is, this statement is frivolous.

A good army shouldn't have that much to do with technology, but when you are the top dog, it tends to.

A 'battle of the mind'? True....unless you are technologically advacne - which I know may be construed as confirming your point but I think you were talking about tactics & such.

And America proved how adept they are didn't they? In Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Cuba &, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

Unless their tactics are to diethen they aren't all that.

You make it seem as if the Red Army were the equivilant of the Abyssinian army, this is wholly untrue. While they my not have equalled the Germans military might they certainly possessed a military infastructure, with Allied help this grew quite formidable.

It isn't the Red Army itself that I admire, it is their will & mindstate. It also has to do with how people build up the US Army who, IMO, could be seen to make the Red Army look far greater than they were.

As has been pointed out in both world wars the Americans did not face ill-equiped peasents but strong military forces with more or less similar weapons. In both cases (Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, Battle of the Bulge etc.) their mettle shone through.

You mentioned Vietnam - they were peasants. As for Japan, yeah that mushroom cloud showed equality in arms.

The American is not the donkey you are projecting but rather a well-trained, well-equipped, formidable fighting force.

'Well-trained'? Check.

'Well-equipped'? Triple check.

'Formidable'? Check.

Yes, I agree, & have mentioned explicity or alluded to, all of these.

My point is that without the second, the first would be useless & the third would be almost entirely false.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

You sound like a page straight out of Stalin's propaganda manual. As has been said, with proper harnessing of their economy and Allied aid the Russians were not the bow and arrow peasants you are making out but a formidable fighing force. The Russian air force was far superior to the Germans' in the final years of the war and helped to flatten the cities of Eastern Germany in early 1945. Refrain from misconstruing the facts to help prove your point.

I have affintiy for the works of Stalin? No.

Every Russian soldier had a weapon? No.

Those that did had the latest models? No.

Russia was swimming with ammunition? No.

Their economy was fine & hadn't been damaged by the Nazi's 'scorch' policy nor the great loss of life? No.

I said that the Russians were using 'bow & arrows'? No.

I ever said that the Red Army was anything less than formidabble? No.

The Russians had lost more men than Britain & America combined? Yes.

 

[Zero Cool]

How long had the Germans been fighting for at this time?

I would also like to know the numbers involved on both sides?

What positions were the Americans fighting at, at this point?

Like I said before, the Russians stopped the Nazi advance with greater odds against them.

The German troops were freshly engaged soldiers from the Eastern Front as Russia had signed an armistice in early 1918. The Battle was vicious and on the first day alone, the casualties were the highest in Marine Corps history. After Marines were repeatedly urged to turn back by retreating French forces, Marine Captain Lloyd Williams of the 5th Marines uttered the now-famous retort "Retreat, hell. We just got here". Overall, the woods were taken by the Marines a total of six times before they could successfully expel the Germans. They fought off more than four divisions of Germans, oftentimes reduced to using only their bayonets or fists in hand-to-hand combat. The battle was vicious and it was only the American soldiers mettle which enabled them to win through. Hardly an example of the inherent inferiorty of the American soldier, is it?

Do the soldiers use it to the maximum? Often when a country has better weaponry, only their soldiers can be used to judge how good that weapon can be. Who knows, had the Russians had it, they may've proved to be better than the Americans. My point is, this statement is frivolous.

When the Russians properly harnessed their resources they did have excellent equippment and used it to their advantage, therefore your assertion of them heroically wading through blood with little weapons to help is an embellishment to say the least.

'Well-trained'? Check.

'Well-equipped'? Triple check.

'Formidable'? Check.

Yes, I agree, & have mentioned explicity or alluded to, all of these.

My point is that without the second, the first would be useless & the third would be almost entirely false.

This is the reality of the situation, American troops are among the best trained, best equipped and most formidable in the world therefore they are amongst the highest calibre soldiers.

 

[Zero Cool]

I have affintiy for the works of Stalin? No.

When did I ever imply such a thing? You sound and you are, are two very different things.

Every Russian soldier had a weapon? No.

In the advance on Berlin every Russian soldier was more than equipped, it was while the Russians were ill-prepeared (pre-winter 1941) for the German advance that there was a defect in supplies.

Those that did had the latest models? No.

Most Russian equippment was of the highest quality. The infamous T-34 was the tank of WWII.

Russia was swimming with ammunition? No.

Again you are harking back to when the Russians were not prepared for the German invasion. Once the Russian economy was harnessed and Allied aid flowed in there was no shortage of ammunition.

Their economy was fine & hadn't been damaged by the Nazi's 'scorch' policy nor the great loss of life? No.

War infastructure was re-located to the Urals where the Nazi's couldn't touch it. The destruction of the Russian lands was more of a spur for the Russians to invade Germany proper than anything else.

I said that the Russians were using 'bow & arrows'? No.

I said that's the essence of what you were implying, note the difference.

I ever said that the Red Army was anything less than formidabble? No.

I never said you did.

The Russians had lost more men than Britain & America combined? Yes.

True. But was either America or Britain invaded? No.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

The German troops were freshly engaged soldiers from the Eastern Front as Russia had signed an armistice in early 1918. The Battle was vicious and on the first day alone, the casualties were the highest in Marine Corps history. After Marines were repeatedly urged to turn back by retreating French forces, Marine Captain Lloyd Williams of the 5th Marines uttered the now-famous retort "Retreat, hell. We just got here". Overall, the woods were taken by the Marines a total of six times before they could successfully expel the Germans. They fought off more than four divisions of Germans, oftentimes reduced to using only their bayonets or fists in hand-to-hand combat. The battle was vicious and it was only the American soldiers mettle which enabled them to win through. Hardly an example of the inherent inferiorty of the American soldier, is it?

Told you it's hard to hold a position lol.

'Inherent inferiority'? You make it sound like I called them retarded, which I didn't. And I was open to this development & I take your word for it.

That said, if you could answer my questions I'd be happier.

When the Russians properly harnessed their resources they did have excellent equippment and used it to their advantage, therefore your assertion of them heroically wading through blood with little weapons to help is an embellishment to say the least.

i think you took my words out of context. In the instance in which you quoted me, I was actually attempting to be neutral.

Altough I doubt the Russians had the latest models, weapons to go all around, plentiful ammunition & the correct training.

And your point is?

Check what you quoted me on. My last sentence ebgins with the words, 'My point is....'

This is the reality of the situation, the American troops are among the best trained best equipped and most formidable therefore they are among the highest calibre soldiers in the world which is the whole essence of my point.

At face value yes. I never denied that American troops could be formidable, but I think that it is the weapons play a bigger part than the soldiers themselves & when compared with other forces, to scale, teh American troops aren't anything special.


Edit - as for most of what you have just posted. Much of your defense centres around the fact that you didn't explicity say certain things, thus leaving me with nothing but your implications. Well I put it to you like this, if you are going to imply certain things & then hide behind this, don't post them at all.

 

[Glockmatic]

Most Russian equippment was of the highest quality. The infamous T-34 was the tank of WWII.

german tigers and panthers were better then the t-34 actually