Many American's do hold the opinion (perhaps rightly so) that had we not gone into Europe, at the request of Churchill, Hitler and his SS may have very well overrun the whole of Europe. The US could have simply focused on Japan, and left Europe to fend for itself, but instead supported its allies at great expenses, both monetarily and in American lives. For this sacrifice, some American's dont feel that proper appreciation has been shown by those countries that we "saved" by entering into the European theater. I'll ignore the Pearl Harbor remark.
It seems to me that Hitler did overrun the whole of what we normally think of as Europe- as well as most of European Russia. Following Dunkirk, June 1940, the only opposition Germany faced on the ground, in Europe, was the Soviet Union, which fought essentially alone for four years before the U.S. landed troops at Normandy. (I know, this is ignoring the U.S./British invasion of Italy- but that stalled before the German defenses, leaving half of Italy in German hands.) The tide really turned against Hitler in Europe with his defeat at Stalingrad, February 1943, after which there was no stopping the Soviet Army, as it advanced westward, toward Germany. The U.S. didn't save Europe from Hitler with the Normandy Invasion: it saved western Europe from Stalin. Eastern Europe was not so lucky....
Regardless of why the US went in to WWII it's efforts came at great expense to its people. I think most Americans born after WWII have a strong sense of the sacrifice that all Americans put into the war effort. And there are more versions of the "truth" of WWII than there were sides. As far as I can tell no one here is a scholar of WWII so you are all probably operating with some amount of misunderstanding of how things actually were. Speaking to the ugly Americans with guns issue I think that Americans grow up believing that that have a right to bear arms and to defend themselves with them if they need to. I don't personally believe this is a good thing. But it is part of our culture. I think Americans' love of guns stems from many things including our days as a frontier nation. We left jolly old England and came to a wild and unmapped region and this spirit of the frontier is still in Americans. And while I think the gun-toting side of our frontier spirit is bad, I think that other aspects of our frontier spirit are good, like how inventive and entrepreneurial we are (well, some of us anyway). Americans' love affair with guns also comes from our founding documents which, as I understand them, aim in part to give the people the eternal right to overthrow bad government (hence the right to bear arms). And at it's heart I don't think that this concept is bad, though I don't like that it means we have lots of random gun violence in the US. So all of you from Europe and elsewhere look down your noses at Americans and our love affair with the gun. And you are right, it's disgusting and it's a reason to be afraid. But there are reasons behind it and as I see it those reasons are integral to our founding as a country and to our identity as a people, whether I like it or not.
To be clear, I do believe in the right to bear arms and I've been a gun owner. The right to defend yourself is not at issue to me, nor is the right for responsible citizens to bear firearms. The problem comes with individual actions, lack of restraint, and a low appreciation of life. A person can be killed with a toothbrush, if someone chooses to use that toothbrush as a weapon. I understand the Desire to act out when you are the victim of a crime. When I was robbed earlier this year I was ready to strangle the person that did it, but of' course I would not have, as it would not be proportionate to the offense.
I'm interested in your reasoning of what you think were motives for the US entry into the war. Also, not wanting to pick a fight, but your casual jest about thanking the Japanese for Pearl Harbor is at best in poor taste and at worst an insult. But until you can marshal what you think the facts are I'll give you some unsolicited input. The US Congress was staunchly fixed in an isolationist position, partly as a result of traditional foreign policy and partly because of the horrors of WW I. A war I might add, where the US saved Britain and Europe from defeat by a highly disciplined and well equipped enemy. Isolationism by interpretation had been a cornerstone of American diplomacy since the Declaration of Independence. Roosevelt and several members of his brain trust knew we would have to get involved, and prior to the Japanese attack, an attack some say was provoked by Roosevelt's actions in South East Asia, the US suffered losses from German U-boats' predation on Lend Lease shipments that began in March of 1941, months before Pearl Harbor. Lend Lease for those who don't know, provided essential supplies to England and its allies in return for use permissions of several English naval bases around the world. Hint: What were we going to use those bases for? Nevertheless, Congress resisted being drawn into the war. Once the US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, war with Germany and Italy was a foregone conclusion. And indeed, had the US not entered the war, England the rest of Western Europe would be speaking German today and Eastern Europe would be speaking Russian. And much of China and Korea would be speaking Japanese, along with the entire Pacific. Despite Churchill's brilliant orations and leadership, England would have fallen. The miracle of King Leonidas and the 300 doesn't work in modern warfare and the German invasion of England was planned and would have succeeded. World War II could not have been won without the sacrifices made by the American people. Consider the numbers: (US Census Press Releases) 16.1 million The number of U.S. armed forces personnel who served in World War II between Dec. 1, 1941, and Dec. 31, 1946. See Table 523 at <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-03.html> 33 months The average length of active-duty by U.S. military personnel during WWII. See Table 523 at <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-03.html> Serving Abroad … 73% The proportion of U.S. military personnel who served abroad during WWII. See Table 523 at <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-03.html> 16 months The average time U.S. personnel served overseas during WWII. See Table 523 at <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-03.html> Supreme Sacrifice 292,000 The number of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines killed in battle in WWII. See Table 523 at <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-03.html> 114,000 The number of other deaths sustained by U.S. forces during WWII. See Table 523 at <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-03.html> And the Wounded: 671,000 The number of U.S. troops wounded during WWII. See Table 523 at <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-03.html> Veterans 5.7 million The number of World War II veterans counted in Census 2000. The census identified the period of service for World War II veterans as September 1940 to July 1947. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001120.html> 406,000 US dead, 671,00 US wounded. At the hight of the Pacific Campaign, we were averaging 12,000 deaths a month. The United States waged two full scale wars; The Pacific Theater and the European Theater. Although the Soviets probably could have mustered equal manpower, they could not muster the incredible number of planes, tanks, ships submarines and all the other machinery of death that was brought to bear on the Japanese, German and Italian enemy. My wife's dad was an SAS sergeant who parachuted behind the German lines on D-Day. Our middle son served 13 years on Her Majesty's Service in some of the nastiest places in the world. Neither ever denied the essential contribution America made to their freedom. Rather than a critique of America's isolationism, there should be an appreciation of the fact that twice in a single century America cast aside its fundamental beliefs to send its men and women to the rescue of Europe and Asia. And yes, we saved Europe and we saved England. Somehow in the misadventures that have followed that horrific war, it's become fashionable to minimize and trivialize what the US did between 1941 and 1946. Too bad.
I'm far from trying to put down US involvement in WW2 (I dont say America- America is a continent comprised of several countries, including Canada who were there from the start), indeed it was a significant turning point in the war and definitely affected the outcome. The fact of the matter remains, the US did not declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on the US. Had it not been for that then it's possible the US would have not got directly involved with the war in Europe at all. My grandfather was at Dunkirk and served the whole length of the war - all 5 years of it. My Mum, as a baby, slept in the bottom drawer of a chest of drawers in case the house was bombed by the Luftwaffe. When someone comes along and tells me that I should thank the US for the fact I live in Cancun sixty years later it's condescending, insulting and trivialises the sacrifices my own countrymen made. Great Britain, with a much smaller population, suffered higher losses than the US, and included civilians too. As for lend lease, the US reneged on that and decided to charge interest in 1945 (a debt we only managed to finally pay off in 2006) - the US wouldnt want a post war decimated Britain to become strong again would they? I might not be a WW2 scholar but I like to think my knowledge extends beyond watching the DVD box set of Band of Brothers.
Sorry, Steve, wasn't trying to leave anybody out, I was just thinking mainly of the U.S. introduction of significant ground forces, in Europe (and, I've already mentioned the invasion of Italy, which didn't get very far before the Germans put a stop to it). I've always thought of WWII as a rather close run thing: it took an all out effort by a number of countries to simultaneously take on, and ultimately defeat, the two great Axis powers. WWII was such an epic struggle, fought on so many different fronts, with so many different participants, that it's hard to talk about without simplifying, as I have done, when talking about the ground war, in Europe.
I'm not refuting who declared war on who. I am refuting your claim that the US would have stood by indefinetly. Forces what at work to change the traditional US stance of non-involvment starting in the previous decade. Your analysis of British vs US casualties is flawed. The war was fought in Europe. It is natural that the majority of casualties occur in the theater of operations. And I am certainly not trivializing the sacrifices of your countrymen and family. The bravery of the English people and the British forces during the war is an anchor point in history and an example to people everywhere where freedom is valued. And, I remind you, speaking of trivialization and insult, of your proposed thanks to the Japanese. You should indeed thank the US for your very existance. Bend it any way you like, without trivializing the brave and noble deeds of the British people as a whole and members of both your family and mine, Britain would not have survived without the entry of the US into the war. Europe had been overrun and England was the next target. England had no miltary support of any significance in Europe. It would have been bloodier and more horrible than can be imagined, and the English would have fought to the last man, but the British Isles would have been invaded and subjugated without US intervention and those that survived would live under the German occupation forces. As for Lend Lease, perhaps an overview from Wikipedia would be enlightening. Note the the very act put an end to US non-intervention in the first quarter of 1941, clearly signaling Hitler that the US was going to enter the war. As for interest payments, please substitute the word rent. Please read the definition of Reverse Lend Lease below. And far from attempting to hog-tie post war development of England, US involvment in technologies shared with Britain assisted in restoring it to a place of prominence in the world. Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945 in return for, in the case of Britain, military bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. It began in March 1941, over 18 months after the outbreak of the war in September 1939. It was called An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States. This act also ended the pretense of the neutrality of the United States. Hitler recognized this and consequently had his submarines attack US ships such as the SS Robin Moor, an unarmed merchant steamship destroyed by a German U-boat on 21 May, 1941 outside of the war zone. A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. The terms of the agreement provided that the material was to be used until time for their return or destruction. (Supplies after the termination date were sold to Britain at a discount, for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the U.S.) Canada operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union.[2] This program is seen as a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement. The Americans demanded that this rent be settled, and it took until 2006 for the UK government to settle its debt to the USA And finally, one of the things both our nations fought for and preserved was the right for you and I to freely express our opinions and beliefs without fear of censorship or censure. You and I may never agree on anything we've "discussed" here, but it's a grand thing that we can do it. Have a Happy Christmas with your family and friends.
V-I'm in total agreement with this analysis. Hitler's miscalculations regarding the march into Russia was a key factor, perhaps the key factor in his defeat. Nevertheless, the "argument" I'm having with Steve is more finely focused on events concerning England and its possible fate failing US intervention in the war (and some other little things).
