Mike_Nomad, once
again, I am not ignoring the U.S. contribution to the war. I am simply stating that other people had stake as well.
With regards to the Battle of the Bulge, what end would the Germans have accomplished with the operation? It would only have delayed the inevitable a bit longer.
Tie Breakers - Spoilers?? I wouldn't dare to minimize the US participation in WW2 in such an off-handed manner. You need to re-read your history books... especially those from the UK and Germany... you'll learn some very interesting facts.
I'm thinking you have some kind of inferiority complex. "Off-handed" manner? Was WW2's European Theatre not ground to a halt on the Western Front from 1940-44? It was effectively a stalemate - neither the British nor the Germans could launch signifigant operations across the channel. When American men, material, and weapons entered the picture, that's when we were able to move on North Africa, blood our men, and then take on Fortress Europe.
Once
AGAIN - and for the last time - the Americans did not do it alone. Major player, yes, but they fought alongside a great many brave, smaller players. That's all I have been saying for three posts already. Stop trying to make it sound like I'm belittling U.S. efforts. I am done with this.
Sure, the Soviets nailed the Germans on the eastern front... with extensive help via US supplies. The German backbone was BROKEN by the USA, British and their allies when Germany tried to push through Bastogne to the coast attempting to divide the Allied forces during the Battle of the Bulge.
However much you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the German war machine threw itself upon the rocks against the Russians. Over the course of three years, they wasted countless men and resources. When the Allies invaded Normandy, they were facing an enemy that, while not a pushover at all, was far weaker than it was in 1941. Even so, the Allies got their butts handed to them many times. I just got done reading
Deathtraps, an account from a US armored maintenance officer in Normandy. He goes into explicit detail regarding just how poorly the US tanks fared against the superior German armor. In the end, it was a game of numbers. The Germans simply couldn't offer up replacement troops to stem the flood of Allied soldiers pouring in from the West.
Also, don't overestimate the value of Allied resources. While they were certainly a help, many times the Russian equipment was far superior. An example would be the T-34 vs. the Sherman tank, or the PPSh vs the Tommy gun. Russian gear was simple, rugged, and it simply worked.
Because they do not recognize the depth of involvement and the contributions those countries made... makes it right?? Sorry, there are some serious misconceptions there. Sure, 1939 and the Blitz were before the Americans were FORMALLY in the war, but truthfully speaking, were Americans not already dying right alongside the Brits, Poles, French, etc..?? Not to mention the American lives lost by the US Navy Gun Crews aboard the ships and US Merchant Marine running the ships before the US formally entered WW2. US Navy Destroyers escorting and guarding the convoys headed for Great Britain that were sunk cost many American lives.
How is it...right? And reread my post - I said "noticeable amount of American blood". Sorry if that diminishes the contributions of the Navy, Merchant Marine, Flying Tigers in China, etc. What I'm saying is that there was quite a lot of bloodshed before the
USA's full-scale involvement once war was officially declared by Congress in 1941. It had been 2.5 years since Germany stormed through Poland.
