you stupid fucking cocksucker. even your own ruskie fucking propaganda machine states it thusly:


Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2 â?? RT News

fuckwad ruskie cocksucker.

Not really, excluding some individual commanders, but the outranking commanders and leaders did sort this out otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_...nce#Key_points

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference

fyi, no, those conferences have nothing to do with the fact eisenhower wanted to reach Berlin before the ruskies and planned to, as well Patton claiming he could easily sweep.

Eisenhower stopped troops at elbe when he realized that beating the ruskies to berlin was not achievable after losses in the ardennes and ruskie advancing quickly, and that's when Eisenhower died. he didn't stop on account of either of those agreements.

it's like some of you do not even realize Germany was being overrun from 2 different fronts, the ruskies on one front, the Western Allies on the other.

and a conference or 2 would not stop the impending clash between ruskies and anglo-Americans.

The brainwashed US clown doesn't understand a simple thing. It was impossible to take over Nazis by killing of 1200 German soldiers. He is a classic Hollywood product with a squash in his head. Don't waste your time on clueless idiots like him.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

it's recorded history you drunk fucking nitwit. but i'm not expecting you to grasp that shit.

fucking historical fact:

Eisenhower CHOSE to stop at Elbe
Eisenhower gave us three reasons for standing on the Elbe:
His armies were already well beyond the line of the western occupation zones that had been agreed to with the Soviets. Why take casualties for land that would have to be handed over? He had always worried about his troops meeting Soviets on the run around a corner. He thought it safer to meet them with a broad river between. And, finally, ''Berlin is only a political objective, not a military objective.''

The decision to stand on the Elbe was Ike's, the most controversial decision of his public career. At the time, Britain's Winston Churchill was furious. He wanted every effort made to reach Berlin before the Soviets. And he protested to Roosevelt that Ike had informed Stalin of this decision without consulting Churchill or Roosevelt.


Halt at the Elbe

Why Eisenhower Halted at the Elbe - CSMonitor.com

not that i expect a ruskie dumbfuck to embrace reality. so much for those conference agreements eh, Eisenhower already had troops past the demarcation agreed to.

Well, maybe wanted at some point and even tried to, but the divide of Germany, etc. was already quite settled.

The whole second front (aka western front) was demanded by Stalin and agreed in conference. So, it is no use to try to make US look like some Russian kicking bad ass cowboys. It really wasn't like that.

i understand that Germany was already divvied up, that has nothing to do at all with anything i had stated.

i never fucking once claimed "US look like some Russian kicking bad ass cowboys", as you try and spin my post.

my OP simply explained why some people view their liberation as they fucking do. it's the gfy dumbfuck brigade that can't figure that statement out and tried to gotcha me on it.

What is your problem? First of all I am not Russian (well, maybe you ment Cyberseo), nor this is about some Ike's "chose to" stuff. You seem to very much worried about US troops image, as you so much emphasize choosing, etc.

Conference lines were anyways honored in the end, I don't know what is your fucking problem. Is it that hard to admit that US and Soviet Union were allies at that time? Maybe uneasy alliance, but still.

The whole issue is far from easy: Soviet Union did most of the soldiering stuff, but was also significantly materially backed by US. US stepped in against already very much weakened enemy, but in the other hand had been materially involved for long time. As well as air war wise.

i don't have a fucking problem. you have a problem, i never claimed you were ruskie and i couldn't give 1 single shit if you are or not. i don't waste my fucking time explaining nuanced shit to dimwits that try and attack me based on their inability to read combined with their ignorance.

of course conference lines were honored. jtfc. that has absolutely ZERO to do with this topic.

i'm not the slightest bit concerned with image. again, for the dumbfucks, my OP was in regards to trying to understand why some euros think Americans liberated them. you fuckwads take that as a gotcha opp so i'm handling that.

I don't disagree with US liberating some European countries, well, at least as a major participant. Nor I have expressed such disagreement.

The issue that you are battling against is not the issue who literally liberated those countries, it is about who made the most war effort towards achieving that goal. And it is quite undisputed that Soviet Union did most of that with the help of US material support.

You are speaking about liberation literally, Cyberseo, etc. are not.

i am speaking abpout liberation exclusively on account of the topic being about liberation. my OP was on point with the topic and i would have preferred to keep it that way, unfortunately several here thought it a gotcha opp.

anyway, back to more re: why many europeans believe Americans liberated them:



Halt at the Elbe

Yes, Americans helped us a lot. They have provided millions of T-34 and billions of soldiers. Not for free of course but for gold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease - just a business as usually, They also used to help Nazis but that's not something to speak about today :upsidedow

both the allies, axis, US and Russia alike believe you eat paint chips in large amounts.

LOL@paint chips :thumbsup
jtfc had to look that one up :1orglaugh

The Red Army did a lot to defeat Hitler but they didn't ''liberate'' they made the eastern European states ''Vassal states'' forming a buffer zone with western Europe to protect mother Russia -- that and only that is the truth -- the rest is revisionist bullshit.

Seems the word liberate must have a different meaning is Bolshevik or Stalinist Russian Propaganda or revisionist Putin-speak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

USA military casualties: 407.300 civilian casualties: 12.000
Yugoslavian military casualties: 430.000 military and 580.000 to 1.400.000 civilian casualties
Russia 10.000.000 soldiers and like 9.000.000 civilians

Just saying how the USA liberated the entire planet and the galaxy and invented fire AND the wheel. 1 american soldier is literally like 100 other soldiers because *reasons* and if it was not for america the whole world would stop spinning :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

3rd world shit hole yugoslavia had the same amount of military casualties as the good ole USA...I am SURE the USA is not over inflating its role in the conflict LOL

it was russia that walzed in to berlin BUT the USA nuked some fishermen in japan and this was the moment europe went free :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

back to my paint chips LOL

speaking of vassal states....

http://www.cjournal.info/wp-content/...taryGlobal.jpg

here's a diagram of the fence built for those liberated in Berlin by ruskies. according to ruskies, it helped keep them liberated.

http://i.imgur.com/6Eg81X0.jpg

Amazing to think about. Russia lost 19 million people, more than half with military training, and still needed help.

No need to be sarcastic, the help was significant. For example most trucks Soviets used during the war were American trucks. And there were shitload of the trucks (Wikipedia: 400 000 trucks and jeeps).

heads-up, the topic is about the Europeans that were liberated from the Nazis and their views on who did that.

There's a point where you teeter on being amusing/entertaining/annoying - to offensive.

You've crossed it.

Go fuck yourself.

That was called the "curtain of liberation" made of iron? (In russki-speak maybe.)

Just for the record:

We did a lot better in the Pacific in WW2 and fought 4 years. American soldiers are taught to make the enemy die for his country :thumbsup

*the Aussies and the Brits fought well also.

russia did all the heavy lifting...

as for the USA and its capabilities to win shit, more bombs were dropped on vietnam than all the bombs in WW2 combined, and america still lost...

its very amusing to see americans talk about how they "won WW2" when in all reality they played a marginal role at best...

Tito's Yugoslav irregulars got ripped to shit by the Nazis. I guess they were good at dying for their county. The Nazi army policy was to eliminate the ''slavs'' and take their lands -- so I suppose they didn't have much of a chance.

no ruskies invaded Normandy on D-day

no ruskies fought the battle of the Bulge

no ruskies fought the battle of El Alamein


no Americans here are talking about how we won ww2

I don't know about the Bulge, but there were thousands of ruskies in Normandy on D-day. Not actually invading, but shooting Americans.

"A number of Osttruppen battalions were used to guard parts of the Normandy region prior to Operation Overlord, specifically Utah, Juno and Sword beaches. Ost units that fought in the Battle of Normandy were from the 243rd and 709th Static Infantry Divisions. Numerous Ost units were also present on the German side during the Allied landing in Southern France, codenamed Operation Dragoon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostlegionen

Not to point out the obvious here...

But WHP posts an inflammatory topic (yeah, no surprise)...and doesn't actually participate in the thread with factual follow-up, discussion or debate.

Just blatant, unabashed trolling - nothing else.

I've had enough. He makes my ignore list.

Fuck that idiot.

GFY threads are about team-work :thumbsup

It is hard to understand how anyone can try to reduce issues as complex as these to resolution by short zingers. (Don't get me started about the way Finland played games during the war against fascism. And how its leaders escaped culpability after the war.) One can't establish real truth by selective facts taken out of context. The context here includes not only the war itself, but what led up to it, and most importantly I think, what happened just after, from 1945-1953 especially. People's judgments are affected by Lend Lease, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Blockade and the Berlin Airlift, the building of The Wall, the Russian massacre at the Katyn Forest of thousands of the best and brightest of Polish leadership, the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty for the invasion and division of Poland, the millions of slave laborers taken by the Soviets for a decade and the millions who died in Siberia, the betrayal of promises for self-determination in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other east European nations, and many other important factors that go beyond comparative body counts. D-Day was not the end of American deaths offered up for the liberation of Europe, it was not even the start. Ask the US families who still visit graves that mention Sicily and Anzio, the Battle of the Bulge and other fields of blood. Please consider that the United States was already engaged in a Pacific War against Imperial Japan that it did not start, the slow, lethal progress of island hopping, one bloody beach and brutal jungle at a time, from Guadacanal to Saipan to Iwo Jima to Midway to Guam to Okinawa. Visit the Military Cemetery of the Pacific some time. Most important, if US involvement was not critical to victory, then why did Uncle Joe Stalin so stridently beg, plead, and demand that the Western Allies open a second front? He needed it to seal his chances of victory. I'll close on a lengthy passage discussing the role of the US in Europe before it invaded European beaches. Russia would have starved and been defeated without many hundreds of thousands of tons of food and war materiel. The truth is that the Western Allies in general, and the US in particular, saved the Soviet Union from obliteration. We had not been invaded as Russia had. We were not fighting for our very survival as it did. To a very large extent, US contributions, sacrifices, and blood were expended heroically, with far less self-interest than the other combatants, because it was the right thing to do, the American thing to do. I'd pray only that my country could again acquire the noble ideals that guided its conduct during that generation.

See - Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Book Review). Here's an extract:

With major agricultural regions of the Soviet Union under enemy occupation, and the unsatisfactory system of distribution and transportation, to say nothing of mismanagement, the Soviet state had more than a nodding acquaintance with famine. Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease?s contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery. The trucks were also used for more sinister activities, including the deportation of the North Caucasus Muslims. Less satisfactory for combat were the Western tanks, inferior to the German machines and particularly disadvantaged in the open terrain of the Eastern Front. The memoirs of General Dmitri Loza, published in English in 1996, give us a vivid picture of how these tanks were employed by the Russians. American aircraft, flown by Russian ferry pilots across the vast expanse of Siberia, were put to good use by the Soviet air forces even with planes that were less than popular with Western pilots. A case in point was the Bell P-39 Airacobra, used both as a low-altitude fighter and as ground support. Its odd shape gave Soviet censors fits because it was difficult to conceal that it was the favorite mount of their second-highest-ranking ace, the future marshal of aviation, Aleksandar I. Pokryshkin.

Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory. It also strengthened Josef Stalin, a fact that did not bother its chief architect, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who saw beyond the Allied victory and looked at Stalin as a counterbalance to the European colonial powers.

The victory over Nazi Germany was achieved through the economic power of the United States and the lives of millions of Soviets, who for reasons that defy logic made the ultimate sacrifice to keep in power a regime as brutal as their Nazi enemy. What the Soviet Union needed after the war was a peacetime version of Lend-Lease, in this case the Marshall Plan, which Stalin rejected. Misled by the victory, the Soviet Union under Stalin and his successors embarked on an imperial policy that would have put the tsars to shame, and one the USSR could hardly afford. Resources were deployed on military and space programs and every Third World thug, including those who had jailed the local Communists or became Soviet clients. To the USSR?s eternal shame, anti-Semitism became national policy.

WWII wasn't war against fascism, it was WWII. And it is much easier to "escape things" as a independent nation. You know; Finland wasn't invaded.

You probably refer to handing some foreign Jews into Germany (few dozens in totally, including Soviet prisoners). Right?

It all depends on your perspective -
If Britain hadn't successfully stood alone in Europe and fell to the Nazis then america couldn't have gotten involved and Russia would have fallen to the Germans who would have had only the one front to fight on.
The american strength in numbers are what made the fight back possible even though they were very badly paid, refused to learn from lessons learnt by the rest of the allies and insisted on being paid for everything.
Russia had a massive army that although were badly armed finally managed to show their strength once the western front was opened up.
All those factors paid a part (It does worry me though that a lot of Americans here seem to think that D-Day was an american only operation) and all were just as important for the win, if one third of that equation was missing then Germany would be enjoying their empire stretching from the UK to the Chinese boarder.

God bless our UK allies and Commonwealth allies, especially the Canadians and Australians, whose bravery throughlut, but especially during those dark days of the early War inspires Americans to the present day. One very cold October afternoon a few years ago, I walked from the Olympic Stadium in Berlin to the Commonweatlth War Graves on Heerstrasse, hidden in the forest. Mainly the graves of flight crews shot down while attacking Berlin. I was the only visitor and had it to myself. Sixty years later the bravery of these men still shines. It bothers me too when people think that only the US was responsible for the victory. It took an ocean of blood, most of it from 18, 19, and 20 year old kids from the Allies to end the Fascist threat to civilization.

Trolling is not hard to understand.

Like the BM twins - he must have a spin-the-wheel of topics.

Today he is deep in the red zone.

speaking of lend-lease, we loaned/leased ~$11 billion to the ruskies, only got paid back about ~$3 billion and let the remaining ~$8 billion slide.

you're welcome, ruskies.

The ruskies can just pay China direct - skip the middle man. :winkwink:

When you give it some serious thought that is a staggering number. Nineteen million people in one country lost their lives over a period of five years. That's just one country.

Over sixty million people lost their lives, entire families gone, entire cities erased off the map. The amount of damage and destruction was just massive.

It never ceases to amaze me how media effects our perceptions.

Without the Russians and US combined. German wouldn't of been defeated, even the Russians couldn't have done it without massive support from the UK and US.

Without the UK, there would of been no war to win, it would have been all over.

The only thing that's for sure is. The US arm sales in WW2, catapulted the US to Number One in the World.