American Education

The US entered the war because it was attacked and because it felt that it had a vested interest in a war which, they felt, may result in a dynamic which was against American interests if they did not get involved. To somehow portray the American involvement as an altruistic "gift" of which Europe should be grateful is ridiculous.

To suggest that the American contribution was, in gross terms, greater than the British or Russian contribution is, again, a nonsense statement.

To suggest that the American contribution was greater in relative terms is also nonsense. That award would probably go to the Canadians... a relatively tiny country that, among its contributions, gave 1 of 5 infantry divisions at Normandy (2 were American, 2 were British).

To suggest that the Brits would not have won the war without America may be true... but equally true is the fact that America would not have won the war without the Brits.... and here lies the fundamental issue... they Brits don't seem to need to puff-up their contribution to the global community.

Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people... in some places, patriotism is the opiate of the people.

 

It is not "just" international portability. In business... and what arena of endeavor cannot be considered business nowadays... the arena is very international.

Corporate ownership is internationally portable, therefore it may impact you regardless of whether you leave US soil or not.

The University of Phoenix degree... marginally accepted within a US context... is pretty much considered a degree mill in other countries.

That is why the ignorance and indifference, that some demonstrate, of the fact that some American education is not equivalent to international academic standards is amazing.

Of course, with DL you are not restricted to these schools. You can pursue studies with many respected US schools or respected schools in many other countries.

 

Yes, they came within a breath of defeating the USSR, but that was before US involvement, and long, long before there was any second front. Even before US entry into the war, the Battle of Britain had been won, and the Battle of Moscow was essentially over (Dec 5 1941). The US contribution took much time to make itself felt and was not significant factor in the Soviet victory at Stalingrad. From that point, the defeat of the Nazis, with or without US intervention, was inevitable. Again, most of the men and material of Germany were committed to the war in the East. It would have taken longer to win without the US but there is no doubt Germany would have been defeated. It was Stalingrad and other related campaigns in the East that broke the Germans, not D-Day.

Nor would that have been the way it would have happened. The likely route to the Continent would have been via Norway or Italy or Greece after the soviets had consumed German men and material in the war of attrition in the East.

Britain would have been an increasingly junior partner to growing Soviet might.

I thought that factor was well known. It is given prominence in every treatment of D-Day I have ever read or seen, even in Hollywood, and its close cousin, the History Channel.

Agreed, and again, that was not how insertion of British and Commonwealth troops onto the Continent would have occurred. It would have been a lower key and less effective affair. But there they would be, creating a second front, fighting the Germans.

I think that flies in the face of all evidence. There was no real threat to Germany, at least until the invasion of Italy, and more realistically, until D-Day. By that time, the Germans were in full retreat from Russia with the Red Army in hot pursuit. Again, even before any effective American presence was felt in W.W.II, the Soviets were breaking the back of Germany.

If the defeat of Germany can be claimed by any single nation, then without doubt, the Soviet Union has first dibs by a long chalk.

Well, article 3 of the Tripartite Pact, obligated Germany to come to the assistance of Japan only if Japan was attacted. Specifically excluded was the scenario where Japan did the attacking. There was no requirement that Germany declare war on the United States. Hitler chose to go to war with US. Only after that did the US in turn declare war on Germany (Dec 11 1941).

It is true we are dealing with the European theater, but that was were the main threat lay to the world and to the United States. This was well recognized by the US government which by a large margin (and as a matter of official policy) gave priority to the war in Europe over the war in the Pacific.

And again, in that European war many nations played an important role, not least America. However, if one nation had to be said to have been most pivotal in the defeat of the Nazis, that nation is (was) the USSR, not the United States.

.

 

Lawrie, don't confuse the issue with facts.

Question,

If you continually expouse jingositic nonsense on degreeinfo but are also an administrator... are you a troll?

 

Wonderful! This thread is providing me with all these new words to learn. First, Peter introduced me to "exonphobic." Comes now Ken with "jingositic," which I can only assume is a combination of "jingoistic" and "parasitic" -- implying excessive patriotism on the part of someone who is an execrable burden on society.

 

Are you serious? Have you ever heard of the Lend-Lease Act? It should have been called the "Giveaway Act", because the US gave millions upon millions of dollars of equipment & supplies to both Britain and the Soviet Union, and never asked for anything in return. That's a good thing, because we usually didn't get anything in return except a huge debt that was forgiven anyway. What do you think would happen to the economy of the UK if the US suddenly called in all its markers???

Ken....you're tilting at windmills here. We can debate the relative merits of the US vs. UK educational systems, but to suggest that the good guys would have won WWII without US intervention is just beyond silly. To paraphrase Colonel Nathan Jessup from A Few Good Men, I'd prefer that you just say "Thank You" and be on your way.


Bruce

 

Really? Then why was Winston Churchill so hell-bent on getting the US involved in the war? Misery loves company?


Bruce

 

Inevitable? To who? General Heinz Guderian (the inventor of "Blitzkrieg" and Inspector-General of Panzer troops) stated that the Normandy invasion was the back-breaker of the campaign. After that, the Germans had to fight a defensive campaign that they could not sustain.

The mere threat of a two-front war (which was, as you say, inevitable after 12/7/41) kept invaluable German resources committed to the Western Front. If it was just the Brits that the Germans had to worry about, they could have kept a skeleton force in the West. The Brits were no threat to invade after Dunkirk.

Incidentally, the real blame for the German failure in the Eastern Front should go to Italy. Mussolini's ill-advised invasion of Greece predictably foundered, which required that the Germans bail them out, which meant that Barbarossa was delayed by 2 months. The winter is what stalled the Germans at Moscow, thanks to the late start forced upon them by the Italians.


Bruce

 

No one has argued the Americans did not make a significant contribution to the successful prosecution of the war. What is at issue is your assertion that the US won the war and that QUOTE:- "The simple fact, like it or not, is that the United States bore the brunt of combat operations in the war". This is simply at odds with the facts.

While it is certainly true that important German reserves were held back in the West to counter any invasion, it is as well to remember that for the most part, five times as many German divisions were simultaneously engaged in the East against Russia. These figures do not speak to the impact of millions of German dead and captured on the Eastern front, nor the massive german loss of material in that theater.

Given the figures below, there can be little doubt who it was that bore the brunt of combat operations in the war.


German Divisions in theater Total Divisions/Motorized divisions
Year . . . . 1941 . . . 1942 . . . 1943 . . . 1944
France+ . . 38/0 . . . 27/3 . . . 42/8 . . . 56/11
Russia . . . 134/32 . 171/34 . 179/28 . . 157/30

+ Includes Belgium and the Netherlands


Balkans . . 7/0 8/1 17/1 20/4
Italy . . . . 0/0 0/0 0/0 22/6
Africa . . . 2/2 3/3 0/0 0/0

Source http://www.danshistory.com/ww2/eastern.html


Lawrie Miller

.

 

Since the US had little impact on the war, it should be a simple matter to factor them out and make a prediction about the conduct of the war from 1945 to 1950.

Please take into account the following lack of projection of US force around the world:

--no Battle of Midway
--no supply line support of the Chinese via Burma
--no resistance to the Japanese in the Pacific (sorry Korea, Australia)
--no naval supply lines to the Russians
--no allied naval force to speak of in Europe
--no Normandy invasion

In your calculations, also consider these possibilities of even a slightly extended war timeline:
--German nuclear weapons
--Eastern front for Russia (unencumbered Japanese) and its effect on pursuing the Germans westward.
--Retrenchment of the Germans

In my opinion, it was critical for both the Pacific and European wars to conclude when they did. The United States' projection of power around with world was both unprecidented and necessary for the war to conclude without much a much greater disaster.

 

Could you detail exactly who in this thread has stated that the US had little impact in the War? Who wrote that, Bill? Could you provide a quote?

My replies where in response to statements that the US won the war and in particular that, "The simple fact, like it or not, is that the United States bore the brunt of combat operations in the war".

It serves no one to imply that others have argued the United States had little impact. They have not. It has been clearly stated that the US had significant impact. However, there is a difference in saying that, and saying that the US was the dominant factor in allied victory in WW2.

Again, let us not imply clearly bogus statements were made when the fact is they were not.

So far as the war in Asia is concerned, it has never been argued that the US played anything but the dominant role. However, as detailed in other posts, the grave threat to the world and the United States was posed by the Nazis, and it is in that theater that the bulk of men and material were deployed.

Let's put aside jingoistic rhetoric and stick to the facts.

In that spirit, here are some other interesting statistics relevant to the substance of the debate . . .



WWII Death Count Per Country
Country . . . Military . . . Civilian . . . Total
USSR . . . . 12 million . 17 million . . 29 million
Germany . . 3.2 million . .2.4 million . 5.7 million
Britain . . . . 403,000 . . .92,700 . . 495,000
America . . . 407,000 . . .6,000 . . . .413,000

Number of divisions available for these countries over the course of the war:
Country . . . 1941. . . . 1942 . . . .1943. . . . 1944. . . . 1945. . . . End of War
USSR. . . . . 220 . . . . . 250. . . . . 350 . . . . . 400 . . . . . 488 . . . . . 491
Germany . . .235 . . . . . 261 . . . . 327 . . . . . 347 . . . . . 319 . . . . . .375
USA* . . . . . .39 . . . . . 76 . . . . . .95 . . . . . . 94 . . . . . . 94 . . . . . . 94
Britain . . . . . 35 . . . . . 38 . . . . . .39 . . . . . . 37 . . . . . . 31 . . . . . . 31

*including both Army and Marine divisions and accounting for the Pacific theater

Aircraft Available In Europe
Date . . . . . .British . . . . . . .US . . . . . . .Soviet . . . . . . German
June 1942 . .9500 . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . .2100 . . . . . . . . 3700
Dec 1942 . .11,300 . . . . 1300 . . . . . . . .3800 . . . . . . . . 3400
June 1943 . .12,700 . . . . 5000 . . . . . . . 5600 . . . . . . . . .4600
Dec 1943 . . 11,800 . . . . 7500 . . . . . . . 8800 . . . . . . . . 4700
June 1944 . . 13,200 . . . 11,800 . . . . . 14,700 . . . . . . . . 4600
Dec 1944 . . 14,500 . . . 12,200 . . . . . . 15,800 . . . . . . . . 8500

.

 

Very cute!

 

And Soviet power, from Korea, to China to reaching at the time as far west as Austria, wasn't that equally "unprecedented"? Wouldn't the war have been extended or lost without Soviet participation, too?

You are proposing a different debate, Bill. There is no one here arguing in opposition to your position. The issue is not that America had no affect on the war, but rather whether or not they were the dominant force in WW2. That America's contribution reduced the time to defeat the Axis is not in doubt. And the same could be said for other Allied countries on a relative scale.

The debate arose in response to statements that the US, "bore the brunt of combat operations in the war". Demostrably untrue. With what statements precisely, as it relates to this thread, do you take issue?

.

 

--Royal Navy were the navy in the European theater.

--Royal navy supplied Russia

--Germans had abandoned any serious attempt to build a fissionable device very early in the war.

--By that time the Red Army was so strong and massive, the Japanese would not have dared. Another important point . . . the USSR and Japan were not at war (until August 1945), and had it not been for Stalin's commitment to the US and his desire to ravage the japanese carcass, it is highly unlikely they ever would have fought.

Not a chance. The Germans were constantly retrenching, and fought bitterly all the way to Berlin, though every town and village, and for every city block. They were crushed by the Red Army, nevertheless.
.

 

You are looking at the war the way it played out while I was considering a hypothetical in which the US never entered the Pacific or European war...a scenario in which the Japanese had a full navy and airforce and virtually no resistance.

I do not think the outcome is nearly as pat as you do under this scenario. On the contrary, I believe that the war could have been been extended many more years, but it would have been a very different war...even accepting a temporary defeat of the Germans (perhaps with no treaty). I used to play economic simulations of such scenarios and marveled at the complexity of them. I don't pretend to claim any special insight into this, but do appreciate the complexity of it. I don't even want to attempt a guess about the political aspects of a war that had an acceleration in the Pacific at the same time that the European war seemed to be dying down. Take your best shot at this if you're up to it. I prefer the war that actually concluded in the mid-forties rather than the one that might have concluded in the fifties, when the world economy would otherwise be in recovery.

It may have been as clear as mud, but my point was to show that looking at ground troop deployments alone does not paint a complete picture of the whole, world war. The US projection of power *was* unique and complex, coming as it was across two oceans without the ability to place a single vehicle on the ground until it was in the field of battle. As the Falklands and Gulf war showed, this is still a very difficult way to conduct a ground war.

 

Teaching Math at Oxford:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for 100 euros. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. How much will it cost in legal fees to bring this eco-terrorism to a halt?

Teaching Math at UoL:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for 100 euros. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What the 'ell is a "truck?" To 'ell with euros!

Teaching Math at Strathclyde:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for 100 euros. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. Would it be more profitable to go on the dole?

Teaching Math at H-W:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for 100 euros. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit? (The exam for this module has been sent to your proctor. Take a week or a decade to figure the answer. There is no hurry.)

 

Now you're bringing the Eastern Front into the debate? I am referring to the only front that the US fought on, the West. If you want to compare the two fronts and all combatant countries, the Germans bore the brunt of all combat operations, with their entire military committed between both, and in the end, the Volks brigades made up of old men and children.

I was responding to the assertion that the Soviets and the Brits would have defeated the Germans without US intervention. That is just plain silly.


Bruce

 

Yes, but when it's converted, how many pounds, shillings, farthings, pfennings, and half-pence is that?


Bruce

 

Bruce, I do not disagree that President Bush has made some difficult and necessary decisions about military intervention in response to the events of 9/11. I’m not sure, though, that his first and foremost concern it always the USA. His position on protecting the steel industry does not strike me as internally consistent with his platform but he can’t afford to lose votes in Pennsylvania. I don’t agree with his protectionist position and I’m a democrat who was raised in Pennsylvania who paid his way through undergrad working for US Steel.

David (who once belonged to United Steelworkers of America Local 4889)

 

No, you referred quite specifically to the War, not to a theater within that war. You wrote on 03-14-2002 11:34 AM QUOTE "The simple fact, like it or not, is that the United States bore the brunt of combat operations in the war". In subsequent posts you made no attempt to qualify or amend that statement until now, now that evidence of the Soviet's massive contribution has been submitted, and is undeniable.

That is false. No one made any such assertion at the time you wrote your comment. You wrote the comment at 03-14-2002 11:34 AM, before any post by anyone as to the nature of Soviet contributions. In fact, statements relating to the contribution of the Soviets were a direct result of your initial claim of American preeminence. Your statement that you wrote the comment in response to assertions about Soviet contributions is not true. The first statement about Soviet contributions was posted at 03-14-2002 01:58 PM, and even quotes your original statement.

Now, to the substance of the debate . . . evidence of the Soviet contribution to the war has been submitted. It details their massive effort. You wrote in your initial statement that sparked this debate, that America, "bore the brunt of combat operations in the war". We are still waiting for evidence in support of that claim.

.