Thread: How large was America's role in WW1 and WW2?

Originally Posted by jviehe

And yet, yours is the country that twice tried to take over the world, murdered millions, and had to be stopped by the US. And we still consider you an ally and will be there for you when needed. Imagine if the rest of the world was so dedicated to freedom and loyalty. We dont require that you like us, or even help us, to give you help when you need it. Thats just the way we are.

Lets try to keep this in the world of reality, and not make believe.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Lets try to keep this in the world of reality, and not make believe.

Do you deny WW1 and WW2 happened?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Do you deny WW1 and WW2 happened?

Not at all. Though, in both cases, Germany was not trying to take over the world and nor was it the US that did the only heavy lifting. Trying to make your point using bogus history isn't helping.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Not at all. Though, in both cases, Germany was not trying to take over the world and nor was it the US that did the only heavy lifting. Trying to make your point using bogus history isn't helping.

i would call africa, europe, and the lionshare of asia (russia) to be most of the "world" as its called (populated parts) and a very good beginning for world conquest. the only thing they were missing is austrailia and the americas which were conveinently seperated by an ocean, and next on the list.

the brits and the french did fight the germans. the french got steamrolled (twice) and the brits were on their last legs and wouldn't even have been there if we hadn't broken neutrality to assist them with weapons and ships from the very beginning. it took america getting into the war to win it. thats not bogus history, thats a certifiable fact. (though less true in WWI then in WWII)
No one's saying the europeans didn't fight. What we are saying is that you wouldve been obliterated by the wehrmacht had it not been for US intervention.

Originally Posted by reality

i would call africa, europe, and the lionshare of asia (russia) to be most of the "world" as its called (populated parts) and a very good beginning for world conquest. the only thing they were missing is austrailia and the americas which were conveinently seperated by an ocean, and next on the list.

the brits and the french did fight the germans. the french got steamrolled (twice) and the brits were on their last legs and wouldn't even have been there if we hadn't broken neutrality to assist them with weapons and ships from the very beginning. it took america getting into the war to win it. thats not bogus history, thats a certifiable fact. (though less true in WWI then in WWII)
No one's saying the europeans didn't fight. What we are saying is that you wouldve been obliterated by the wehrmacht had it not been for US intervention.

actually 3 times, you forgot the franco-prussian war...

Originally Posted by reality

i would call africa, europe, and the lionshare of asia (russia) to be most of the "world" as its called (populated parts) and a very good beginning for world conquest. the only thing they were missing is austrailia and the americas which were conveinently seperated by an ocean, and next on the list.

the brits and the french did fight the germans. the french got steamrolled (twice) and the brits were on their last legs and wouldn't even have been there if we hadn't broken neutrality to assist them with weapons and ships from the very beginning. it took america getting into the war to win it. thats not bogus history, thats a certifiable fact. (though less true in WWI then in WWII)
No one's saying the europeans didn't fight. What we are saying is that you wouldve been obliterated by the wehrmacht had it not been for US intervention.

Here we go....

1. The only reason Germany got involved in africa during WW1 was in defence of its own, preexisting colonies. There was never an objective of conquering the entire continent. The only reason they got involved in Africa during WW2 was to prop up their Italian allies after they had been crushed, and thereby their southern strategic flank. It was not part of some scheme of world wide domination.

2. German documents from WW2 show the conquest of the entirety of Russia was never a goal. Indeed, they never planned to go beyond the Urals (there wasn't a need anyway).

3. During WW1 the French were indeed pounded and driven back. However, they held. As did their British allies. By the time of Amercian involvement the Germans were on their last legs. They tried to force the issue with the Kaiserschlacht. However, once again, the French and Brits held. American involvement, in terms of numbers, was pretty minor. What American involvement meant was the fresh forces were being brought in to tip the balance; forces the Germans couldn't match. Did American forces tip the balance? Of course. Would the French and Brits lost the war without American involvement? Highly doubtful. Could Germany have won the war if American forces never became involved? Again, highly doubtfu.

4. WW2. It is much tougher to say Germany would have lost WW2 without American involvement. Surely, American logistical might tipped the balance and ultimately wore the Germans down. However, in is far less credible to say the Brits would have fallen had America not become militarily involved. Indeed, the opposite is true. By the time American forces became involved in actual fighting on the ground (1942) the Battle of Britian was won and British forces were fighting, and beating, the Germans in north africa. Could the Brits have forced the same outcome we know today? Finally, it was the Russians (IMO) that did most of the heavy lifting in WW2. The battles that took place on the eastern front (in terms of numbers involved and the scale of the battle area) dwarfed their western counterparts. On December 1st, 1941, total victory for Germany was impossible. By December 7th, its defeat was assured. It was only a matter of time.


I am not trying to diminish America's involvement in either war. However, I am also not trying to overstate it as you and jviehe are. Yes, our support was vital. But victory, in either case, was not impossible without our help. At the very least, total defeat of the western allies was certainly not assured.

Originally Posted by Imperator

actually 3 times, you forgot the franco-prussian war...

to bring up every historical defeat of the the french would take more time than i have. theyre an old land, defeats and victories abound.

i was just counting the ones we bailed them out of, against germany.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Here we go....

1. The only reason Germany got involved in africa during WW1 was in defence of its own, preexisting colonies. There was never an objective of conquering the entire continent. The only reason they got involved in Africa during WW2 was to prop up their Italian allies after they had been crushed, and thereby their southern strategic flank. It was not part of some scheme of world wide domination.

2. German documents from WW2 show the conquest of the entirety of Russia was never a goal. Indeed, they never planned to go beyond the Urals (there wasn't a need anyway).

3. During WW1 the French were indeed pounded and driven back. However, they held. As did their British allies. By the time of Amercian involvement the Germans were on their last legs. They tried to force the issue with the Kaiserschlacht. However, once again, the French and Brits held. American involvement, in terms of numbers, was pretty minor. What American involvement meant was the fresh forces were being brought in to tip the balance; forces the Germans couldn't match. Did American forces tip the balance? Of course. Would the French and Brits lost the war without American involvement? Highly doubtful. Could Germany have won the war if American forces never became involved? Again, highly doubtfu.

4. WW2. It is much tougher to say Germany would have lost WW2 without American involvement. Surely, American logistical might tipped the balance and ultimately wore the Germans down. However, in is far less credible to say the Brits would have fallen had America not become militarily involved. Indeed, the opposite is true. By the time American forces became involved in actual fighting on the ground (1942) the Battle of Britian was won and British forces were fighting, and beating, the Germans in north africa. Could the Brits have forced the same outcome we know today? Finally, it was the Russians (IMO) that did most of the heavy lifting in WW2. The battles that took place on the eastern front (in terms of numbers involved and the scale of the battle area) dwarfed their western counterparts. On December 1st, 1941, total victory for Germany was impossible. By December 7th, its defeat was assured. It was only a matter of time.

I am not trying to diminish America's involvement in either war. However, I am also not trying to overstate it as you and jviehe are. Yes, our support was vital. But victory, in either case, was not impossible without our help. At the very least, total defeat of the western allies was certainly not assured.

i shall point you to the bolded statement and humbly not make any other comments. Youre welcome europe.

Originally Posted by reality

to bring up every historical defeat of the the french would take more time than i have. theyre an old land, defeats and victories abound.

i was just counting the ones we bailed them out of, against germany.

I hear you.......you know what louis XIV had stamped ( inscribed ) on bis cannons?

Originally Posted by reality

i shall point you to the bolded statement and humbly not make any other comments. Youre welcome europe.

I can see you don't really understand what is being discussed then. Thank you for playing.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Here we go....

1. The only reason Germany got involved in africa during WW1 was in defence of its own, preexisting colonies. There was never an objective of conquering the entire continent. The only reason they got involved in Africa during WW2 was to prop up their Italian allies after they had been crushed, and thereby their southern strategic flank. It was not part of some scheme of world wide domination.

2. German documents from WW2 show the conquest of the entirety of Russia was never a goal. Indeed, they never planned to go beyond the Urals (there wasn't a need anyway).

3. During WW1 the French were indeed pounded and driven back. However, they held. As did their British allies. By the time of Amercian involvement the Germans were on their last legs. They tried to force the issue with the Kaiserschlacht. However, once again, the French and Brits held. American involvement, in terms of numbers, was pretty minor. What American involvement meant was the fresh forces were being brought in to tip the balance; forces the Germans couldn't match. Did American forces tip the balance? Of course. Would the French and Brits lost the war without American involvement? Highly doubtful. Could Germany have won the war if American forces never became involved? Again, highly doubtfu.

4. WW2. It is much tougher to say Germany would have lost WW2 without American involvement. Surely, American logistical might tipped the balance and ultimately wore the Germans down. However, in is far less credible to say the Brits would have fallen had America not become militarily involved. Indeed, the opposite is true. By the time American forces became involved in actual fighting on the ground (1942) the Battle of Britian was won and British forces were fighting, and beating, the Germans in north africa. Could the Brits have forced the same outcome we know today? Finally, it was the Russians (IMO) that did most of the heavy lifting in WW2. The battles that took place on the eastern front (in terms of numbers involved and the scale of the battle area) dwarfed their western counterparts. On December 1st, 1941, total victory for Germany was impossible. By December 7th, its defeat was assured. It was only a matter of time.


I am not trying to diminish America's involvement in either war. However, I am also not trying to overstate it as you and jviehe are. Yes, our support was vital. But victory, in either case, was not impossible without our help. At the very least, total defeat of the western allies was certainly not assured.

Your defense of, and apology, for Germany in the Great War is very odd at best. You sound like one of the Kaiser's entourage.

Your comments regarding Barbarossa are even more peculiar. The idea that the Germans 'never intended to go beyond the Urals' is apparently intended as some sort of attmempt to minimize the Naiz plans for conquest.

Your reference to the involvement of the US as 'minimal' in WWII goes far beyond an insult. It is despicable.

It is trendy now to downplay, minimize and ridicule the involvement of the US in WWII. It is especially popular among Europeans who dislike Americans. Regardless of who is making the claim, it is sickening stuff.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Not at all. Though, in both cases, Germany was not trying to take over the world and nor was it the US that did the only heavy lifting. Trying to make your point using bogus history isn't helping.

Trying to claim something is fantasy or bogus because you disagree isnt helping. If you have a point to make, make it. The fact is Germany, with support, twice in the 20th century invaded neighboring countries in order to permanently control them, and the US was a significant factor in repelling them. And yet, we forgive and will defend Germany if it is ever needed or requested, even though they do not accord us the same friendship.

Originally Posted by Tim

Your defense of, and apology, for Germany in the Great War is very odd at best. You sound like one of the Kaiser's entourage.

No defense or apology here. Simply stating the strategic facts of their situation.

Originally Posted by Tim

Your comments regarding Barbarossa are even more peculiar. The idea that the Germans 'never intended to go beyond the Urals' is apparently intended as some sort of attmempt to minimize the Naiz plans for conquest.

Not at all. I am simply pointing out that, contrary to what two other posters here would have us believe, Germany was not out to conquer the world.

Originally Posted by Tim

Your reference to the involvement of the US as 'minimal' in WWII goes far beyond an insult. It is despicable.

Could you point out where I said US involvement in WW2 was minimal? No where did I say such a thing so spare me your 'insult' garbage.

Originally Posted by Tim

It is trendy now to downplay, minimize and ridicule the involvement of the US in WWII. It is especially popular among Europeans who dislike Americans. Regardless of who is making the claim, it is sickening stuff.

It is also trendy in American circles to overplay America's involvement.