America didn't do much in World War II (in Europe)

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Truman no more called the shots than Bush or Obama.

By that point Wall Street owned US politics.

Agree with this statement by Texan. I think this is still true today...or more aptly certain central banks and insurance companys own US Politics..and not all of them are American banks and insurance companies. They seem able to determine our foreign as well as domestic policy.


IblisLucifer,

Very very interesting posts you have made. I agree with most of it.

Your post follow very much what I have learned from reading these books which are very much outside the mainstream of what attempts to pass for history today. I believe this is also why so many in the UK have such a distorted view of Americas involvement in these wars..as do Americans themselves.

These books are..

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

Wall Street and FDR

Wall street and the Rise of Hitler

National Suicide ..Military Aide To The Soviet Union

The War on Gold.


All of these books by a Yale Professor named Anthony Sutton. Professor Sutton was so close to the mark that eventually no Ameican publishing house would touch his material. In later years his material was published out of Australia. He had become persona non grata in academic circles. And academic circles , like politics, is a very closed shop.

Further reading and revelation in support of your position IblisLucifer comes from a book by Curtis Dall titled

"FDR my Exploited Father In Law"


While there are lots of interesting tidbits in this book about FDR and Eleanor...the most noteworthy to me is Colonel Dalls account of being attached to the US Embassy in Neutral Turkey and being approached by some Germans wanting to arrange a private meeting to discuss the war. What transpired in this meeting was the existence of a plan to overthrow the Nazi Regime and surrender to the west. Many professional German Military leaders knew by 1943 when this meeting took place..that the war was lost. They did not want to lose or surrender to the Communist Russians. They wanted to surrender to the West. This informations was passed on to Washington in the diplomatic pouch and nothing was ever heard or done about it. As I recall two of these meetings took place and nothing happened about it. It seems someone wanted the war to continue. IF the German Military leadership would have overthrown the Nazi leadership and surrendered many many lives would have been saved on both sides ..but the war had not accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. The war needed to continue to achieve certain political and economic goals.

It was the same with Japan in the orient. The Japanese wanted to surrender in March and April of 1945..but the West ignored them. The destruction had not been done in order to prepare the ground for the new industries to take place in Japan. The war had to continue. The fire bombing had not yet taken place.

And another poster is correct...the atomic bombs did not do that much damage to Japan...the fire bombing did much much more. This is today what we would call.." Urban Renewal." Only the bulldozers are bombers..not catapiller/tractors.

As to the Nazi trucks...I am aware of this in another facet..after WW2..in the 1960s. It is western companies through banks and banking..who built for the Soviets the Kama River Truck factory to turn out trucks to go down the Ho Chi Ming trail and bring supplies to conduct the war...to keep the war going. This was done with Western help. We built this factory through western technology and western know how.

This is found in National Suicide or Military Aide to the Soviet Union.

I believe this was also covered in a book many years before I discovered Anthony Sutton..and in a book called..

"None Dare Call It Conspiracy..by Gary Allen.

We seem to have a history of building our own enemies. NOne of these companies including lending institutions were to be found on trial at Nuremburg. They should be.

I am of the opinion that one of the reasons the Nazis were held in check is that there seemed to be a banking connection to the Nazis through Switzerland banks...with the Dulles family working for these controllers. They seemed to easily manage not only FDR and company but the Nazis as well...and information ..I believe flowed through this channel...as well as monies and technology.

It is interesting to see on certain photos of the ME 109 aircraft being run up ...and the fuel symbols son some of them..Shell...Esso...et al. I believe the Nazi contracts for oil ran and were completed through 1943 from Venezuela.

It is indeed a strange and tangled web in which the world actually runs..not what is presented in the history books.

My knowledge of the British and French is that after Waterloo..the French Army was at the disposal of the British or more aptly..the Crown. When it came to hard fighting the French and other allies like the Gurkas were to do most of the dying and fighting.
The British were to manage most of the dialy affairs and running of the Empire but the hard fighting and dying was to be left to others.

Also keep in mind that the British were never able to field a large land Army. They had a very efficient Navy but never a large land army. This created huge problems in managing an Empire. This is an understanding avoided in most history books.

I laugh when I hear these statements about us not entering the war/wars until much later..as if we Yanks are to fault for this. As if we automatically by default owe the Brits or someone else our finest blood.

The Brits and the French Combined ..discovered that they could not handle the Germans in the trenches after years of death by mostly the French on the line. It was only after the French mutinied and went on strike that the Brits found a way to get us in the war for them...and through their boot lacky ..Woodrow Wilson. And at a later date their boot lacky was to be...FDR. In todays times their boot lacky was to be both of the Bush's to do their bidding for them.

History has a way of repeating itself if you know a bit of it outside of what is normall taught to most people.

The British people as well as the Americans have been deceived by what passes for history. And I fault Americans particularly for not doing enough of checking up on their leadership ..or history to know any better. The frightening thing to me is that theses people are voters. Very scary today.

We need to sit the next war out and let the others handle it...take care of our own business as Charles Lindbergh wanted with his "America First" political party....an early type of Tea Party. Lindbergh did not want America to get into world politics ...until he realized how deep FDR was controlled by outside interests. Then he realized war was coming to this country.


As I stated in my earlier posts..we keep getting involved in these wars and crisis after crisis..spill a lot of blood and material..but bring home no new territories or spoils. These wars are not what they appear to be. They never were what they appear to be.

Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

No, sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. When did the French ever fight for the British in the Nineteenth Century? They fought exactly one war together and that was the Crimean War, along with one joint expedition, into China in 1860. There were no British wars fought with French troops. Were the French in Burma in 1824? No, it was the British. What about the Indian Mutiny? Nope, no French there either. The First and Second Anglo-Sikh wars? Again no. The Indian Mutiny? Nope. The Afghan campaigns? Nope. The Zulu War? Again, no. The Boer wars? Nope. Hell, we almost went to war with France in 1898 over some fly-blown fort in the Southern Sudan called Fashoda. As for the First World War I think that you'll find that it was largely over by the time that substantial units of American units (ie: whole divisions and armies) took to the line. Read up on the Hundred Days campaign in 1918. And the French knew perfectly well how to cope with German troops in the trenches. See under 'Verdun'. The mutiny you mentioned was due to the Chemin des Dames campaign, for which the French General Robert Nivelle was properly castigated.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I think the french adapted faster than the British at trench warefare.

America suffered the same in WWI as they did at the start of WW2, no combat experiance.
Hence why they were not thrown into real combat until the war was almost over.

Its a shame they were not eased into WW2 as you likely would not have got the cock up as kasserine pass.

a reply to: orangetom1999

That what its really about how does many powerful group who have started to reach a point where to do nothing would cause them to lose the powerful places that formed the framework of culture and social structure.

The people and institution that have the most invested will fight to protect and maintain it.
The way societies react to evolution of the struggle of these groups from top to bottom mass is about is the way a stabilized reality could be created to ensure there continued existence, against the one threat which if left unchecked could force them out by social forces of a people who increasingly where fighting for more equality. Which came in many forms women rights workers rights and the damn by a growing mass of people whose life's works was increasing being exploited by other people and/or groups who where fighting to find new ways to grow more

At the top it becomes a matter of how do we move forward with a world where nations and people appear divided, but are growing to a point of critical mass that something would have to be done to make the worlds peoples growing connections into something other then anarchy.

On one had you could try and take the world by use of force which for a time had worked but this never lasts eventually will become a victim to its on control which is visibly present and when faced with the problems of leading people also face the penalties of failure whether they could help it or not.

Meaning any attempt to establish a global society where their place was secured but peace and justice ruled like that of humanity. Not of social food chains of exploitation which unlike nature where eco systems adapt to the food chain with each apex predator tied to the supply of prey. Human beings each can become predator or prey with many different factors playing into the variables that effect there odds overtime

Knowing this the only effective way to establish a United Humanity is to first cause the birth of nations and then bring them into a struggle of ruling local structure that owes there existence to those who invest in there creation those removing them self's from direct rule but maintaining functional order of those nations and peoples.

After which would damned the sacrifice of people in a bid to weaken the working people of industrial countries while at the same time building a sense of unity of those people to there nation which will fight a great war costing the lives of many people making its effect on nearly the whole citizens of the nations involved. This coupled with the debt endured by the nations to fight a war spilling the the blood of people whose deaths could be used to create the wealth of those whose very creations killed them. This could then be used to bubble bust depress and then repeat the global war again forcing the world to choose between the lesser of 2 evils and establish even more structure and functional order of a lose framework united of nations balanced by the force of economic forces that is the real force dominating a now cold war driven world where peace allows for a pax period leading to massive jumps in human population growth that hold in there collective memory of that wars brutal effect and loss of life

They say a philosopher stone is created from the souls of men. With the power to turn lead into gold and make what would other wise seem like an illogical or impossible argument that lacks real foundation to become grounded as augment that being paid for by the lives of so many people now is beyond any argument put against it.

Each cycle gets longer and more intense and catastrophic
Honestly whether planned out fully or partly and maybe just by force of those who by there place in history made choices that where the best option for them and those around them causing those to effects to propagate and perpetuate this human cycle doesn't even matter its become a force of nature beyond the limits of men to stop

An american gi saved me grandads life in ww2.
He went on to save an american who was bleeding out.
Every nation did their bit.

Maybe this scene shows why the Soviets lost so many compared to the Americans
Charging the machine gun lines when half your soldiers have no guns or bullets, is going to give you very high causalities, actually 100% when you kill the ones that retreat because it is hopeless.




Yes it is a a hyperbole scene of rabid commanders enforcing Order 227 but that order did exist from Stalin.

As for the American side, D-Day remains a historical feat many modern armies today could not muster, both Germany and the Soviets didn't have huge ability to lunch grand amphibious attacks from water to land at this scale. In fact it was only the Americans suppling so much materials to the allied soldiers that allowed it, after all Britain was bombed and war battered, alone they could never have done a landing. And then there was this General named Patton, maybe you heard of him, him and his 3rd army didn't do anything either right ?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The history of England ..and particularly the Crown Merchants who have so heavily invested in conflicts, Drugs, gun running, mercinaries etc etc...chaos...is that whenever their investments are threatened ..they send in the British Navy, or on land the British Army. When a job is to big for a land army..and England has never been able to field a big land army..a navy yes..but not a big land army....they send in someone else to do the fighting for them...to become cannon fodder.

The British Army has been caught to many times on the short end..they send in someone else...The Gurkas, the Aussies ..when the going gets rough...and yes..even the Yanks.

After Waterloo..the French became the short end for the British and particularly the Crowns investments. But the Crown and hence the British were always to keep the Lions Share. The French got the little outposts...Morocco...or some such place..Indochina, Chad....somewhere where they had to march very far to get there but to protect some of the Crowns investments. But the Crown was always to get the Lions share.

The Japanese got tired of this type of plan and went it alone and took many of the Crowns investments in the Orient in the 1930s. The Japanese got tired of protecting the Crowns investments and coming in on the short end like the French. They took the resources they needed to keep the Japanese Imperium going and away from the Crown Investors.

In like manner as did Saddam Hussein in taking Kuwait..from Crown investment...banking and insurance agreements.
Interesting how history repeats itself.

The Crown...East India Company and what became of it...the Merchants who ran it and the Opium Business. They just diversified into other investments over time.

In WW1...it was the Germans and the Kaiser who were a threat to the Crown...German expansion...even into Africa...and Germany only got a couple of small territories and the Crown tried to stop them.
The Oreint Express was a German Investment to beak the naval/merchant blockade and control of the world by overland railroad..Berlin to Bagdad...and this was to much for the Crown Monopoly on trade.
This was the function of T. F Lawrence..to keep the Germans in check...and play the Arabs against the Germans. Lawrence worked for the Crown as did Winston Spencer Churchill. You see the photo of them together at the pyramids.
The Crown..working the British Army and Navy were not going to brook any competitors.

And when they were not successful..they got others into the game to bleed and die for them...and their investments ...even to make it into a World War...with coalitions to protect their investments. Just as they still do today...like in Iraq. I knew from the beginning that the goal for Iraq would be to get back control of the oil fields and keep the oil off the marketplace..Back under Crown Control.

Many here in America were predicting gasoline would fall once we got ahold of Iraq oil. I knew it would not happen that way...because of Crown Monopoly. When push comes to shove..all our Presidents obey Crown orders..and bow. Our military follows suit.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I was going to respond to this thread, but then i found it had been invaded by the conspiracy theorists

The war to make the world safe for communism was a hash all around, except that it made the world safe for communism.

the Soviet war and post-war gains at the West’s expense were hardly an accident. They had ample assistance from a Roosevelt administration that was thoroughly laced with Stalin’s agents. The agents were sufficiently numerous and highly placed that almost any theft of secrets they might have accomplished was small potatoes compared to their influence upon policy.
www.lewrockwell.com...

originally posted by: aorAki


I thought it was New Zealand....

I thought it was the UK?

America did a lot in WW2, in fact what they did do was amazing in it's own right.

No they did not send the most armed troops, they did not even have the most armed troops.
America did not keep large peace time standing armies there were no trained soldiers to send straight off.

No they did not suffer the most deaths, for one they are 6000 miles away, across 2 oceans.
And why suffering the most deaths would be a good thing or a sign or anything more than a lot of sadness i have no idea.

But the men that were sent, a bunch of inexperienced, quickly trained men, fought as hard as anyone else.
And they died, far from home, in place where they did not live, in a conflict in europe that they probably did not know much about except that a crazy man was killing people that were america's friends, and he was in cahoots with some nutter in japan that did a sneak attack on pearl harbor on a sunday.
And a lot of families gave up their sons and daughters to fight for someone else, that lived someplace else, that they never even met, that was far far away from their own back yards.
They sent them off to a war that was not theirs that they did not want to be in.

It would have been easy to simply focus everything on dealing with Japan, and leave it at that, but that was not how it was done.
VE 1st after all

But that in it self was not the amazing thing.
The amazing thing is what most of the world was of the opinion of that America could not do.
An isolated leisurely peace time country, that was just exiting a depression, that was to much of the world a lazy backwoods
place, stopped and changed direction overnight.

There would be no new cars to buy, no replacement tires.
Butter would not be seen on every breakfast table, nor would sugar be bought when ever needed
Kitchens would be emptied or everything aluminum.
Clothes shoes and various other things would be fixed patched and made do, or done with out.

Everything would be turned into a dedicated war industry
Food Clothes Boots Arms Ammunition Trucks Tanks Airplanes Rail Equipment Artillery Parts Raw Materials Fuel
Chemicals, as much as could be made, as fast as it could be made.

Produced by an army of house wives, and other non combat persons determined to bury Europe's boogeyman
in industrial output, and that got 1st priority over their own Boogeyman.

Some people counted on lazy isolated america being totally incapable of pulling that off
Their people were too lazy too selfish too aloof and uncaring, or so it was hoped

They may have come late to the party in some peoples eyes, but it's a war far away across the sea.
The memory of the last one still very vivid in many families, again in a place far away from home.
I think most normal people in the same situation would have the same reservations.
And they weren't entirely late, they had been sending support.


As for people upset over Hollywood movies.
Hollywood, it's an american thing, they are going to be american movies.
The heros are always going to be some kid from the bronx, or chicago or some such.

I would highly expect a british movie to focus on their heros even if it forgets some other countries
it is only a movie after all, not a history lesson.


Now a comment for those that like to say Europe would be speaking german with out America
Only if you find an alternative reality where Hitler dies early and they use him as a martyr and have someone with brains take over long before the russian front opens
He set a path for self destruction that wasnt going to stop.

Things would have gotten worse before better, but Hitler would have never won, just made the suffering worse before he self imploded.
he would have never invaded Britain, he couldn't he wasn't smart enough, but with no america, it would have been a very long tough road for britain, even worse than the one they followed.

Russia?
Even without american aid, Hitler would have never conquered russia, if for no other reason because all he succeeded in doing was making murderous enemies out of the russians in the places he did invade, and in a country that large and spread out, that is a recipe for failure.
That would have just been a ever running conflict until germany ran out of bodies and then the soviet block would have expanded west.
That of course could have been very unpleasant in and of itself.

a reply to: misterbananas

I'm not going to bother quoting you, searching for anecdotes to add, or statistics to show how much the United States sacrificed to aid Europe.

But I will tell a short story.

My dad's dad was there.

On 6 JUN 1944, through the blood, bodies, bullets and surf my grandfather, a field medic, waded ashore on Normandy.

He witnessed the fall of Berlin in MAY 1945.

That is a year of living in the #. Plugging holes and watching kids on both sides bleed out. I can tell you that it broke him mentally and what he saw haunted him till the day he died.

originally posted by: pikestaff

originally posted by: aorAki


I thought it was New Zealand....

I thought it was the UK?

Yeah, but due to the quirk of the international datelines, NZ was a day earlier (on paper) as both NZ and Australia declared war on Germany within hours of Britain declaring war.

originally posted by: Lipton

That is a year of living in the #. Plugging holes and watching kids on both sides bleed out. I can tell you that it broke him mentally and what he saw haunted him till the day he died.

Absolutely.
It's hardly even worth giving the OP the time of day really. War affected everyone and while I'm a pacifist and loathe how inured to war we have become, we need to remember experiences such as this so as not to repeat them.

a reply to: Lipton

There's no convincing some that all the nations lost something.

My Dad was in the Pacific. He, too, left something of himself on those coral atolls. He was on a troopship off Saipan and got to watch as civilians leaped off of the cliffs onto the rocks and waves below.

He watched a young pilot burn to death in the cockpit of an airplane, and the next day got to wipe the brains of another young man off his face. He hadn't even got to learn the kids name, he was so new to the squadron.

WWII wasn't his first war, but it was the one the left the most indelible mark.

He doesn't tell those stories, I learned them from the nightmares he has to this very day.

So people like misterbananas generally get short shrift from me.

I wouldn't say that America didn't do much in WW2, but anyone that has studied this time in history knows that the Russians took the brunt of the damage on the Eastern Front.

D-Day would have turned out much differently if the Russians didn't keep the Germans busy.

a reply to: Weisshund

Now a comment for those that like to say Europe would be speaking german with out America
Only if you find an alternative reality where Hitler dies early and they use him as a martyr and have someone with brains take over long before the russian front opens
He set a path for self destruction that wasnt going to stop.

Things would have gotten worse before better, but Hitler would have never won, just made the suffering worse before he self imploded.
he would have never invaded Britain, he couldn't he wasn't smart enough, but with no america, it would have been a very long tough road for britain, even worse than the one they followed.

Russia?
Even without american aid, Hitler would have never conquered russia, if for no other reason because all he succeeded in doing was making murderous enemies out of the russians in the places he did invade, and in a country that large and spread out, that is a recipe for failure.
That would have just been a ever running conflict until germany ran out of bodies and then the soviet block would have expanded west.
That of course could have been very unpleasant in and of itself.

It stands to reason that Hitler didn't want France or Britain. Hitler always wanted eastern Europe.

France and Britain had no resources that Germany needed, such as oil, farmland, and rare metals.

Also, the original German post war strategy for peace with France, Britain and the rest of the free world would presumably be Germany's reputation as the slayer of international Bolshevism, the professed enemy of every national government on Earth.

Germany risked that beating the Communists would win them favor or at least tolerance when the war was done. The Wehrmacht inflicted 3 to 1 casualties every year of the war and obviously would have won in the East eventually, although probably in summer of 1943.

The Allied threat from 1943 caused Hitler to move armored forces to the West. The Allied threat delayed and then aborted the Kursk offensive.

The USSR's Operation Bagration in 1944 was the real beginning of the end in the East. Operation Bagration was an excellently executed offensive and the only thing that saved the Germans was the shortening of the front by the geographical narrowing of the European land mass and the mountains of Transylvania.

The Allies saved the USSR.

Books to read

Hitler, Churchill, and the Unnecessary War by Patrick J Buchanan.

Both World War One and World War Two were entered by reflex rather than necessity. Without the Allied entry into WW1 there would have been no Russian Revolution or WW2. Without the Allied entry into WW2 there would have been no conquest of France and tens of millions of lives saved.





Deathride: Hitler vs Stalin on the Eastern Front 1941-1945 by John Mosier

The German's inflicted casualties that the USSR could not have sustained without Allied supplies and the redeployment of armored units to the West.

Stalin's Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt's Government by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein

The communists in the policy making offices of the US government caused Japan to attack the US instead of the USSR, gave Stalin the maximum amount of supplies, kept the Allies out of Eastern Europe and China, and informed Stalin on every intention of the Allies.

An important take away is that the communists were able to make US Government policy in favor of the USSR.



The World Wars created and saved Communism.

a reply to: Weisshund

Without the US participation in Europe, UK would have been able to hold off invasion, but that's it.

3rd Reich and USSR would be bogged in a stalemate, more like WW1.

Until 1949, when they successfully completed the nuclear weapon, and obliterated Moscow and defeated the USSR in 5 months after dropping 7 weapons. USSR never surrendered, but the country simply collapsed into feral starvation running away from SS extermination squads on the rampage. Germans then used gas with impunity.

In mid 1950, the V-3 was ready and using Iceland as a launch pad, 3rd reich destroyed Boston and downtown New York in a suprise attack on the USA which was supposed to be neutral. After massive protests and intelligence about what happened in USSR, and with extraordinary losses in the invasion of Japan, Truman refused war and aggreed to accept German claims on Europe. The manhattan district project, started only in 1947 was too far behind for effective retaliation. German/USA Cold War starts. Truman assassinated in second US Depression.

UK surrendered after being threatened with annihilation. Six weeks after the start of the occupation, the Germans went back on their word and the King and royal family were executed by the Gestapo in front of the Nelson monument.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As for the American side, D-Day remains a historical feat many modern armies today could not muster, both Germany and the Soviets didn't have huge ability to lunch grand amphibious attacks from water to land at this scale. In fact it was only the Americans suppling so much materials to the allied soldiers that allowed it

I see you are a fully paid up member of " The Myth Of D Day Club "

Of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British. Indeed, 31% of all U.S. supplies used during D-Day came directly from Britain, while two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved were also British, as were two-thirds of those that landed in occupied France

edition.cnn.com...

a reply to: mbkennel

The only alt.history way Hitler would have won is

A) He dies by some convenient means, and they use him as a martyr, and have some of the intelligent ones take over

or

B) Hitler grows a brain, and stops trying to play General and run military operations.
And also does not implement ridiculous practices like genocide and making the people in conquered territories hate him venomously

And i vote for A, because no amount of alt.history will give him a brain
If America never existed, as long as Hitler was alive, and in charge, the whole thing was doomed to eventual failure.
Longer more bloody mess, but he'd still eventually self destruct the thing