The US' real fight was with Japan for control of the Pacific. Of the units that did fight in Europe, many who saw some of the worst casualties were Black and Asian-American. See the 92nd Infrantry Division and the 442nd Infrantry Regiment.
I mean hell there was an American Nazi Party that was pretty public and active right up until Pearl Harbor.
Edit: I had some bad info about more US troops fighting in the Pacific than in Europe, which was mistaken and incorrect. Please disregard that. I stand by the sentiment that the US was more interested in fighting Japan than Nazi Germany though.
The main USA contribution to the western front was lend-lease and shipping supplies to keep Britain and the USSR afloat. The majority of the ground fighting was done by the Soviet Union. France gave an effort but was knocked out early. Britain contributed a lot to the air war and North Africa but the war was basically over before Operation Overlord.
The nazi high command commissioned a study in 1943 that concluded that in order to win their industry would have to produce more in 1944 than in all the years from 1939-1943, combined. Their goose was cooked.
:bugs-stalin: was gonna win, the wehrmacht had no strategic initiative after Kursk
Frances effort was total shit.
They declared their capital an open city, and gave it up without a fight.
They could have turned the fucker into Stalingrad and mulched a hundred thousands Werhmact but they decided to surrender to the Nazis instead.
They could have turned the fucker into Stalingrad
them and what arms? how were a few parisian street militias with rifles going to stop a bunch of tanks & airplanes? they certainly could've tried and died & any dead nazi is commendable but lets not pretend there was any snatching of victory from the jaws of that defeat. the entire french army less the colonial component & bit fighting the italians was beaten--both too far away to defend paris.
They still had over a million and a half soldiers in the field.
They lost 90k.
Do the math and wonder if they gave up to early. No city can be taken in less than a few weeks of fighting - France is the size of Texas. You could walk to Paris from nearly anywhere in the country in that long.
Their government gave up so socialists wouldn’t take power and run the war. They should rightfully be tarred as Nazi collaborators.
they were outnumbered 2:1 after the encirclement, with the lions share of artillery & tanks gone. and im sure soldiers' morale was tip-top at this point. the soviets did not fight on against odds through pure gumption, they had replaced all the soldiers and equipment lost in the first months by the time of the halting defenses (and remember they had well over the whole length of France overrun themselves). there was neither the time, space, or industry for an equivalent in France
Their government gave up so socialists wouldn’t take power and run the war.
oh my god not this again. the hardline leftists were in jail. the radical socialists (centre-left, ofc) & other limping remains of the Popular Front were literally the ones in charge and sacked/resigned through the poor persecution of the war. the more left wing socialists or communists (miraculously sprung from prisons in german-occupied territory) would not have been able to pull victory from their ass
They should rightfully be tarred as Nazi collaborators
i've got great news about the post-war political fate of petain
You wonder what effect the German levelling of Rotterdam had on the French decision to not contest Paris.
Well yes the French government rolled over like a beaten dog but the French soldiers fought pretty hard and they took a lot of casualties. I do agree about their command being shit. I should have said "the French" not "France"
90k dead is not “a lot of casualties” for a world war.
They suffered 20 times that in ww1.
The soviets suffered 20 times that in the battle for a single city.
The French rolled over because they knew the nazis were not after them. They wanted to let the savage beast go maul Eastern Europe.
I include wounded as "casualties" but I don't really disagree with you, I just wanted to give some credit to their effort. I'll remove the word "valiant" from my previous post. I stand corrected.
France‘s leadership was compromised, because the french bourgeoise was afraid of a communist takeover, so they let the nazis win
See also how the vast majority of killing and dying was on the eastern front and the western allies swept in when the war was almost over to claim victory. At least people back then gave the Soviet Union the most credit for defeating the Nazis.
And don't forget that China was fighting a heroic resistance against Japanese imperialists, tying up so many IJA troops in counter guerilla operations that America had a much easier time island hopping.
The army committed about 75% of its forces (~11 million by war's end) to Europe and the Mediterranean, but that included a lot of non-combat personnel. The Navy and Marines, about ~4.5 million together, were the main fighting bodies in the pacific, and as any drunk Marine in a pool hall will happily tell you, they're all riflemen first and foremost. Same goes for Navy crews, they were all of them basically in combat or combat support roles.
i have no idea where you got these numbers, this is complete horseshit. 67 divisions were in europe, 27 in the pacific. -proportionally- more americans died in the pacific, but not even in absolute terms, more yanks still died in europe. the US very clearly dedicated more war materiele & personnel to Europe, there's tracts and tracts of words about the US 'Europe First' policy during the war.
Yeah, you're right, that was a misread on my part. I'll go ahead and edit it so people don't get bad info.
:stalin-approval: sorry for being aggressive, thanks for changing it.
No worries, as the Good Book says, "Show me the man on the internet and I'll show you the occasional poorly-sourced opinion."
Bad take imo. It’s really not complicated, the US’s relationships with Britain and France were more important (economically and militarily) than its relationship with Germany.
Maybe if HItler wasn't stupid and incompetent, instead of trying to invade the UK which clearly has a special historical relationship with the US, and instead consolidated power towards the east and Africa. Heck maybe if they had signed some deals over keeping their hands out of UK colonies in Africa and India, it would all be different?
Someone else must have written a lot about these fictional scenarios before I'm sure.
Hitler desperately wanted to be friends with the UK pre-war and leaned heavily on von Ribbentrop to get an alliance, which Ribbentrop claimed would be easy for him with his (fake) peerage.
Instead von Ribbentrop was so boorish he nearly single-handedly alienated anyone in the British power elite who may have been sympathetic to a formal pact with the Nazis.
Germany has been a rival to the us empire since the 1910s (they invaded Haiti in 1915, because of the large debts controlled by german haitians for example)
With a name like that it's just red meat for dipshit libs and chuds to go "see, see! socialist is in da name, the nazis were commies!!"
They literally talk about that in the article, the guy they interview is salty Fox calls Antifa the real nazis
There's a lot of political clout for republicans to label antifa as tHe ReAl FaScIsTs and it tickles me that it pisses off actual neo-nazis lol
I own several things with a Buddhist swastika on them and I'm probably gonna just stop displaying them in my home or on my person, which is gonna suck because one of them is a charm I got in China a long time ago and it's sentimental to me, but fuck. Fuck Nazis, I don't want any possibility of getting lumped into them.
i think any fash group that consciously aligns itself with the Nazis is a dead end for them. besides being riddled with feds, they're openly declaring that they're losers.
They're also just bad for the general conservatives who believe Nazis are socialists, because ask anyone who openly uses Nazi symbols what they are and they'll vocally call themselves fascist right wingers who want to eradicate leftists. It's much easier to lie about what the sides are if you completely ignore the explicit fascists and distance yourselves from them.
American fascism probably won't use explicit nazi imagery like the swastika or call themselves fascists because it's at odds with our history of WWII and patriotism it'll probably be more in line with Ron DeSantis and being a "moderate" republican, while force feeding gitmo detainees is seen as humane to Trump's rude tweets.
That one quote about "fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists" except it was referring to American chuds the whole time
Being riddled with Feds isn't a one way street. They're controlled opposition, but they absolutely have sympathetic support within federal agencies.
Or, at least, the gangs are there to defect blame.
"Oh no! Another white supremacist group has done terrorism again! If only the FBI could have had a bit more funding!"
fair point. i just think as paramilitary thugs for the state go, the libertarian-aligned militia movement has been more useful to the cops than the adult Hetalia fandom.
Thanks, I hate it
Also lmao they couldn't even draw the swastika symmetrically for their big pr stunt, theyre not sending their brightest folks
Accidentally appropriate symbolism of what evangelical Christianity really is.
Evangelical Nazis are even worse than the neo-pagan/theosophist/whatever Thule Society larp bullshit the original ones had going on, at least the latter had some comedy value in how kooky it was
"The rich should pay more taxes" = TURBO COMMUNISM VUVULZULA 999 BAJILLION DEAD
A fucking swastika on a building = "white nationalist"
actually that's a buddhist symbol, if you call everyone nazis it loses meaning!!!
