I just moved here this thread.
Of course there were many, many battles throughout world war two. But, what battle do you think was the most strategically important/momentum changing/crushing to the loser? I personally think that it was D-Day, it was the beginning of the end for the Germans, and if the Americans were driven from the beaches it would’ve been a gigantic loss and could have prolonged the war for years.
Havent we had this out on an older thread? I know you have not been here very long so may not have seen it.
What the hell is being said?
Is there not a rule that says only English is to be spoken?
Not in the Russian Military Forum
Erwin said “I want to speak slovenian” and i say “why”
Thats all. 
For those of you who have never heard of the movie Downfall, it is a German movie in subtitles, and it is mainly focused on the Germans in the last 12 days of Hitlers life. The movie was released in Canada February 18th, 2005. You’d it’s only playing in select theaters. If you want to check it out here’s the site -
It is already a thread for it:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=148
Therefore I’ll lock this topic.
Edit by Crab:
These are the posts split from Location thread.
If you are from the US, please remember, you wouldnt be the US without the French.
Maybe things would be very much diffrent if they had given my country that much support.[/quote]
Heh. Well, if you are from France, please remember that it was largely the US that kept the Germans from making your country a big vacation park - twice.
EDITED TO CORRECT A TYPO[/quote]
Although not French id just like to point out that the US had minimal impact on WW1, and it would be a sad injustice to France who lost millions of brave men to think so.
Agreed - France lost the flower of her youth in hell holes like Verdun, long before the US entered the war. To keep on the commonly held assumption that the French would be speaking German if not for the US is an insult to the millions who fell at Verdun and at other battles between 1914 and 1918.
In the second world war - yes France fell very quickly for such a large and supposedly powerful country, however they were beaten by a revolutionary military doctrine and the effects of the great depression. The US should thank Great Britain that we held on for so long alone - if we had fallen and been forced to surrender the Royal Navy to the Germans, the history of the US could have been a whole lot different.
You underestimate the contribution of the US to both wars. Nobody here is saying that France would have been doomed to defeat without the US, but without the US, who knows what might have happened.
The US should thank Britain for surviving the German attack for so long? Well, I suppose we should certainly respect it. IT was an incredible accomplishment of some very fine and determined pilots. However, the Germans could not have invaded Britain. Germany did not have what it would have taken to do it. The German attack on Britain switched to bombing the cities AFTER Germany’s worst day of the Battle of Britain. Once it was realized that Germany could not defeat Britain in the air, and a sea invasion was impossible because of the Royal Navy, they switched to bombing civilians. IT was already impossible to invade Britain. The popular contention that had Germany not stopped bombing the British airfields they would have defeated Britain is false.
France was not defeated in WWII by a doctrine. They were defeated so easily by poor military leadership. They did not mobilize their army to the noth where the Germans were bypassing the Maginot Line. This cost them everything until D-Day. Had they had better leadership, they might have staved off the German invasion at least long enough for the US, British, Canadian, and Aussie troops to land in Normandy to help out.
So, because things turned out as they did, France indeed was saved, largely by the US in WWII. In WWI, without the hundreds of thousands of US doughboys, they might have suffered the same fate.
Take a look at these numbers. The number of US troops sent to France in WWI might astound you. Guess you just didn’t know eh?
EDITED TO CORRECT CODES
They are impressive totals. A few things though.
The US contribution to WW1 was minimal. They only got into action towards the middle of 1918.
As to your theory that france didnt mobilise to the North in 1940. Thats exactly where they did mobilise to.
They were beaten because they were using tactics and theory from ww1.
If ww1 had gone on into 1919, then the US would have made a greater contribution.
I also agree that the UK could not have been invaded after September 1940.
Have I misread the paragraph above? There is the strong implication that there were no British troops in France at the start of the Battle of France. There is also the implication that had France held out longer, the US would have sent troops to support the Anglo-French effort. Given how long it took the US to enter the war after the fall of France with Britain taking the full force of the Nazi war machine, I don’t see how even holding the Germans for a year would have motivated the US to assist militarily.
I know, I just think that while we’re demanding thanks for what our countries have done during the world wars (or, if you will, making statements like ‘the US prevented France from being a German vacation park’), maybe you could thank the UK for ensuring there was still a war for the US to be late into?
They could have staved the German invasion off for two years until America joined the war with better leadership? No they couldn’t. Blitzkrieg was revolutionary in 1940 and took the whole world by surprise. No matter how good the French leadership could have been, they would not have beaten the Germans. As for waiting for help from the British - we’ve already discussed just how much help the British had sent in 1940, and that was no good.
The numbers don’t astound me in the slightest - Britain and France had both had more men in the field for 3 years by 1917. The American troops that deployed were inexperienced and short of some equipment (they had to borrow French helmets and had to use British and French tanks because they had none of their own), the added numbers helped to shorten the war, but the Allies could have won the first world war without American intervention - the Germans were practically starving to death by the end of 1917 thanks to the Royal Navy blockade of their coast anyway, the Allies could just have gone on the defensive and waited for the Germans to be forced to surrender by starvation at home.
[quote=“Crab_to_be”]
Have I misread the paragraph above? There is the strong implication that there were no British troops in France at the start of the Battle of France. There is also the implication that had France held out longer, the US would have sent troops to support the Anglo-French effort. Given how long it took the US to enter the war after the fall of France with Britain taking the full force of the Nazi war machine, I don’t see how even holding the Germans for a year would have motivated the US to assist militarily.[/quote]
You are making assumtions based on your feelings, not on facts. The only implication is that you are looking at numbers and seeing the ones that are not listed, and not those provided. Did you see that the US sent over 1,000,000 soldiers to France? Astounding eh?
I think sometimes people forget about the numbers of troops involved in ww1. France and the Uk had Millions in the field.
You can fault the French in ww2, but you cant fault their courage in ww1.
Crab is talking about 1940, not 1917.
Have I misread the paragraph above? There is the strong implication that there were no British troops in France at the start of the Battle of France. There is also the implication that had France held out longer, the US would have sent troops to support the Anglo-French effort. Given how long it took the US to enter the war after the fall of France with Britain taking the full force of the Nazi war machine, I don’t see how even holding the Germans for a year would have motivated the US to assist militarily.[/quote]
You are making assumtions based on your feelings, not on facts. The only implication is that you are looking at numbers and seeing the ones that are not listed, and not those provided. Did you see that the US sent over 1,000,000 soldiers to France? Astounding eh?[/quote]
1 million. Not astounding in the least.
Have I misread the paragraph above? There is the strong implication that there were no British troops in France at the start of the Battle of France. There is also the implication that had France held out longer, the US would have sent troops to support the Anglo-French effort. Given how long it took the US to enter the war after the fall of France with Britain taking the full force of the Nazi war machine, I don’t see how even holding the Germans for a year would have motivated the US to assist militarily.[/quote]
You are making assumtions based on your feelings, not on facts. The only implication is that you are looking at numbers and seeing the ones that are not listed, and not those provided. Did you see that the US sent over 1,000,000 soldiers to France? Astounding eh?[/quote]
Curious. Your reply bears absolutely no relevance to my post. I might even think that you hadn’t read it. I made no assumptions of any kind. I merely observed that your paragraph appeared to make two false claims. You might want to clarify your meaning. I’m sure you’d hate to post misleading statements.