WW2 in Europe question

[Will]

Churchill: The Hollywood Years.

 

[Tuthmes]

This really isnt true. The Americans might have got the worst of day 1, but after that it was the British and Canadian armies that fought the SS Panzer divisions.

Hence I mentioned Omaha and Utah! Also the battle of the Bulge whas mostly American forces aswell.

I think if we are being honest, then yes there is a certain ring of truth there and the reason is simple - Hollywood.

America really had no politcal reason to get involved in the second world until 1941 and when they did, they committed completely to its resolution and did a remarkable job and you are right, it was a cooperative effort.

However I think movies where the likes of Ben Affleck come along in his plane and single handedly wins the war ect, gripe a little and lead to some incorrect assumptions about the US attitude towards the war. The second world war is still a very sore subject in europe, and it is something of a raw nerve in europe - especially in Britain, and dramatic license probably isn't as appreciated as it is elsewhere.

Well said.

 

[Embattle]

Hence I mentioned Omaha and Utah! Also the battle of the Bulge whas mostly American forces aswell.

That was the result of the Germans wanting to break through the weakest part of the allied defence to repeat past glories, it just happen to be American's who were there.

 

[MrHorus]

And it wasn't so much that Hitler were really sneaky as much as Europe just couldn't believe he would actually do it.

I think it's closer to the truth to say that other leaders didn't want to believe Hitler would do it.

 

[pez]

Agree with all that

My posts make me seem anti-american, which I'm sure most regular people on here will know isnt true. I just do not like the American bullshit machine, i.e the media, from Hollywood to people like Stephen Ambrose, who have convinced the American people, and half the rest of the world, that the Yanks walk on water ...

I've always found Ambrose not overtly patriotic in his writing. Citizen soldiers is pretty balanced and well... Pegasus Bridge.

I think with the cold war 20 years behind us there is a movement in Britain towards accepting the greater role the USSR played in defeating the Germans. If the US had not got involved at all in Europe I still see Germany losing, maybe not as badly, maybe even more totally. I think it would have been a lot closer on the Eastern Front if the British Empire had accepted Hitler in Europe Britain outside Europe.

There were 3 main themes of conflict in world war 2 for Britain. Beating Germany/Japan. Limiting the expansion of communism. Achieving 1 and 2 without letting the US dismantle the empire.

Ultimately the 3 were mutually exclusive. We could have kept the empire and had a German or Russian Europe by staying out. We could have beaten the Germans with Russia and limited US influence or we could have won and limited Russian influence but lost the empire - which we chose.

 

[throdgrain]

Hence I mentioned Omaha and Utah! Also the battle of the Bulge whas mostly American forces aswell.



Well said.

Yes, that was the first day, exactly like I said, after that they had it easier than us ... The Bulge is another story alltogether, involving a lot of captured US forces until the superior Air Forces saved the day.

I've always found Ambrose not overtly patriotic in his writing. Citizen soldiers is pretty balanced and well... Pegasus Bridge.

Maybe you should read them books again. After he wrote Pegasus Bridge he suggested in the forword to the following book that descriptions had been told incorrectly by veterans.

If you think Ambrose is not anti-British and wholly jingoistic for the USA I sincerely suggest you re-read his books. Any failure at all is overtly or covertly blamed on anyone but the Yanks, and preferably on us.