American Patriotism

[rt052192]

By the way, the soviet union won the second world war, not the americans XD

Now this is comical...I will say that the Soviets did a good job of repelling the Germans from Russia(the Russian winter probably had a greater effect then the Red Army), but let's be serious. You honestly believe that had America not entered the war the Red Army would have been able to eliminate the Germans from North Africa, Italy, Liberate France, get Germany to surrender, and deal with the Japanese in the Pacific? Yeah, I think it's quite comical to think this. The combined efforts of America and the Soviets, not solely one or the other, is what won the second world war.

ah, need to interject and use this damn BA.

The British did a fair amount of the work in North Africa, Italy fell like a stack of cards as soon as someone showed up with a gun (oversimplified for brevity), France was being defended by 10% of the German army and Canadian and British Forces made up a major part of the D-Day landing. The Soviets and Japanese had a peace treaty that was maintained up until right after the first atomic bomb went off and Russian invaded Manchuria.

The Red Army fought better than msot people give them credit for. Yes they were mainly a conscript army, but the Russian population had been massively taking part in after work activities like parachute training, rifle training and grenade tossing as recreational activities. Combine that with the massive partisan movements in the countryside and resistance movements throughout the reich and the Soviets would ahve won in time without the second front ever being opened.

So in the end Germany would fall, Japan would be untouched but would have devastated most of East Asia. North Africa would probably look pretty much like it does today. France would probably have a lot more Communist influences, since the Red Army would either have kept mowing on into France after Germany fell or would have been their immediate neighbour.

OT: Saving private Ryan is less irritating to me than some other American war movies. U-571 being the biggest pain to me as a historian as it casts Americans as the brave men who captured the enigma device, when in reality they were British.

Patriotism can be OK, it just has to be balanced and we all need to avoid jingoism.

you raise some valid points and yes the British did do alot during the war, but it was still a combined effort from the Big Three, not just the Soviets. Besides, your theory about how the soviets may have been able to win is yet, just a theory based on speculation. To end: I cannot stress this enough; it wasn not a one man show that won WORLD war 2, it was the combined effort from the Allies.

 

[kuyo]

I'm a bit embarrassed by American patriotism. I mean it's pretty nice with all the freedom and stuff, but my pessimism and paranoia always reminds me that patriotism prevents objective interpretation, which hampers advancements such as universal health-care.

 

[Asmundr]

Even as an American, our "patriotism" often worries me. I mean, I am fine if we use it to unite in a time of peril like we did after 9/11. That made us closer as a country. But when people use it as an excuse for bigotry, for ignorance, that is what bothers me. Like the people who watch Glenn Beck. Although I would not say Beck is a complete idiot, his patriotic rants should be taken with massive amounts of salt. Yet his hardcore fans are people who take it at its meaning. They use it to segregate and to act like total arrogant fools. They see America as the example of absolute perfection, as if everything we do is perfect, but the other "backwards" countries don't realize it because they do realize our greatness. They do not realize that America is a deeply flawed country who has alienated itself from the rest of the world due to the arrogance of our past leaders (I'm talking people like Truman and Reagan, not Bush) and the ignorance of its people. Sad, but true. Long story short, my views of patriotism are the same with my views of religion: fine when used to unite, a problem when used to divide.

As for our view of WWII, I have always believed Hollywood dramatizes the brave sacrifices of soldiers to appeal to the people I have previously mentioned. The Pacific was a show that showed war the right way: full of valiant men, but made them flawed enough to show that war was not all glory and American pride. There was racism and deep hate. Tom Hanks learned that. Fox News criticized him for portraying it. They called him "un-patriotic." Oh well, what is there to do?

I agree with you on this.

Patriotism comes in many forms and strengths as well as beneficial and harmful portions. But a word to those that categorize Americans as one big bundle of fools or ignorant, arrogant bastards; please stop. That too is a form of arrogance and ignorance on your part. So what if films like Saving Private Ryan can come off being a little to high on "American Patriotism". It is a film about a small group of American soldiers tasked with rescuing one of their own so he can return home to his family. I felt very proud and patriotic as an American during some points in th movie, its only natural. Can any American who knows their history say it was not a wondrous feat when we took Iwo Jima or Omaha Beach and not feel some patriotism? Or how about our war for independence? Can anyone from any country say that they do not feel some form or amount of patriotism when told stories about how their countrymen did brave or honorable acts?

True patriotism is a strong belief, a strong loyalty to an ideal. Not just to ones country or government. But sadly, I fear that to some of you here it doesn't really matter much on what people have posted. I ask; If I told you that I consider myself a proud American, a patriot. Would that make me ignorant? Arrogant? Would the same apply to those who are proud of their country as well?

Well, thats my 2 cents. Please take it for what it is.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Patriotism is not something to be reviled. Patriotism is wanting to do the best you can to help and improve that from which you come.Patriotism is not insisting you and your nation are better than everything and everyone. Patriotism is being justifiably awed at all that it took to make your country what it is today. Patriotism is not an unwavering belief that your people have not and can not do wrong. Patriotism is being able to admit to mistakes and trying to assist in making things right. We, as Americans, come from a history of fighting tooth and nail for what we had, and what we wanted. Perhaps our reasons were never the best, and true many other peoples have fought just as hard in their own struggle for existence, but that cheapen the sacrifice, or the acomplishment?

Here, hard-working men and women stood and created some thing greater than any single person could ever be.
Patriotism is an aspiration to the ideals a country values. Patriotism is striving to live up to those ideals and in doing so, make life better for yourself and everyone else. There are very few patriots in this world, American or otherwise.

 

[arrow_storm]

By the way, the soviet union won the second world war, not the americans XD

Now this is comical...I will say that the Soviets did a good job of repelling the Germans from Russia(the Russian winter probably had a greater effect then the Red Army), but let's be serious. You honestly believe that had America not entered the war the Red Army would have been able to eliminate the Germans from North Africa, Italy, Liberate France, get Germany to surrender, and deal with the Japanese in the Pacific? Yeah, I think it's quite comical to think this. The combined efforts of America and the Soviets, not solely one or the other, is what won the second world war.

I'll grant you the pacific, but Europe was won by the soviets.

America reminds me of my dog.
Adorable, and huggable. But also stupid, fat, greedy, and barks at harmless squirrels.

A very good metaphor there.

 

[Whytewulf]

First, Saving Private Ryan is a movie about an American made movie, about an American Platoon, going after an American in WWII. I don't get why you think it's too American. If you want movies about both sides, maybe look at Clint Eastwoods, two movies, Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. A US look and a Japan look. Even Mel Gibson's Movie We were Soldiers Once, gives a bit of a perspective of the Vietnamese. Now if you talk about movies from the 40's and 50's yes they were very one sided, but we were still raw from the war and some films were a bit of proganda. Enjoy the films for what they are, but don't expect too many films from the US, being anti-US, though they are out there. I mean, Born on the 4th of July, Platoon, Casualties of War, Jarhead, and many more show sides and the not so good sides of the US in war.

Patriotism.. eh enough people have explained the difference between it an nationalize. Pride in your country is a good thing. Even if you don't agree with what they do, you work to change it, that's the sign of a patriot.

As for the US itself. It's vogue to pick on the US. The US is hated, vilified, and thought of greedy fat people. Why is that? Like it or not the US has been the dominate country in the World for a few years, (not sure if it still is, or if it will last), but people were envious. The US did some good things. Many countries rely on the US for their economy, their defense, etc. The US doesn't do everything right for sure, it isn't perfect, but it ain't all the bad.

 

[rt052192]

By the way, the soviet union won the second world war, not the americans XD

Now this is comical...I will say that the Soviets did a good job of repelling the Germans from Russia(the Russian winter probably had a greater effect then the Red Army), but let's be serious. You honestly believe that had America not entered the war the Red Army would have been able to eliminate the Germans from North Africa, Italy, Liberate France, get Germany to surrender, and deal with the Japanese in the Pacific? Yeah, I think it's quite comical to think this. The combined efforts of America and the Soviets, not solely one or the other, is what won the second world war.

I'll grant you the pacific, but Europe was won by the soviets.

I'm sorry but I just can't see the Soviets succeeding in Europe had America not been involved. I'm not completely against the idea, but if you could provide some sort of evidence or facts to support your claim I'd gladly change my opinion. The fact remains that the Axis powers were winning before America entered the war and shortly after America joins the show the Allies start to win. Not to mention America focused most of its efforts in the Pacific Theater before fully getting involved in Europe. America fought on two fronts, the Soviets only on one.

 

[Asmundr]

What's more the global endgame is approaching. Humanity needs to unify under one goverment if we're going to survive as a species. If nothing else we need to do it in order to efficiently use manpower and resources to get off planet to obtain more resources. A lot of people increasingly realize this even if they don't rationalize it. While a lot of people hate it, the system and principles of the US are the only ones that could really work for humanity as a whole. The dissolution of nations into a world goverment DOES mean that the US will also dissolve. It also means that in the end those same principles and style of governing will amount to Asians running most of the goverment simply by the numbers (largest population) in the long run. The principles and rules mattering more under our system than what someone looks like. The problem of course being that in doing this it means that the history of centuries or thousands of years for some civilizations suddenly becomes trivial. Things like a gloabl language are going to ease communication, but for all the benefits people in the short term are going to resent a long-used language like French becoming a hobby with English (for a lot of reasons beyond the US using it as it's primary language) being taught to everyone in school, and so on. As time goes on people realize that their history will become fringe study, like most things past periods will be condensed and we will be looking at a "late American Era" right before a global unity.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call you out on this.
The major problem with the dissolution of nations and becoming "one world" is that as a species we like to classify or categorize ourselves. I ask you, what would become of national identity? How would people identify themselves? What of our many cultures? How will history be written? Please realize that by dissolving nations and placing everything and everyone under one, world government; that it would not remain functioning for very long. You can not have for example Iranians telling Israelis what to do just as you cannot expect to have Russians being led by Americans. People from one country/ethnic group/culture tend to be bias towards their own. It is, sadly, human nature that has evolved of the course of our short existence on this planet. You cannot simple overwrite this and expect everyone to go along with it. What would happen to nations or people that resist? Would you be ok with a world government that would annex them forcefully or leave them behind during colonization or the stars?

To solve your "global endgame" which, by the way, is several billion years off . It is more feasible to create a international space program/agency by pooling together the resources, technology, and funds from the current ones; then headquarter them in one location. The existing bases can be used for tracking, emergences, or other, launches etc. This should also walk hand in hand by political reforms in the United Nations to streamline it and make it function better as a political entity, nothing more; currently it is pretty much useless. I won't go into the details here, nor do I want to but please consider more information and possibilities in the future.

 

[Whytewulf]

By the way, the soviet union won the second world war, not the americans XD

Now this is comical...I will say that the Soviets did a good job of repelling the Germans from Russia(the Russian winter probably had a greater effect then the Red Army), but let's be serious. You honestly believe that had America not entered the war the Red Army would have been able to eliminate the Germans from North Africa, Italy, Liberate France, get Germany to surrender, and deal with the Japanese in the Pacific? Yeah, I think it's quite comical to think this. The combined efforts of America and the Soviets, not solely one or the other, is what won the second world war.

I'll grant you the pacific, but Europe was won by the soviets.

America reminds me of my dog.
Adorable, and huggable. But also stupid, fat, greedy, and barks at harmless squirrels.

A very good metaphor there.

I will disagree, that Europe was one by the Soviets. If the US, British, Canada hadn't opened up the Western Front, the Eastern Front would have been so much worse. In reality, Germany and Japan lost the war more than it was one in some regards. Or they at least shortened it, attacking in winter was dumb. Russia was going to let Japan take over most of Asia until it's borders, it was silly of Japan to attack America, especially at that time. If I remember I will find some of the books I read about certain strategic events and times in the war. If Japan had just waited a few months, things would have dramatically changed. But again, in Europe, Germany had taken over most of Europe. But key was even less the actual fighting US troops, but the support the US gave, with armour, technology and embargos. I don't think I can win anyone over, without large amounts of quotes and references, but it's 1am and I don't feel like doing the work. (Lazy American )

 

[Therumancer]

What's more the global endgame is approaching. Humanity needs to unify under one goverment if we're going to survive as a species. If nothing else we need to do it in order to efficiently use manpower and resources to get off planet to obtain more resources. A lot of people increasingly realize this even if they don't rationalize it. While a lot of people hate it, the system and principles of the US are the only ones that could really work for humanity as a whole. The dissolution of nations into a world goverment DOES mean that the US will also dissolve. It also means that in the end those same principles and style of governing will amount to Asians running most of the goverment simply by the numbers (largest population) in the long run. The principles and rules mattering more under our system than what someone looks like. The problem of course being that in doing this it means that the history of centuries or thousands of years for some civilizations suddenly becomes trivial. Things like a gloabl language are going to ease communication, but for all the benefits people in the short term are going to resent a long-used language like French becoming a hobby with English (for a lot of reasons beyond the US using it as it's primary language) being taught to everyone in school, and so on. As time goes on people realize that their history will become fringe study, like most things past periods will be condensed and we will be looking at a "late American Era" right before a global unity.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call you out on this.
The major problem with the dissolution of nations and becoming "one world" is that as a species we like to classify or categorize ourselves. I ask you, what would become of national identity? How would people identify themselves? What of our many cultures? How will history be written? Please realize that by dissolving nations and placing everything and everyone under one, world government; that it would not remain functioning for very long. You can not have for example Iranians telling Israelis what to do just as you cannot expect to have Russians being led by Americans. People from one country/ethnic group/culture tend to be bias towards their own. It is, sadly, human nature that has evolved of the course of our short existence on this planet. You cannot simple overwrite this and expect everyone to go along with it. What would happen to nations or people that resist? Would you be ok with a world government that would annex them forcefully or leave them behind during colonization or the stars?

To solve your "global endgame" which, by the way, is several billion years off . It is more feasible to create a international space program/agency by pooling together the resources, technology, and funds from the current ones; then headquarter them in one location. The existing bases can be used for tracking, emergences, or other, launches etc. This should also walk hand in hand by political reforms in the United Nations to streamline it and make it function better as a political entity, nothing more; currently it is pretty much useless. I won't go into the details here, nor do I want to but please consider more information and possibilities in the future.

What is inevitably going to happen is that most of the work is going to take place through the simple spread of ideas, what's more we already see it happening to a great extent. A lot of the issues with national firewalls and the like are due to the fear of people losing their national identity as they become more and more americanized every day. There is a lot of truth to the idea that the US has been conquering the world with Starbucks and The Big Mac more assuredly than most military campaigns. Keep the free speech coming and due to nessecity I think a decent sized coalition will form.

As I have said before there is one more war coming at least, and that war is going to be one where that coalition wipes out those who won't join entirely, or itself loses which would require the remnants to form a unity in order to stop them. In the end humanity winds up unified, billions of people die, but when it comes to the survival of the species there really is no other way to do it.

WMD are already on their way to becoming obselete in their current form, as I have pointed out in previous messages countries like China are developing anti-satellite technologies (and have apparently already blinded some of our sats with ground based lasers... do a search for the key words China, Satellite, and lasers... and the US has already had problems with Russia over the fact that we have developed anti-missle technologies in violation of agreements with the defunct USSR. The bottom line being that the world won't end with a sudden exchange of massive nation-wrecking firepower, delivery is going to be much more difficult, and conventional warfare is going to resolve a lot of it.

At any rate, the reason why the whole multi-national space program idea can't work is because there is simple too much paranoia, which is why everyone has to be under one banner. Nobody is going risk anyone else having too much of a say, and be concerned about their share of the benefits above and beyond anything. Everything would be run by committee an it just wouldn't function. Not to mention issues with all the countries too poor to participate freaking out due to being "left behind" and the tensions that will cause. This is to say nothing of the paranoia we already see of nations being concerned about what other nations might be putting up in space. The only thing international discussion on the subject has done has gotten the Russians to share their messed up station, while at the same time preventing any more from being constructed. We try and go that route we all die.

Most theoretical writers on the subject usually start out by having some kind of "magical" disaster level the population and force a unity. That isn't going to happen so as a result we're going to have to resolve it another way.

... and your right, there are plenty of cultures and such that will never be willing to join, as I said billions will die. But when it comes to the fate of the human race as a whole, it's worth even that price.

We're reaching the endgame because our rate of resource depletion is reaching a critical level, and we're going to be "planet locked" in a few decades tops at this rate. Either it happens, or we're doomed. There are no other middle ground solutions.

As ideas spread, and realization dawns, I think you'll be surprised what humans can do in order to survive.

Right now there is a lot of paranoia over the "New World Order" and exactly what I'm talking about BECAUSE people realize that it's going to happen. It's just that I see it as a nessicary thing, not a bad thing.

 

[lcyw20]

Patriotism is overrated. I actually get something very similar from China, being from Hong Kong. I have come to the conclusion that patriotism is more trouble than it is worth. It was during the 2008 Olympics, when there was heated debate over Tibet. Now I don't pretend to know much about Tibet, but from what I understand, it was taken over, and that is how countries are formed, through conquest. Now if you say that is wrong, and we should rectify it, then we would have to resurrect every little state and kingdom that has ever been, and that would be chaos. Imagine if every state in the US tried to become independent. I do think, though, that China should treat Tibet better--the government are just control freaks, Hong Kong people know, but I digress. I found at the time emotions ran high, and you cannot ask people to think rationally. It muddles clear thought. Violence was always waiting to occur. The two World Wars were fuelled by a lot of patriotism, especially Germany and Japan in World War II, and we all know what they did (I hope).

America has patriotism in excess, and that is its poison. The nation is being dumbed down as a result. My jaw dropped when I read in the Times in the UK that a quarter of Americans think Obama is Muslim. The whole world must know the US president better than his own fellow citizens! All this and many more because of neo-conservatives spreading half-truths and lies through their own media outlet or that of unscrupulous businessmen, because of irresponsible pundits passing themselves off as real journalists, such as B. O'Reily, Glenn B., Rush L., the list goes on. Blind patriotism is why America continues to fund its banks and car industries when they no longer need it; and water-down healthcare reform and social welfare, simply because someone said these things stink of "Communism", and a lot of people never think about buzzwords, they just accept that it is bad. Is it, though? Bad education has stripped the Americans of the ability to think critically, replaced with ignorance and arrogance. I won't be surprised when the US finally collapses. It has begun, and it is only a matter of time.

 

[Chainsaws_of_War_2]

I really don't understand. What is so wrong with patriotism? If we as Americans want to love our country and freedom I don't understand why anyone would see that as a con.

The rest of the world can love their country for everything that makes them awesome, why can't we?

 

[strum4h]

This thread went from an awesome movie to people waving their dicks about how amazing their country is. I can see how you can see the theme in saving private ryan. But that does not mean everyone else sees it that way. I see it as an entertaining way to portray the tale of a soldier fighting in WWII. It would have been a good movie even if the main characters were not american. If they showed the British storming the beach the way they did it would not be less epic.

 

[AMMO Kid]

American Patriotism went downhill at the beginning of the 60s. In WW2 everyone supported the American troops going to war. By the time Vietnam came around, people were spitting on the soldiers as they walked through the streets.

 

[Exocet]

I really don't mind the movie focusing only on American soldiers,considering it takes place on D-Day and the days shortly after,meaning Allied forces hadn't joined up yet.

What I do mind is the fact the other countries are so rarely depicted,or even mentionned in WW2 movies made by Hollywood.Could we perhaps see Poland getting screwed over by the USSR and defending against the new and ground_breaking Blitzkrieg.Or Australian training camps for US marines.The Battle of Britain fought by the valiant RAF.

Why not even do a film of the true beginning of the war,when Japan invaded and raped China.You want a movie truly depicting the horrors of war?Don't bother doing it on the bloodied European beachheads or the cold hell that was the Eastern front.China is the way to go.

 

[Private Custard]

By the way, the soviet union won the second world war, not the americans XD

Now this is comical...I will say that the Soviets did a good job of repelling the Germans from Russia(the Russian winter probably had a greater effect then the Red Army), but let's be serious. You honestly believe that had America not entered the war the Red Army would have been able to eliminate the Germans from North Africa, Italy, Liberate France, get Germany to surrender, and deal with the Japanese in the Pacific? Yeah, I think it's quite comical to think this. The combined efforts of America and the Soviets, not solely one or the other, is what won the second world war.

Wait a second. Did you just take all the credit for the North African, Italian, French and Pacific campaigns?

This is exactly what the OP is on about. Go read a fucking book.

EDIT: After a quick smoke break I'll have to admit that I sounded a bit harsh. But it really really annoys me when one nation shouts the loudest and is almost totally ignorant to the contributions from everyone else.

What I always say in situations like this is watch this documentary from the 1970s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War

 

[Agayek]

Well most of these movies are made in the USA, about the USA, so its only natural really. I've noticed it as well, and it does get kind of old.

The US wasn't the only nation invading Europe after all...

YOU LIE! Obviously Americans and Germans were the only people involved in the real fighting of WWII!

(If you can't tell the above was sarcasm, please defenestrate yourself at the nearest possible opportunity)

As for my take on patriotism: It's all kinda silly. Being proud of the place you were born in is kinda like being proud that you have skin.

That's probably more than a bit influenced by my anti-government nature though. I am quite firmly against just about all forms of governing, so I tend to view any and all governments as inherently invalid and evil.

 

[samuraikatana1]

You're watching an American made movie about a group of American soldiers during WWII and you expect it to not be a little Americanized? Almost any war movie you see about a particular country, also made by that particular country is naturally going to have some patriotism in it.

 

[Commissar Sae]

By the way, the soviet union won the second world war, not the americans XD

Now this is comical...I will say that the Soviets did a good job of repelling the Germans from Russia(the Russian winter probably had a greater effect then the Red Army), but let's be serious. You honestly believe that had America not entered the war the Red Army would have been able to eliminate the Germans from North Africa, Italy, Liberate France, get Germany to surrender, and deal with the Japanese in the Pacific? Yeah, I think it's quite comical to think this. The combined efforts of America and the Soviets, not solely one or the other, is what won the second world war.

ah, need to interject and use this damn BA.

The British did a fair amount of the work in North Africa, Italy fell like a stack of cards as soon as someone showed up with a gun (oversimplified for brevity), France was being defended by 10% of the German army and Canadian and British Forces made up a major part of the D-Day landing. The Soviets and Japanese had a peace treaty that was maintained up until right after the first atomic bomb went off and Russian invaded Manchuria.

The Red Army fought better than msot people give them credit for. Yes they were mainly a conscript army, but the Russian population had been massively taking part in after work activities like parachute training, rifle training and grenade tossing as recreational activities. Combine that with the massive partisan movements in the countryside and resistance movements throughout the reich and the Soviets would ahve won in time without the second front ever being opened.

So in the end Germany would fall, Japan would be untouched but would have devastated most of East Asia. North Africa would probably look pretty much like it does today. France would probably have a lot more Communist influences, since the Red Army would either have kept mowing on into France after Germany fell or would have been their immediate neighbour.

OT: Saving private Ryan is less irritating to me than some other American war movies. U-571 being the biggest pain to me as a historian as it casts Americans as the brave men who captured the enigma device, when in reality they were British.

Patriotism can be OK, it just has to be balanced and we all need to avoid jingoism.

you raise some valid points and yes the British did do alot during the war, but it was still a combined effort from the Big Three, not just the Soviets. Besides, your theory about how the soviets may have been able to win is yet, just a theory based on speculation. To end: I cannot stress this enough; it wasn not a one man show that won WORLD war 2, it was the combined effort from the Allies.

Of course, without support the Soviets would have floundered a lot longer and lost millions of more lives. I do base my theory in some pretty solid historical research mind you. Germany was going to lose the war in the end regardless, if only due to their inherent lack of raw materials. The Soviet industry was outproducing Germany by 1943 and they continued to expand while German output started to fall due to lack of material and manpower. Because the Soviets shipped all of their heavy industry over the Urals, it was safe from bombing, something the German industry starter to suffer as the RAF/RCAF started to counter-attack in the west.

But yes, it was through combined effort that victory was achieved. Your first post came off as a little arrogant and condescending so I felt the need to counter with the power of a history degree.

American Patriotism went downhill at the beginning of the 60s. In WW2 everyone supported the American troops going to war. By the time Vietnam came around, people were spitting on the soldiers as they walked through the streets.

That could have been part patriotism too. Having footage of US troops stoned out of their mind and killing women and children wasn't exactly the glorious image of war the American public was used to. Rape, murder, torture and theft aren't the best images to present if you want public support. (and yes it wasn't everyone but if you read some first hand documents and memoirs of 'Nam vets there are a lot of horror stories.)

 

[rt052192]

By the way, the soviet union won the second world war, not the americans XD

Now this is comical...I will say that the Soviets did a good job of repelling the Germans from Russia(the Russian winter probably had a greater effect then the Red Army), but let's be serious. You honestly believe that had America not entered the war the Red Army would have been able to eliminate the Germans from North Africa, Italy, Liberate France, get Germany to surrender, and deal with the Japanese in the Pacific? Yeah, I think it's quite comical to think this. The combined efforts of America and the Soviets, not solely one or the other, is what won the second world war.

ah, need to interject and use this damn BA.

The British did a fair amount of the work in North Africa, Italy fell like a stack of cards as soon as someone showed up with a gun (oversimplified for brevity), France was being defended by 10% of the German army and Canadian and British Forces made up a major part of the D-Day landing. The Soviets and Japanese had a peace treaty that was maintained up until right after the first atomic bomb went off and Russian invaded Manchuria.

The Red Army fought better than msot people give them credit for. Yes they were mainly a conscript army, but the Russian population had been massively taking part in after work activities like parachute training, rifle training and grenade tossing as recreational activities. Combine that with the massive partisan movements in the countryside and resistance movements throughout the reich and the Soviets would ahve won in time without the second front ever being opened.

So in the end Germany would fall, Japan would be untouched but would have devastated most of East Asia. North Africa would probably look pretty much like it does today. France would probably have a lot more Communist influences, since the Red Army would either have kept mowing on into France after Germany fell or would have been their immediate neighbour.

OT: Saving private Ryan is less irritating to me than some other American war movies. U-571 being the biggest pain to me as a historian as it casts Americans as the brave men who captured the enigma device, when in reality they were British.

Patriotism can be OK, it just has to be balanced and we all need to avoid jingoism.

you raise some valid points and yes the British did do alot during the war, but it was still a combined effort from the Big Three, not just the Soviets. Besides, your theory about how the soviets may have been able to win is yet, just a theory based on speculation. To end: I cannot stress this enough; it wasn not a one man show that won WORLD war 2, it was the combined effort from the Allies.

Of course, without support the Soviets would have floundered a lot longer and lost millions of more lives. I do base my theory in some pretty solid historical research mind you. Germany was going to lose the war in the end regardless, if only due to their inherent lack of raw materials. The Soviet industry was outproducing Germany by 1943 and they continued to expand while German output started to fall due to lack of material and manpower. Because the Soviets shipped all of their heavy industry over the Urals, it was safe from bombing, something the German industry starter to suffer as the RAF/RCAF started to counter-attack in the west.

But yes, it was through combined effort that victory was achieved. Your first post came off as a little arrogant and condescending so I felt the need to counter with the power of a history degree.

Yea I will admit that I was a bit biased and condescending, but it is absurd to say that the Soviets won World War 2. Also, I hadn't meant for it to come across saying that America solely won the war. That is absurd, certainly America provided fresh troops and a breath of relief, but the combined strengths of the Allies is what won WW2 and the tactical blunders of Hitler.

Argument/discussion aside: I'm loving this historical debate and correct me if I'm wrong but you have a degree in history? I'm currently going for engineering, but history has always been my favorite class. I just don't know what I can do with a degree in history.