I agree with you. Churchill was begging FDR to bring in America's industrial might and Stalin was after both to start a second front immediately. To me, they were brother-in-arms, well mostly the brits, but i'll give it to the Soviets...they did win war..
2007-02-10 18:11:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I second you; British and Americans should not fight over who was better in the war. The Americans should remember that the British did suffer the war for quite a while before they helped, and the British should remember that the Americans' help was crucial in winning the war. Unfortunately, as long as silly twists about history, e.g. U-571, go on, it may never end.
As the two winners are fighting, history books are being altered in different countries. Past aggressors are being recognized for having a human side and to be sympathized, while wounds are still fresh in the living victims. History should be taught, not shown with one slant or another on big silver screens.
I agree with the others that history is the only way to learn not to repeat mistakes in the past. Perhaps, if people knew more of how horrific it was in second world war (not just the killing and the dying, but the constant fear, the starvation, etc., amongst civilians), people may not have been so ready to vote for going to war. If the leader of a country personally witnessed such horrors, and no children of leaders could be exempt from a draft, war may be the absolute last resort.
2007-02-11 01:01:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Observer 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
It's just one ups man ship and old rivalries.
WW2 was the ultimate struggle of good vs. evil. and every one wants to be known as the one who destroyed that evil.
The British still hold to the fact that they managed to hold off Hitler and did an excellent job in Africa, how ever occasionally forgetting to mention they were receiving a large amount of aide form the states (without which they would have been in a much worse situation).
And Americans like to say they won the war with little help from the other allies,not true since the war had been raging for almost 4 years prior to the US becoming involved and had the Russians not been holding up the eastern front the war would have been harder for the Americans.
At the rend of the day is just bravado, both sides know with out the other the war would have been much different, much harder and could have very well been a catastrophe for every one involved.
By the way, the guy who says the people who study history tend to vote liberal.... Me and all my buddies, we have been studying history and some even have degrees in History... We are all Conservative. In fact most history majors I know are either Republican or moderates with conservative leanings. So your argument is baseless.
2007-02-10 23:56:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Stone K 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
My degree is in History/political Science and I am well versed in WW2 history. I dont think it was a matter of who was 'better' at all. Certainly the British people were very courageous against the Germans (and later the Japanese). Two facts stand out in the period 1939-1941. Well 3 now that I think about it.
#1 Britain, for all the valor of her soldiers, sailors and airmen, was simply being overwhelmed by numbers, both in men and materiel. By the summer of 1941 she was isolated, all of Europe had fallen.
#2 America was still in its post WW! isolationist mode. Roosevelt understood quite well what was at stake in Europe, but the American people would have none of it. So he did what he could and implement the Lend-Lease program which allowed us to at least provide some vital resources the UK (and later the USSR) needed but could not produce herself. The most important of these items were escort ships (and American crews) capable of fending off the U-boat threat and allowing the absolutely vital convoys to continue to reach Britain.
#3 Germany made 2 critical errors. First during the battle of britain a british night bomber mission accidently bombed a civilian area and not its intended military target. This caused Hitler to turn around and start bombing London and other civilian areas and stopped bombing the RAF fields and the factories making its aircraft. Had they persisted for just a few more days, it is widely thought that the RAF would have been defeated (as it was it had taken a horrible beating), with the result that Operation Lion (Invasion of UK) would have happened, or UK just sues for peace. The other mistake is Hitler invaded the USSR and opens a second front when Britain was still unbeaten, though seriously bruised. A third possible mistake was Germanys declaration of war against the US on Dec 13, 1941, because you see, when Roosevelt asked for a declaration of war, it was only asked (and given) against the Japanese... Had Hitler kept his mouth shut it is possible our European involvement would have never happened or been delayed a sufficient time to allow Germay to wrap things up.
2007-02-11 01:00:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by David W 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
WWII was one of the biggest, worst, most destructive events in human history. It was also the time when the people of the U.S. and Britain showed themselves at their very best. We've never been that good before or since then.
I wish that people would not "drop" or "let go" of WWII.....but I do wish that people would accept the fact that there was only ONE WWII. Every conflict that we get into is NOT equal to WWII. The whole world has changed a lot since then. The actions that were correct to take during WWII might not be the right things to do now, in the present.
2007-02-10 23:47:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by catrionn 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
It does get old, I agree. But that conflict was absolutely profound, and the effect it has had on life since is still almost impossible to underestimate. Your very freedom to ask such a question hinged on the outcome of that war. There's hardly a thing you do that isn't affected in some major way, in fact, by that war.
It was horrible beyond words! One of the reasons we try so very, very hard to get a grip on it is that we don't - we really, really don't - want anything like that to happen again! Please - instead of getting all ticked off at the old folks, try very hard to understand that, because if it is going to be prevented from happening again, you and your peers are going to be the ones who have to do the preventing. He (or she) that forgets history is doomed to repeat it - we know that because it has happened again and again throughout history. You don't want to go there; you really, really don't.
2007-02-10 23:49:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
The point is not who was better,or who helped whom. We must learn from history what to do and not to,or we will end up repeating the same horrible things again. Courage and strength wins;being nice is suicidal. The world is a cruel place. Unfortunately.
2007-02-10 23:44:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by DAGIM 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Forget the past and you are doomed to repeat it.
BTW, while I was growing up in Europe (in the sixties and seventies) my parents and other older people who had lived through it talked about it a lot. Many spoke of how happy they were to see the American come.
2007-02-11 00:04:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by scarlettt_ohara 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
kind of hard to drop one of the most significant events in the history of mankind. especially since it happened fairly recently(in a historic context). i havent read much bickering about who fought the best. WWII is a very interesting subject, if the discussions futher education , they are a good thing.
2007-02-10 23:48:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The important thing to do is to remember what WW1 and WW2 veterans and their families did for the history of the world. Not to many WW1 left so if you know any WW2 veterans or their families thank them. What you have today comes from their sacrifices.
2007-02-10 23:53:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by danielditdit 2
·
3⤊
0⤋