Why are the contributions of America to WWII so drastically over-stated in history textbooks?
It seems like there are a large contingent of the population who think Germany was on the verge of winning the war until America joined and pushed them back.
>>840082
Probably because you live in the United States.
>>840082
Because from the western front things actually looked grim and difficult for the Allies before D-Day. Of course the Soviet's, despite difficulties, had been mostly successful for at least a year.
U.S involvement in Europe is mainly important for balancing power against the Soviet Union. It's very likely the Soviets would have declared control over all Nazi occupied lands, which would have been most of Europe without U.S involvement.
I'm not saying that resistance groups combined with British support wouldn't have retaken parts of the continent before the fall of Germany but I think our post war world would look very different without strong U.S involvement.
In other words U.S involvement is considered important because it ensured the liberation of western European nations.
There's some truth to these claims. But remember that it's the winners who write history. Or at least, it's the winners who omit the historic information they don't like.
It happens in any system - from the most totalitarian to the most free and open democratic one. In democratic systems people can find some historic memories to be unpleasant and vote for their representatives who would omit these memories from history lessons.
>>840082
because its the troof
>>840082
They cannot be overstated.
People like to debate whether it was America or Russia who won the war, when in reality it was the combined forces of Britain, Australia, New Zealand and India.
If the Commonwealth forces had lost at El Alamein, Rommel would have had no problem pushing on through the Middle East and up through the steppes into Russia, and and then flanked the Soviet forces who were already struggling on one frontier.
>>840082
>so drastically over-stated in history textbooks?
I've never seen this in Russian or Australian textbooks.
You do realise that school textbooks and undergraduate course materials are basically lies for idiots.
While not directly engaging in the hostilities until d-day, the US was a big provider of war-time supplies and weapons to the allies and the Soviet Union.
>>840286
>What is Torch?
>What is Husky?
>Why was roughly 1/5 of the Heer dragged to Southern Europe after Husky?
>>840147
>110% this
Europoors like to bash American involvement, but without us, you'd be in some post-Soviet satellite state.
>>840082
Because without the US defeating the nazis, Europe would've all been Germany except for the UK, Or everything from Germany east would've been the USSR, central and Western Europe would've been a region in constant civil conflict and war, and the UK would be broke but ok.
>>840305
>>What is Torch?
>>What is Husky?
Useless side shows
>>840305
>>Why was roughly 1/5 of the Heer dragged to Southern Europe after Husky?
Yugoslav and Italian partisans.
>>840307
>but without us, you'd be in some post-Soviet satellite state.
Actually the PCd'I, KKE, PCF would have pulled international stalinism to the left like Tito attempted, if not an actual revolution kicking off from below.
>>840324
>Yugoslav and Italian partisans.
Which were formerly suppressed by Italian troops, who went away after the collapse of the Italian government post Husky. Funny how that works.
And you don't need 18 divisions in Yugoslavia, 8 more in Greece, and 25 in Italy to stomp a few partisans, they were there to block further landings.
Useless side show my ass.
The whole Pacific front of WWII was completely irrelevant, and that's where the US put most of their effort
>>840082
Ignoring the massive material aid the US offered to all of the Allies don't forget that we were fighting the Japanese. Without that assistance the Japanese might have been able to follow through on their promise to Hitler to attack the Soviet Union from the East. Then it would have been the USSR fighting on two fronts instead of the Germans. I believe we were also responsible for most of the bombing of German manufacturing and infrastructure, not to mention our contribution to winning the Africa campaign.
>>840337
The whole reason Hitler (the white supremacist) made an alliance with Japan was so they'd attack the soviets from the East/South. Without the US to contend with they would have actually been able to do it.
>>840353
For about a month sure, there was no way Japan could achieve its imperial ambitions after the oil embargo, they were fucked from the start
>>840331
>formerly
You mean formally, and no they weren't. The Italian zone of control in the former Yugoslavia was well known to be "easy" in comparison to the German zone and Serbian military command.
>to stomp a few partisans
Time for you to read about Yugoslavia.
>>840438
Yeah, the partisans in Yugoslavia remained distinctly un-stomped throughout the course of the war. The geography of the Balkans made it pretty much impossible to suppress them.
>>840082
Was the US even involved?
>>840438
>You mean formally, and no they weren't.
Actually, I do mean "Formerly". See, one of the things about Mussolini's government falling was a general Italian withdrawal from the war. Those troops that were in the area? They left, went home, demobilized.
>Time for you to read about Yugoslavia.
And Greece? And Southern France? And Italy? Yes, Yugoslavia had a very active resistance. It didn't suddenly spike towards more organized and more dangerous in the summer of 1943. The changed factor was American involvement, and the risk of a landing in southern Europe.
>>840474
How Can The US Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?
>>840082
>Why are the contributions of America to WWII so drastically over-stated in history textbooks?
You mean, in American textbooks. It's barely mentioned in Norway, where much more focus is on Russia and the UK.
>>840477
>The changed factor was American involvement,
Not at all.
>and the risk of a landing in southern Europe.
Unrelated to US mediterranean landings.
>Actually, I do mean "Formerly".
Salo fuckwit.
>>840561
>Hurr, the American presence in Sicily and southern Italy, which brings Greece and southern Yugoslavia under a fighter umbrella, is completely irrelevant to Hitler's sudden diversion of troops from the Eastern Front to those theaters.
>I'll completely ignore actual historians like Douglas Porch who say exactly this.
>I also don't know what English words mean, but I'll try to "correct" other people.
>>840082
America also gave the russians shitloads of supplies
>>840307
>Europoors like to bash American involvement, but without us, you'd be in some post-Soviet satellite state.
Different anon, but I'd like to add something called the Marshall Plan, in which the US sent money and materials to West Germany, France, UK, Italy, ect. to help rebuild their economies, and minimize any further tensions.
Seems like something Europeans like to forget
>>840690
wow, look at all that big bad imperialism
They just won every single front of the war using raw money.
>eternal eurocuck denial over how american soldiers came and liberated their women
>>840693
From a western european tankie perspective, precisely. There were peace congresses against it.
>>840082
Because without American supplies, Britain would have fallen. I guess there were some minor players like France, but really without the Yanks' aid Great Britain would not have survived.
And there was the whole German-army-dying-because-they-can't-into-cold on the Russian front thing that helped a lot too.
>>840690
/biz/ here. Marshall plan wasnt generoisity, it was a play for international market share.
>>840196
I doubt even Rommel's understanding of logistics was that bad
The better question is, why are Europeans so butthurt that the US had to save them again?
>>840708
>Because without American supplies, Britain would have fallen.
I see you've done no reading on Sealion.
>>840486
Was Norway involved in WWII?
>>840713
They can't deal with not being numero uno anymore.
>>840704
>Be British
>Dating an American guy
>Taking him to visit my family.
>Grandmother approves wholeheartedly of him.
>Later on, she tells me (in private) how Americans have bigger penises than British men.
>She knows this because she slept with several bomber pilots during the war.
>She was 15 in 1944.
That was really, really something I didn't need to know.
>>840715
Rockets, m8. To this day we can't even think about V2's without rattling a few teeth.
>>840730
O H A M A
H
A
M
A
>>840738
>Rockets, m8. To this day we can't even think about V2's without rattling a few teeth.
Mate, the British state wasn't worried. The alternative government of Britain, Labour-led National wasn't worried. The last resort alternative government of Britain, CPGB-Labour(split) (War), wasn't worried.
Go wank to Pynchon in /lit/ you cunt.
>>840717
>Was Norway involved in WWII?
No, they were totally quislings about it.
>>840717
The Norweigan merchant marine was actually pretty important in the Battle of the Atlantic. In 1939, they had something like the 4th or 5th largest cargo fleet in the world, and almost all of it went to work for the British when the Germans invaded.
Because without the intervention of the western powers (led by America) the USSR would have gotten its shit pushed in. The Russians have no idea how to fight a war. Their only strategy consists in hurling enough bodies in front of the advancing enemy to bog him down until winter comes
>>840765
>Because without the intervention of the western powers (led by America) the USSR would have gotten its shit pushed in.
Lend lease volume versus German strategic front penetration.
Lend lease sped up the Soviet strategic counter-attack, and in particular the locomotives and trucks allowed for the 1944 collapse of AGC to be exploited.
Is it like nobody here reads?
>Their only strategy consists in hurling enough bodies in front of the advancing enemy
Yes. It is that nobody here reads.
Macкиpoвкa. The Soviet Union had slightly above parity in absolute forces, but managed massive and repeated strategic concealments and redeployments. They also tapped their manpower pool harder and faster than the Germans, but this wasn't about bodies, but the slight German effectiveness advantage.
…
Just …
>>840196
The war in Africa was more to do with the oil fields in the Middle East and robbing us of the Suez Canal than anything chum.
>>840794
>with the oil fields in the Middle East
Read more.
>>840337
Most of US's effort was in the ETO.
>>840803
Such as? Maybe you would care to explain why I'm wrong.
>>840823
Not him but:
A) There was virtually no chance of ever actually getting to said oil fields. Rommel was having enough trouble moving about 7 divisions across Libya and into Egypt. Adding another thousand or so miles to his logistical trail to get to northern Iraq is just absurd, especially when a lot of the railroads then extant didn't go in a straight line like you'd want to advance, and a lot of them went through neutral Turkey.
B) 1940s's Middle eastern oil production was relatively low. I don't have production statistics in front of me, but IIRC, Romania was pumping more than Iran, and Venezuela was outpumping Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia combined. It wasn't like today, where it's the oil center of the world, and what production it had was difficult to transport except by sea, which would give the Germans and Italians all the fun the British were having in the Battle of the Atlantic, except without the overwhelming naval superiority to provide a bit of a salve.
>>840823
The middle east was not a significant oil producer in WWII. Iran certainly was, but the threats to Iran were by coup d'etat, neighbouring states or alignment, dealt with in the Soviet-British occupation of Iran and the British subjugation of Iraq. (Cairns Post, 1941, http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/42336530 )
The North African campaign was a result of Italy's colonial possessions, in particular East Africa as an isolate. While Suez may have been a dream as impossible as the 1941 stop line in the East, it was the only justifiable purpose for early strategic investment.
Later the question became keeping Italy in the war.
>>840848
Again not him, but the initial deployment of DAK was to prop up the Italians post-Compass, not to engage in offensive action. It's only with the unexpected success in Sonnenblume that you had dreams of grand offensives.
Honestly, North Africa is a surprisingly good theater to defend in, and some of my favorite alt-histories involve questions like if you had someone like Kesselring in command from the start, with a more defensive take on the situation and trying to stall as long as possible; while the Germans still pretty inevitably lose, trying to track out how much it would have bought them interests me.
Because whilst the manpower contributions and casualties of the US were small in comparison to the other European powers, the economic and manufacturing aid they provided for the allied forces were insanely high.
The problem is that a lot of people see the success of a war solely in terms of lives lost and not in terms of economics and industry. This has resulted in a bunch of people with chips on their shoulder who are assblasted that an ally could provide so much aid for so few casualties
>>840870
>but the initial deployment of DAK was to prop up the Italians post-Compass
I wasn't talking about the actual reason, but the only justifiable purpose for deploying the DAK.
You can see that I believe that the deployment of the DAK was strategically unjustifiable.
>Kesselring
Good conjecture. Might have been a worthwhile investment.
This is what Zhukov told about this, in an interview in the 1960s:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."
Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's
truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and
1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of
eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
American contributions to World War II literally cannot be overstated, not least because they won the pacific theater almost entirely by themselves.
>>840900
>because they won the pacific theater almost entirely by themselves.
The fucking Chinks and Flips want a word with you.
>>840345
So in other words we had a direct hand in all the most morally questionable allied activity during the war, got it
>>840922
The British Commonwealth, Dutch East India, French Indochina and Soviet Union probably do too but they didn't have aircraft carriers, Higgins boats, Liberty ships, or atom bombs.
>>840943
None of which were crucial. On the other hand the Flips and the Chinks removed Japan's capacity to wage war.
>>840953
You mean the oil which they received from the US until the embargo? You mean the factories destroyed by American bombers? And don't give me any of that shit about carriers (an American invention necessary to waging war against the Japanese in the fist place), landing boats (a Japanese invention coopted and improved by Americans and given to all their allies to make amphibious assaults possible), the countless transport ships necessary to move men and materiel constructed entirely in American dockyards, and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not being crucial to the defeat and surrender of Japan. Especially that last one, which is solely the prerogative of vatniks and Japanese apologists. All the nations and empires of East Asia and the Pacific assisted in the defeat of the Japanese, but 95% of that effort was provided by the United States.
>>840885
>You can see that I believe that the deployment of the DAK was strategically unjustifiable.
Certainly a plausible view, but one I don't think quite holds up. North Africa's awful logistical situation means that you can hold a viable defense with far less commitment of force than you would even in Italy, and you want to keep the Allies out of Italy as long as possible: Once they've made landfall in Sicily, you have the collapse of the Italian government, the withdrawal of a lot of Italy's forces, and the necessitating of re-deploying roughly 50 divisions to take up occupational duties in places like Yugoslavia, Greece, southern France, as well as hold the line in Italy itself.
Meanwhile, the commitment of the Africa korps was what? 2 divisions in 1941? Up to like 4 in 1942? It's hard for you to actually operate with more, but it's also hard for the British to move across Libya, for much the same reasons. Granted, since your overall strategic outlook is bleak rather than rosy, so the odds of you winning on other fronts is low, even with more force to play with elsewhere, but North Africa is actually your best line of defense, despite how it doesn't look it. Pulling back probably costs you more troops, not less.
>>840972
Manchurian and Korean industry.
>>840082
Because America had and still has the most efficient propaganda industry in the world.
Ed Bernays and stuff, blah
![QJyA10d[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AdLV3cJ.jpg "QJyA10d[1].jpg")
>>840758
Here's a (you) and one more for >>840761 (you)
