Poll: World War 1 and 2 - who did more for the French?

[Sulu]

In WW1 only 53,000 Americans died and 800,000 British died. We all know that in WW1 it was the French and British/commonwealth vs Germany, the USA sent some men over but they didn't take part in much fighting until the Germans were in full retreat.

In WW2 they played a much higher role and lost more men then the UK, however on D-day 60% of allied forces were British or Canadian. The french are reluctant to mention that the British even helped during Dday and I have heard they don't even teach in schools about British help. Thanks France!
The allies needed the Americans in WW2 because as Europe fell, the french had no factories to produce arms and tanks. The USA had very good war production and made military stuff in much greater quantities than Britain was capable of doing. As the British were also fighting in the east vs Japan we didn't have the manpower capable of invading Europe alone.

The western allies were only fighting 1/3rd of the Germans on the western front, the rest were against the USSR. It could then be seen from a purely historical viewpoint that the people who saved France the most were the Russians, if they had been defeated then we would have been fighting 100% of the German military on the western front. This would result in a Normandy campaign that may not have been winnable.

Larger countries commit larger forces to battle and therefore make a larger impact

 

[Abedeus]

Helped the French? You surrendered, without having even one building in Paris destroyed.

Also, nukes were NEVER EVER used in Europe.

 

[Trivun]

Just a quick note, I originally put India as an answer on the poll, but in hindsight I realised that although they helped as part of the Commonwealth, they otherwise weren't a major part of the war. Canada, on the other hand, were, so I changed it from India to Canada. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

I picked other because in WW1 I'd pick France as to helping the French out. I mean we (I'm half French) did have one of the highest casualty rates along with Germany and Russia. They also had some of the toughest fighting. This is a major factor for their surrender in WW2 since well, the president didn't want to see his home torn by war (again). The English (I'm also half English so no bias) and the Americans claim glory but really, their homeland was pretty much safe. Britain was an island, America well is on a different continent whereas France is in the thick of it. WW2 I'd say its a mix of the Russians (for pressuring German forces at another end), the Americans (for sheer manpower), the British (for helping the resistance) and France (for having a resistance in the first place).

 

[GodsOneMistake]

For example britain couldn't have beaten off the Germans without the rush of soldiers from America on D day.

We actually got a load of troops from Ireland, Canada and Australia. Don't take all the credit.

And again I realize that, I just tried to put it as simply as possible without all the extra baggage... Thats why I just used America and Great Britain as an example....

 

[GodsOneMistake]

Helped the French? You surrendered, without having even one building in Paris destroyed.

Also, nukes were NEVER EVER used in Europe.

FUCKKKKK, thats not what I said.... (Sigh) Please read my post again

 

[Bobbovski]

WW1: Probably the UK/the commonwealth
WW2: Hmm... I would say the UK, USA and the Soviet union were most likely equal. The US sent supplies and TONS of fresh troops, the UK bombed fortress europa and kept the Germans at bay for years and the Soviets forced allot of Germany's troops (many of them very elite troops) to fight on the eastern front so that they wouldn't be able fight on any other front.

 

[Abedeus]

Helped the French? You surrendered, without having even one building in Paris destroyed.

Also, nukes were NEVER EVER used in Europe.

FUCKKKKK, thats not what I said.... (Sigh) Please read my post again

Yes, yes you did.

"Without he use of nukes (..) they couldn't have"

This strongly implies that nukes were used in Germany.

Also, they didn't go to Eastern Europe. They were stopped in Poland by Soviet Union, that proceeded to enslave us.

 

[Sosakitty]

Thats just typical America. They think they did everything to win the war but they actually did fuck all.

If you say so..... That is pretty ignorant. Who are you to decide what all 300,000,000 of us think of our contribution to the effort to liberate France during the world wars? The way you are stereotyping Americans is akin to racism.

I personally think that no one country can say that it liberated France from the Nazis. The Allies worked together to defeat the Axis powers, and I don't believe that anyone can lay claim to the title of "Liberator of France."

 

[GodsOneMistake]

Helped the French? You surrendered, without having even one building in Paris destroyed.

Also, nukes were NEVER EVER used in Europe.

FUCKKKKK, thats not what I said.... (Sigh) Please read my post again

Yes, yes you did.

"Without he use of nukes (..) they couldn't have"

This strongly implies that nukes were used in Germany.

Also, they didn't go to Eastern Europe. They were stopped in Poland by Soviet Union, that proceeded to enslave us.

Regardless, I worded it VERY poorly, and if you can see I have posted like 8 times trying to defend myself... And the Eastern europe part, I meant to say western..... God I really fucked up on that post

 

[Souplex]

America always wins and always does the best, that is what makes it America!

 

[Crimsane]

Please post your thoughts here so we can decide now who truly deserves the credit for WW1 and WW2.

Everyone involved?

As far as helping the French, probably the Brits. Much like I'd imagine if Canada was invaded, the majority of their aid would come from the U.S., being the largest nearby friendly nation and all that.

 

[Go Fighting In The War Room]

WW1: The Commonwealth. They had to hold off the Germans for 3 years in stalemate after stalemate that killed off thousands of troops at a time.

WW2: Every Allied Nation. They all did their part. The British sent spies and supplies and took refugees, The US, even though late produced tons of armaments, the former USSR for reliving pressure on the Western front, and the rest of the Commonwealth backing up the British during D-Day and the rest of the war.

 

[BVB012990]

Alright I'm going to be a heathen and vote for the US on this one. It was very close overall, but unless I am terribly mistaken about the timing for WWI by the time the first US expeditionary force arrived things were still locked in a stalemate on the western front. While they might have done less fighting than the other allied nations it proved to be a good morale boost for the Allies, and the prospect of having millions (2,810,000 draftees were in training, but not necessarily deployed by the Armistice) of fresh and eager soldiers to bolster the enemy ranks was a major psychological blow to the Germans. Then there was also the extra manufacturing of supplies that the US brought to the overall industrial power of the allies. The US was far more marginal on this one, so the UK probably did more in then end.

In terms of WWII I think we did a bit more to actually aid the French. Yes there were a lot of UK, Australian, and Canadian forces on D-Day, but it would not have been possible without the resources and manpower supplied by the US (on the other hand maybe Hitler did more on D-day by holding the reins of the Panzer divisions and spectacularly screwing that up). More likely is that if the US hadn't gotten in on the deal then the UK would have just sat on their island for the most part until the Russian finished the job for them. Also to throw in my two cents about the entire Russians winning the WWII single singlehandedly part: the Germans had a vast amount of their military in the East (2/3 is the agreed upon figure here I believe) they still poured a monumental amount of resources into the Western front that more likely than not would have tipped the balance in the eastern front, and the supplies that the US sent aided the Russians a bit as well. While the US may not have been doing a majority of the fighting we provided the distraction and the supplies that allowed the Allies to win the second world war. Now I'm going to go hide in my flame bunker and let the debate continue.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

As an American I am going to say America. Just because I can.

 

[neoman10]

United Kingdom, and this is coming from an American, I believe 1/4 of Americans are retarded though

 

[Bradfucius]

UK helped the French in WW2 more, but the American's probably did more for the war overall.

 

[MikeOfThunder]

You can't say that only one nation helped out.

It was a joint effort between all the allied forces, all contributing to release france from German hands.

Also i would like to put India in as a major player also. With the British empire at war LOADS of soldiers were called from india to fight in europe.

Edit: Also, give America some credit. Yes half the time i feel as though they want to take ALL the credit but thats not always true and... in the end, Us Brits, as proud as we were to fight alone, we needed those extra troops to eventually win over the axis forces.

 

[soren7550]

Wasn't it largely American forces that liberated France? And didn't most of Europe not become liberated until the American forces intervened?

 

[Cabisco]

In regards to World War 2, everyone helped everyone. France helped the allies by provided information and disrupting supplies etc as a the French Resistance movement. The United States helped by sending supplies over to Britain, though i should point out that the Majority of Americans were against this (I think the term is isolationist) and it was really Roosevelt that saw these through. Then after Pearl Harbor the Americans brought real military might to the fight relieving the Commonwealth armies in their very long fight with Japanese forces. Russian helped by resisting the main German army in effectively a bloodbath for both sides, though again should be pointed out they only joined the War after the Axis betrayed them in Operation Barbarossa. Beforehand they had a deal to keep out of the war in return for half of Poland. The Commonwealth (i'm including Britain in this) helped by effectively Fighting the Axis powers by itself for years on all fronts, These including The Battle of Britain, The African Front, and Burma. However without French Resistance, Chinese Resistance forces and American Supply lines under Royal navy protection would have lost.

Really no one power can say they did it alone, though i would vote Britain and Commonwealth for simply being in it the longest.

Edit: In regards to D-day, it actually wasn't necessary for the defeat of the Germans as they were in Full retreat on the Eastern Front. However it was necessary to stop Russia from keeping France etc after the war, instead they got half of Europe instead of the full block.