Quote:
Originally Posted by nation-x
As a matter of fact... yes they are viewed as liberators... and when I said we liberated europe... I didn't mean to say we did it by ourselves... however, I doubt that it could have been accomplished without our help. We lost alot of American lives in that fight too, you know. My basic point was that greedy war profiteers don't represent the majority of Americans... I also don't want to minimize the losses that the Soviets incurred... which dwarf what the US lost... they lost over 24 million people in WWII. In the end, we lost roughly the same amount of soldiers as civilians that died from Czechoslovakia.
|
And what would be wrong with that? Thanks for the US help, thanks for the Marshall's plan.
On the other hand, the US forces, apart from Pacific really played only very much minor role in the whole European conflict, obviously, one of the main problems of the Third Reich starting say 1943 after a lot was exhausted on the plan Barbarossa (that I personally believe could still have been won, having Hitler not made crucial mistakes, such as removing Mannstein from charge, and refusing to retreat from Kursk / Stalingrad etc.), was a lack of basic supplies, such as gas.
BTW. that was another reason to attach the Eastern front - to get practically unlimited supplies and being able to continue the war.
Take Ardennes for example, the SS divisions that returned from Normandy to rest were able to win over most of the allies, yet they were not able to move cause they had no gas.
US failed in the invasion on Sicily, not able to get to the alps till the very end of war, while Albert Kesselring and his extremely limited forces were able to hold positions for long, long months.
Total casualties cca 1.5 Mil. including the Pacific war, btw. the overkill ratio between US / Japan was about 1:14 .