at 1.26 it is so close and those are 20mm canon yet the plane still does not disintergrate.
hogalog, although there was a great deal of competition, most of the
success came from joint activity. The P51 was crap without the Merlin. The Sherman hopeless without the 17 pounder, night bombing without day bombing. Market Garden failed because it was rushed, the enemy forces under estimated amd constraints to movement. US fighting in Africa & Italy was mostly aweful. By D Day much improved.
Nazis blame the Americans often for cowardness, because they landed relatively late on the continent. But they don't say, that the Americans fought the Japs in the Pacific. And I don't know how the Germans had behaved against the Japs ... I'm waiting for answers of nazis !
I have been watching this film since I was 9 years old, since that time I have always become teary eyed between 3:13 and 3:35.
You watch these guys entrenched in their positions no matter your the waist gunner tail gunner...
Nothing comfortable about the entire conflict...I feel left out that I was unfortunate to take part of this conflict for Uncle Sam...god spawned me to this world near a century too late.
"On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops." Just sayin.
No disrespect but the RAF did carry out precision bombing raids on industrial and military targets. I won't disagree that Bomber Harris also initiated the carpet bombing on civilian targets but to deny the RAF's role in "non-civilian" bombing campaigns is just plain wrong and insulting to veterans.
@wellardme Anyways, the record is very clear. Haris and Churchill never tried to hide their objectives and strategy and their words are clear enough and so too actions. They regarded workers districts to be legit milirary targets and just as vital to kill or de house workers, just as imporant and legit, as USSAF strategy of taking out machines and factories etc. Actually givent the strong disagreements between USA and UK on air war I can't see how they could have hide their strategy.
@wellardme Harris argued that his less than precise nighttime bombing was a strike at military-industrial targets it is true. He (and Churchill) argued that by aiming at workers districts they were striking at military industrial targets by killing 'non replaceable' skilled workers and de housing them making them incapabe of working in factories becaue they would be too busy surviving. USSAF disagree with that and they were right. Harris argued that objective distinquished him from Nazis.
I thank you for this information. I just read about it on Wikipedia myself. And i do agree with a lot of what you said. There seem to be a fine line between genuine civilians and what is considered to be militaristic such as workers. I just read about the German bombing of Rotterdam and how parts of the city were considered a fortress and therefore didn't fall under a civilian target.
@wellardme right. I wasn't saying I agreed with Harris/Churchill but to be fair to them that was their claim: that workers were legit. targets of military-industry. I tend to think that as more a rationalization given the limitations RAFbomb command was working with: couldnt bomb in day w/o unacceptable losses yet they still had to carry out a bombing campaign to stay active in the war; nighttime bombing which was obviously less risky for bombers meant area bombing.
@555paint "we didnt do anything the germans didnt do first, we just did it better". ..... iirc that was author jack currie, a former bomber pilot, but i might be wrong there. my own personal answer to all this is "if you start a war, you cannot blame your enemy for winning".
@hogalog yeah i am familiar with the quote and I tend to agree with you --you are in a war for survival you gotta win it anyway you can but having said that I think we can realize some things were unnecessary--the fire bombing of Dresden for example. By that time USA military leadership should have been thinking of the postwar era--and realized a totally destroyed Germany was a vacuum waiting to be filed by the USSR. Also I do think there are ethical ?s when no military necessity at issue.
@555paint you need to do a bit of research there - the dresden firebombing was done by the raf (the british did about 90% of the bombing on germany), america wasnt the only one fighting the germans, infact they were by far the lesser of the 3 nations that were. america didnt "win" the war in europe, britain and russia did with a little american help (which britain has only just finished PAYING for). cont...
@hogalog No I am sorry comrade but you need to do a bit of research here---the USAAF participated in the Dresden bombing campaign and went to great ends after the war to justify USAAF participation although I agree it was mostly a Brit idea and mostly a Brit strategy.
@hogalog I dont know what to say about Market Garden that I have not already. It was a hare brained scheme that depended on EVERYTHING going right all at once and that NEVER happens. It looked good on the gaming tables but in reality it had flop written all over it. It wasn't just bad luck. Monty was trying to bring the war to a close fast because he like Churchill realized the longer it went on the only 2 winners would be USSR and USA.
@555paint it wouldve worked, it almost succeeded anyway with only half hearted american backing. its true they didnt want to risk their soldiers and its also true that high level decisions were all tied up with politics and bullshit.
@hogalog Also I dont know what you are talking about. I never said or implied US or USAAF "won the war" on their own or anything like that. Obviously USSR for example played a huge strategic role in defeat of Germany but of course hardly any in the defeat of Italy let alone Japan. But as long as we are on the subject: the USSR did not secure the sea lanes for shipping; did not carry out an air war on Germany etc; did not produce the material for dozens of allies; did defeat Japan....
@555paint the royal navy kept open the atlantic sealanes - the royal navy was also the 1 force britain had that was bigger and more powerful than its american equivalent, at least at the start of the war. though by 1945 after us military expansion/modernisation and royal navy losses which britain couldnt afford to replace that mightve changed.
@hogalog I have absolutely no idea where you are getting this figure of 90 percent of bombing on Germany was RAF? Are you being serious or just hyperbole? If you are being serious it is a totally unfounded claim.
@555paint go and check out the numbers or aircraft, men, bases and the tonnages of bombs dropped. (note: an avro lancaster carried 4x the bombload a b17 did. and the raf was far bigger than the 8th)
@hogalog Nothing personal but I really don't have to do the research on this one. WHen you make a claim that RAF dropped 90 percent of the bombs on Germany (or I assume you include France and Italy) I really don't have to research it--the claim is so unbelievbell on the face of it it can be discounted without any consideration. Think about it, that would mean all the missions flown by the USSAF during the war in Europe ammounted to only 10 percent of the tonnage droped?
@555paint yes, go and check. for crying out loud bomber command had a maximum effort of over 5000 heavy bombers, each carrying 4 or 5x the bombload of a b17 or b24. the usaf concentrated on accurate bombing of small targets (ie: factories, railway yards etc) whereas the raf policy was to simply destroy the cities where these things were located - the usaf in europe was not even close to the capability of the raf (which destroyed hamburg, 3rd biggest city in europe at the time, in 2 days.)
@hogalog Saying the USAF was 'not even close to the capability' of the RAF is ridiculous. And using elementary arguments about tonnage and 'cities destroyed' is even lamer. Would the US have had to carpet bomb cities to match the 'supremecy' of the RAF? It was US fighters that took air supremecy. It was US medium bombers that used interdiction to gain advantage on the battlefield. Feel free to dispute the strategic campaign (which had seperate aims), but on the tactical side it is clear.
@hogalog No I cant agree with you about Market Garden. I haven't walked the road Monty expected to push an armored corps up but Ambrose did and reported back it was insane to think it was ever possible to do it on such a narrow road under constant enemy fire--in other words the essential element was probably never possible no matter how much USA backed Monty. Also one has to realize one of Ike's prime objectives was to keep USA-UK alliance together and what u suggest would have made that hard
@555paint america didnt want to pay the price in its soldiers blood, though having the russians waste a few more soldiers was useful. if they had fully backed market garden, it wouldve succeeded, shortened the war, and the iron curtain wouldve been in poland, not germany. however a few thousand more american soldiers wouldve been killed/wounded and that was why they wouldnt back it. they were also intimidated by montgomerys previous successes and wanted him to have a failure to his name.
@hogalog cant agree; True USA was more conscious of casultities but that's what happens in a democracy vs. a ruthless dictatorship like USSR. Stalin could spend tens of thousands of lives on a gamble and then just shruk if it went wrong. He is the man who said the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a thousand is just a statisitc. Thankfully, FDR and Chruchill did not agree.
@555paint the uk was, and still is, far more of a democracy than the us can ever hope to be..... yet they were willing to lay down the lives of more of their men, to bring it to a swift and more desirable (keep the ussr as far back as possible) outcome. the us was not, this is reflected in that the uk (approaching 1.5m) lost approximately double the amount of combatants during world war 2 as a whole than the us (approaching 700k) did.
@hogalog rather short memory you have. i don't seem ever to recall the us ever referring to itself as an empire... but you say the uk was far more of a democracy than the us can ever hope to be...
@hogalog some thoughts. 1, the brits were involved in the war for years before the us got involved, if you fight roughly twice as long its not surprising you suffer more casualties. 2, the us got involved due to japan's attack on hawaii... to the us, japan was the prime enemy, not germany. keeping the ussr away from the uk wasn't a priority for the us, like it may have been for the brits. 3. 2 nukes dropped on japan proves the us was willing to do whatever was needed to end its war swiftly.
@hogalog First of all, if youre going to throw 'the UK is more of a democracy than the US', maybe consider the 'UK' combatant sconsisted of conscripts from around the world. I doubt the Aussies, Indians, New Zealanders, etc gave a s*it what the Nazis were doing. They were pressed into service to defend the empire. Second of all, your numbers are way off. Thirdly, the US also had the whole Pacific thing going on. And I dont mean Burma.
@hogalog About this conspiracy to do in Monty--oh please give me a break. FIrst, it is true that most American commanders could not stand the guy (but some like Gavin and Clark liked him) it is often forgotten that nearly all British commanders hated him too. Second, that Eishenhower even green lighted Market Garden is a sign he was appeasing MOnty not trying to undermine him. Yes Eishenhower ...
@555paint those british commanders however much they hated him, backed him. the guy had snatched success from the jaws of failure on more than 1 occasion.
@555paint as for the air forces argument heres a spot comparison for you - avro lancaster, bombload 22,000lb - handley page halifax and shorts stirling, bombload, 14,000lb. - boeing b17, bombload, 4,500lb - consolidated b24, bombload, 5000lb..... now the american planes, flying in the day were very heavily armoured and armed. the british planes, flying at night, sacrificed armour and armament to carry more bombs - a lancaster was armed with only 8 .30 machine guns. a b17 had 12 .50 machine guns.
@hogalog Bit of a revisionist aren't you. America didn't back Market Garden? Maybe because Monty was the honcho and planner. Perhaps if the British Armor had fulfilled it's half of the plan it would have worked. And as far as Montgomery having a failure to his name, how about that Caen breakout? Didn't Monty say he'd have it on D-Day?
@555paint and iirc the americans at the time were against dresden, saying how wrong it was (whilst secretly planning to drop the a-bomb on japan) but despite dresden not having any major strategic importance it was still a useful target - the russians were bearing down on it and the raf wanted to show them what they could do, to try and deter them from a following war and that was very important. sometimes you have to dance with the devil, unfortunately.
@hogalog I understand the rationale for bomb Dresden but I dont think it holds up. That the Russians were bearing down on Dresden was all the more reason not to bomb it! USA and UK shoulda have been throwing up obstacles to Red Army at this point!That is what I mean when I say USA and to a lesser extent UK leadership (some exceptions) wasn't thinking enough about the post war era. Yes USAAF more or less though Dresden was a diversion military-industrial targets
@555paint smashing dresden (which was a huge transport intersection) was an obstacle to the red army. it was also a demonstration to the russians what the raf was capable of doing. ie a statement like "dont fuck about or this is what happens to moscow". also if the US had fully backed the british generals over operation market garden they couldve overran germany and the front line with russia wouldve ended up probably being the vistula river in poland.
@hogalog Trying to demonstrate to Stalin what the RAF was capable of was useless; Stalin NEVER took the air war in west europe seriously and never acknowledged its importance--NEVER. Many time Churchill tried to emphasize to Stalin the contribution the western allies were making in the air and Stalin could only whine on about a 2nd front. Moreover, my point was Allied strategic planners should have at that stage in the war been thinking about how to slow up the Red Army not help it
@hogalog No I don't agree at all that the UK let alone the USA was trying t make a statement to USSR with Dreseden bombing...a statement that USA or UK posed a threat to USSR, a statement to back off. That claim has been made with the A bombing of Hiroshima--that it was a not too subtle message to Stalin (I don't agree with that claim but there is some evidence to support it) but I have never seen any evidence to support such a similiar claim about Dresden. The carpet bomb of Dresden helped Red
@555paint it was made with both. a bad thing? yes. necessary? absolutely. dresden stopped the russians carrying straight on when the forces met.... the a-bomb then secured the longer term future, as bad a weapon as it is, its kept the world safe from war ever since.
@555paint america justified the a-bomb coz "they attacked us". after pearl harbour america couldnt wait to drop bombs on civilians on tokyo, yet pearl harbour was a legitimate military target with few civilian losses.however when germany attacked britain, they bombed towns full of civilians - the city where i live still bears the scars from those raids even today. thousands killed. yet we are not allowed the luxury of revenge, even if that is all dresden was? the hypocrisy there is astounding.
@hogalog No. The bombing of Dresden took place in early 1944. The USA was not secterly planning to bombing Japan with A bombs at this time. The assumption--at all levels--at this time was an A Bomb would be used on Germany. Also, England was a partner on the Manhattan Project as well. And as I said prior USAAF did participate in Dreden bombing although after the war they tried to justify by saying unlike the RAF they didn''t engage in carpet bombing but targeted train yards.
@555paint dresden took place in late february 1945 you plank. and yes i am aware that britain was a partner in the manhattan project, this i have never disputed. i was just pointing out the hypocrisy many people have in slagging britain off for dresden when the a bomb raids were even less necessary and inflicted more long term damage (though dresden suffered more instant destruction). and the usaf part of the dresden raid was miniscule and followed up the main (raf) raid the following day.
@hogalog Ur claim that USA was far lesser of the 3 nations fighting Germany (actually there were a lot more than 3 but OK) is completely without foundation. I mean completely. As I said prior: Red Army did not secure the sea lanes from U Boats; did not do much at all in the intell field; did not carry on an air war to speak of; did nothing regarding Italy; did not have to produce war material for themselves and dozens of allies; did not have to carry out a 2 theater war, etc.
@555paint the royal navy did all the work in the atlantic, the raf did the vast majority of the air war in europe and british + commonwealth forces made up the vast majority on d-day. america contributed, yes, but in europe it was the lesser contributor. a bit like britain contributing in the pacific, but nowhere near as much as america. ignore your american school history its all patriotic bullshit - britain and the ussr were already beating germany before america came into the war.
@hogalog Britain and the USSR were beating Germany before the US entered the war? Germany was still very much on the offensive in the east. The Commonwealth made up the majority of D-Day? What happened after that? The numbers and stats say differently. The USSR NEEDED a second front,and it wasnt possible without the US. What youre saying is that we should all ignore history, stats, etc and just listen to you because you like the movie mephis belle.
@hogalog I might add that the horrific casultites suffered by the Russians were often self inflicted: the massive purges just before the war that robbed the Red Army of its best commanders and left the rest affraid to do anything; Stalin's fatal decision to ignore the mounting evidence of a German invasion; the insanely bad decisions made by Stalin as the begining of the war especially e.g no retreats; the terror discipline inflicted by the NKVD that resulted in executions of whole units; etc
@555paint im aware of the red armies shortcomings, and if britain and frances pre-war leaders couldve mustered up a pair of bollocks between them and immediately invaded germany on the declaration of war, the war wouldve been over before christmas 1939. poor military planning on the part of the french, thinking to much of the germans on the part of the british, and piss poor leadership from both turned world war 2 into what it became.
Patriotism obviously leads to the funniest opinions. So the Brits would have made Blitzkrieg instead and smash Germany in 3 months? Hilarious, thanks for the best joke in this thread!
If you're really interested in the war be it WW1 or WW2, i just finished the most amazing book i've ever read. David Stevenson 1914-1918. I totally recommend it!
@wellardme The way it is normally understood is that: UK needed to strike back at Germans to stay active in war (after fall of France) and only serious way was strategic bombing; daylight prescision bombing proved too costly and thus switch to nite bombing which was by nature w/o precision; nite time carpet bombing by RAF followed; Harris argued it wasnt terror bombinng like the Nazis because industriall workers and workers housing and food supply etc were legit military-industrial targets
at 1.26 it is so close and those are 20mm canon yet the plane still does not disintergrate.
hogalog, although there was a great deal of competition, most of the
success came from joint activity. The P51 was crap without the Merlin. The Sherman hopeless without the 17 pounder, night bombing without day bombing. Market Garden failed because it was rushed, the enemy forces under estimated amd constraints to movement. US fighting in Africa & Italy was mostly aweful. By D Day much improved.
smilo996 2 weeks ago
the best scene in a great movie...hands down.
throb9 3 weeks ago
Nazis blame the Americans often for cowardness, because they landed relatively late on the continent. But they don't say, that the Americans fought the Japs in the Pacific. And I don't know how the Germans had behaved against the Japs ... I'm waiting for answers of nazis !
SpaceCowboy641 1 month ago
I have been watching this film since I was 9 years old, since that time I have always become teary eyed between 3:13 and 3:35.
You watch these guys entrenched in their positions no matter your the waist gunner tail gunner...
Nothing comfortable about the entire conflict...I feel left out that I was unfortunate to take part of this conflict for Uncle Sam...god spawned me to this world near a century too late.
herrhazl 2 months ago
Such an underrated film.
romahome297 2 months ago
"On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops." Just sayin.
cobyj78 4 months ago
watched when i was barely ten. loved then love even more... great soundtrack
Blackhoundrise 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this part of the Memphis Belle always chokes me up :.(
teamCClemon 6 months ago
"I hope when this is all over the world will have learned there is a better way to solve its problems..." Sorry Lady....we still haven't....
pyrnrd 6 months ago 2
bombing German civilians . Not good at all . Who really won that war ?
88Thyra 7 months ago
Comment removed
555paint 7 months ago
@555paint
No disrespect but the RAF did carry out precision bombing raids on industrial and military targets. I won't disagree that Bomber Harris also initiated the carpet bombing on civilian targets but to deny the RAF's role in "non-civilian" bombing campaigns is just plain wrong and insulting to veterans.
wellardme 7 months ago
Comment removed
555paint 7 months ago
Comment removed
555paint 7 months ago
Comment removed
555paint 7 months ago
@wellardme Anyways, the record is very clear. Haris and Churchill never tried to hide their objectives and strategy and their words are clear enough and so too actions. They regarded workers districts to be legit milirary targets and just as vital to kill or de house workers, just as imporant and legit, as USSAF strategy of taking out machines and factories etc. Actually givent the strong disagreements between USA and UK on air war I can't see how they could have hide their strategy.
555paint 7 months ago
Comment removed
555paint 7 months ago
Comment removed
555paint 7 months ago
@wellardme Harris argued that his less than precise nighttime bombing was a strike at military-industrial targets it is true. He (and Churchill) argued that by aiming at workers districts they were striking at military industrial targets by killing 'non replaceable' skilled workers and de housing them making them incapabe of working in factories becaue they would be too busy surviving. USSAF disagree with that and they were right. Harris argued that objective distinquished him from Nazis.
555paint 7 months ago
@555paint
I thank you for this information. I just read about it on Wikipedia myself. And i do agree with a lot of what you said. There seem to be a fine line between genuine civilians and what is considered to be militaristic such as workers. I just read about the German bombing of Rotterdam and how parts of the city were considered a fortress and therefore didn't fall under a civilian target.
wellardme 7 months ago
@wellardme right. I wasn't saying I agreed with Harris/Churchill but to be fair to them that was their claim: that workers were legit. targets of military-industry. I tend to think that as more a rationalization given the limitations RAFbomb command was working with: couldnt bomb in day w/o unacceptable losses yet they still had to carry out a bombing campaign to stay active in the war; nighttime bombing which was obviously less risky for bombers meant area bombing.
555paint 7 months ago
@555paint "we didnt do anything the germans didnt do first, we just did it better". ..... iirc that was author jack currie, a former bomber pilot, but i might be wrong there. my own personal answer to all this is "if you start a war, you cannot blame your enemy for winning".
hogalog 6 months ago
@hogalog yeah i am familiar with the quote and I tend to agree with you --you are in a war for survival you gotta win it anyway you can but having said that I think we can realize some things were unnecessary--the fire bombing of Dresden for example. By that time USA military leadership should have been thinking of the postwar era--and realized a totally destroyed Germany was a vacuum waiting to be filed by the USSR. Also I do think there are ethical ?s when no military necessity at issue.
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint you need to do a bit of research there - the dresden firebombing was done by the raf (the british did about 90% of the bombing on germany), america wasnt the only one fighting the germans, infact they were by far the lesser of the 3 nations that were. america didnt "win" the war in europe, britain and russia did with a little american help (which britain has only just finished PAYING for). cont...
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog No I am sorry comrade but you need to do a bit of research here---the USAAF participated in the Dresden bombing campaign and went to great ends after the war to justify USAAF participation although I agree it was mostly a Brit idea and mostly a Brit strategy.
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint they came along the day after, took some photos and dropped a few more bombs. a minor contribution overall to the raid.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog I dont know what to say about Market Garden that I have not already. It was a hare brained scheme that depended on EVERYTHING going right all at once and that NEVER happens. It looked good on the gaming tables but in reality it had flop written all over it. It wasn't just bad luck. Monty was trying to bring the war to a close fast because he like Churchill realized the longer it went on the only 2 winners would be USSR and USA.
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint it wouldve worked, it almost succeeded anyway with only half hearted american backing. its true they didnt want to risk their soldiers and its also true that high level decisions were all tied up with politics and bullshit.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog Also I dont know what you are talking about. I never said or implied US or USAAF "won the war" on their own or anything like that. Obviously USSR for example played a huge strategic role in defeat of Germany but of course hardly any in the defeat of Italy let alone Japan. But as long as we are on the subject: the USSR did not secure the sea lanes for shipping; did not carry out an air war on Germany etc; did not produce the material for dozens of allies; did defeat Japan....
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint the royal navy kept open the atlantic sealanes - the royal navy was also the 1 force britain had that was bigger and more powerful than its american equivalent, at least at the start of the war. though by 1945 after us military expansion/modernisation and royal navy losses which britain couldnt afford to replace that mightve changed.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog I have absolutely no idea where you are getting this figure of 90 percent of bombing on Germany was RAF? Are you being serious or just hyperbole? If you are being serious it is a totally unfounded claim.
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint go and check out the numbers or aircraft, men, bases and the tonnages of bombs dropped. (note: an avro lancaster carried 4x the bombload a b17 did. and the raf was far bigger than the 8th)
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog Nothing personal but I really don't have to do the research on this one. WHen you make a claim that RAF dropped 90 percent of the bombs on Germany (or I assume you include France and Italy) I really don't have to research it--the claim is so unbelievbell on the face of it it can be discounted without any consideration. Think about it, that would mean all the missions flown by the USSAF during the war in Europe ammounted to only 10 percent of the tonnage droped?
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint yes, go and check. for crying out loud bomber command had a maximum effort of over 5000 heavy bombers, each carrying 4 or 5x the bombload of a b17 or b24. the usaf concentrated on accurate bombing of small targets (ie: factories, railway yards etc) whereas the raf policy was to simply destroy the cities where these things were located - the usaf in europe was not even close to the capability of the raf (which destroyed hamburg, 3rd biggest city in europe at the time, in 2 days.)
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog Saying the USAF was 'not even close to the capability' of the RAF is ridiculous. And using elementary arguments about tonnage and 'cities destroyed' is even lamer. Would the US have had to carpet bomb cities to match the 'supremecy' of the RAF? It was US fighters that took air supremecy. It was US medium bombers that used interdiction to gain advantage on the battlefield. Feel free to dispute the strategic campaign (which had seperate aims), but on the tactical side it is clear.
moto19d 5 months ago
@hogalog No I cant agree with you about Market Garden. I haven't walked the road Monty expected to push an armored corps up but Ambrose did and reported back it was insane to think it was ever possible to do it on such a narrow road under constant enemy fire--in other words the essential element was probably never possible no matter how much USA backed Monty. Also one has to realize one of Ike's prime objectives was to keep USA-UK alliance together and what u suggest would have made that hard
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint america didnt want to pay the price in its soldiers blood, though having the russians waste a few more soldiers was useful. if they had fully backed market garden, it wouldve succeeded, shortened the war, and the iron curtain wouldve been in poland, not germany. however a few thousand more american soldiers wouldve been killed/wounded and that was why they wouldnt back it. they were also intimidated by montgomerys previous successes and wanted him to have a failure to his name.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog cant agree; True USA was more conscious of casultities but that's what happens in a democracy vs. a ruthless dictatorship like USSR. Stalin could spend tens of thousands of lives on a gamble and then just shruk if it went wrong. He is the man who said the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a thousand is just a statisitc. Thankfully, FDR and Chruchill did not agree.
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint the uk was, and still is, far more of a democracy than the us can ever hope to be..... yet they were willing to lay down the lives of more of their men, to bring it to a swift and more desirable (keep the ussr as far back as possible) outcome. the us was not, this is reflected in that the uk (approaching 1.5m) lost approximately double the amount of combatants during world war 2 as a whole than the us (approaching 700k) did.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog rather short memory you have. i don't seem ever to recall the us ever referring to itself as an empire... but you say the uk was far more of a democracy than the us can ever hope to be...
shadeylark 5 months ago
@hogalog some thoughts. 1, the brits were involved in the war for years before the us got involved, if you fight roughly twice as long its not surprising you suffer more casualties. 2, the us got involved due to japan's attack on hawaii... to the us, japan was the prime enemy, not germany. keeping the ussr away from the uk wasn't a priority for the us, like it may have been for the brits. 3. 2 nukes dropped on japan proves the us was willing to do whatever was needed to end its war swiftly.
shadeylark 5 months ago
@hogalog First of all, if youre going to throw 'the UK is more of a democracy than the US', maybe consider the 'UK' combatant sconsisted of conscripts from around the world. I doubt the Aussies, Indians, New Zealanders, etc gave a s*it what the Nazis were doing. They were pressed into service to defend the empire. Second of all, your numbers are way off. Thirdly, the US also had the whole Pacific thing going on. And I dont mean Burma.
moto19d 5 months ago
@hogalog
1.5 million British soldiers lost? Seriously, please tell me your sources!
I have read about 300 thousand.
silverbud 5 months ago
@hogalog About this conspiracy to do in Monty--oh please give me a break. FIrst, it is true that most American commanders could not stand the guy (but some like Gavin and Clark liked him) it is often forgotten that nearly all British commanders hated him too. Second, that Eishenhower even green lighted Market Garden is a sign he was appeasing MOnty not trying to undermine him. Yes Eishenhower ...
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint those british commanders however much they hated him, backed him. the guy had snatched success from the jaws of failure on more than 1 occasion.
hogalog 5 months ago
@555paint as for the air forces argument heres a spot comparison for you - avro lancaster, bombload 22,000lb - handley page halifax and shorts stirling, bombload, 14,000lb. - boeing b17, bombload, 4,500lb - consolidated b24, bombload, 5000lb..... now the american planes, flying in the day were very heavily armoured and armed. the british planes, flying at night, sacrificed armour and armament to carry more bombs - a lancaster was armed with only 8 .30 machine guns. a b17 had 12 .50 machine guns.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog Bit of a revisionist aren't you. America didn't back Market Garden? Maybe because Monty was the honcho and planner. Perhaps if the British Armor had fulfilled it's half of the plan it would have worked. And as far as Montgomery having a failure to his name, how about that Caen breakout? Didn't Monty say he'd have it on D-Day?
moto19d 5 months ago
@555paint
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint and iirc the americans at the time were against dresden, saying how wrong it was (whilst secretly planning to drop the a-bomb on japan) but despite dresden not having any major strategic importance it was still a useful target - the russians were bearing down on it and the raf wanted to show them what they could do, to try and deter them from a following war and that was very important. sometimes you have to dance with the devil, unfortunately.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog I understand the rationale for bomb Dresden but I dont think it holds up. That the Russians were bearing down on Dresden was all the more reason not to bomb it! USA and UK shoulda have been throwing up obstacles to Red Army at this point!That is what I mean when I say USA and to a lesser extent UK leadership (some exceptions) wasn't thinking enough about the post war era. Yes USAAF more or less though Dresden was a diversion military-industrial targets
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint smashing dresden (which was a huge transport intersection) was an obstacle to the red army. it was also a demonstration to the russians what the raf was capable of doing. ie a statement like "dont fuck about or this is what happens to moscow". also if the US had fully backed the british generals over operation market garden they couldve overran germany and the front line with russia wouldve ended up probably being the vistula river in poland.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog Trying to demonstrate to Stalin what the RAF was capable of was useless; Stalin NEVER took the air war in west europe seriously and never acknowledged its importance--NEVER. Many time Churchill tried to emphasize to Stalin the contribution the western allies were making in the air and Stalin could only whine on about a 2nd front. Moreover, my point was Allied strategic planners should have at that stage in the war been thinking about how to slow up the Red Army not help it
555paint 5 months ago
@hogalog No I don't agree at all that the UK let alone the USA was trying t make a statement to USSR with Dreseden bombing...a statement that USA or UK posed a threat to USSR, a statement to back off. That claim has been made with the A bombing of Hiroshima--that it was a not too subtle message to Stalin (I don't agree with that claim but there is some evidence to support it) but I have never seen any evidence to support such a similiar claim about Dresden. The carpet bomb of Dresden helped Red
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint it was made with both. a bad thing? yes. necessary? absolutely. dresden stopped the russians carrying straight on when the forces met.... the a-bomb then secured the longer term future, as bad a weapon as it is, its kept the world safe from war ever since.
hogalog 5 months ago
@555paint america justified the a-bomb coz "they attacked us". after pearl harbour america couldnt wait to drop bombs on civilians on tokyo, yet pearl harbour was a legitimate military target with few civilian losses.however when germany attacked britain, they bombed towns full of civilians - the city where i live still bears the scars from those raids even today. thousands killed. yet we are not allowed the luxury of revenge, even if that is all dresden was? the hypocrisy there is astounding.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog No. The bombing of Dresden took place in early 1944. The USA was not secterly planning to bombing Japan with A bombs at this time. The assumption--at all levels--at this time was an A Bomb would be used on Germany. Also, England was a partner on the Manhattan Project as well. And as I said prior USAAF did participate in Dreden bombing although after the war they tried to justify by saying unlike the RAF they didn''t engage in carpet bombing but targeted train yards.
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint dresden took place in late february 1945 you plank. and yes i am aware that britain was a partner in the manhattan project, this i have never disputed. i was just pointing out the hypocrisy many people have in slagging britain off for dresden when the a bomb raids were even less necessary and inflicted more long term damage (though dresden suffered more instant destruction). and the usaf part of the dresden raid was miniscule and followed up the main (raf) raid the following day.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog Ur claim that USA was far lesser of the 3 nations fighting Germany (actually there were a lot more than 3 but OK) is completely without foundation. I mean completely. As I said prior: Red Army did not secure the sea lanes from U Boats; did not do much at all in the intell field; did not carry on an air war to speak of; did nothing regarding Italy; did not have to produce war material for themselves and dozens of allies; did not have to carry out a 2 theater war, etc.
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint the royal navy did all the work in the atlantic, the raf did the vast majority of the air war in europe and british + commonwealth forces made up the vast majority on d-day. america contributed, yes, but in europe it was the lesser contributor. a bit like britain contributing in the pacific, but nowhere near as much as america. ignore your american school history its all patriotic bullshit - britain and the ussr were already beating germany before america came into the war.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog Britain and the USSR were beating Germany before the US entered the war? Germany was still very much on the offensive in the east. The Commonwealth made up the majority of D-Day? What happened after that? The numbers and stats say differently. The USSR NEEDED a second front,and it wasnt possible without the US. What youre saying is that we should all ignore history, stats, etc and just listen to you because you like the movie mephis belle.
moto19d 5 months ago
@hogalog I might add that the horrific casultites suffered by the Russians were often self inflicted: the massive purges just before the war that robbed the Red Army of its best commanders and left the rest affraid to do anything; Stalin's fatal decision to ignore the mounting evidence of a German invasion; the insanely bad decisions made by Stalin as the begining of the war especially e.g no retreats; the terror discipline inflicted by the NKVD that resulted in executions of whole units; etc
555paint 5 months ago
@555paint im aware of the red armies shortcomings, and if britain and frances pre-war leaders couldve mustered up a pair of bollocks between them and immediately invaded germany on the declaration of war, the war wouldve been over before christmas 1939. poor military planning on the part of the french, thinking to much of the germans on the part of the british, and piss poor leadership from both turned world war 2 into what it became.
hogalog 5 months ago
@hogalog
Patriotism obviously leads to the funniest opinions. So the Brits would have made Blitzkrieg instead and smash Germany in 3 months? Hilarious, thanks for the best joke in this thread!
silverbud 5 months ago
@555paint
If you're really interested in the war be it WW1 or WW2, i just finished the most amazing book i've ever read. David Stevenson 1914-1918. I totally recommend it!
wellardme 7 months ago
Comment removed
555paint 7 months ago
Comment removed
555paint 7 months ago
@wellardme The way it is normally understood is that: UK needed to strike back at Germans to stay active in war (after fall of France) and only serious way was strategic bombing; daylight prescision bombing proved too costly and thus switch to nite bombing which was by nature w/o precision; nite time carpet bombing by RAF followed; Harris argued it wasnt terror bombinng like the Nazis because industriall workers and workers housing and food supply etc were legit military-industrial targets
555paint 7 months ago
Ain't flak jackets steel plates in a vest
NightHowl92 7 months ago
2:37 - You better fucking do what he says dude!
shenloken2 8 months ago
Love the letters part!!!!
ENDOFANAGEMUSIC 9 months ago
Nice shootin Meeky.......... .....
SoulSurferGS8 10 months ago