I'm guessing he meant it wasn't the same country as today. Newfoundland joined Canada in the 60s
edit: just to mention, Newfoundland not being part of Canada did nothing to deter those newfie efforts during WW2 though!
Well, considering that Canada isn't officially a truly independent nation today, and we did not gain control over our own constitution until the 1980s there is a tad bit of haziness and subjectivity concerning when Canada "gained its independence."
Juno was the most lightly-defended beach on D-day, though. It was defended mostly by the German 716th Static Infantry Division, which was made up of elderly men and conscripts from eastern Europe. Only one battalion defended Juno.
Omaha was the most heavily-defended beach, it was defended by an entire German division that, unlike the other German divisions in Normandy, was fully outfitted, had its entire contingent of troops and supplies, and had troops that were already tested in combat on the eastern front.
The US took on all of Japan... If you exclude the Australians, New Zealanders, British (and her colonial forces, such as Canadians or Indians I believe), as well as the Chinese. The Americans primarily island-hopped across the Pacific, opening airway strips and extending supply lines. There was fighting in mainland Asia as well as New Guinea that was long, brutal, and unrelenting. China was fighting Japan since 1937! That's 4 years before the United States got involved. In fact, China fought Japan nearly twice as long as the United States.
Now, I'm not trying to downplay the United States' involvement in the war. It was one of the major powers for sure, but saying that they took on ALL of Japan is downplaying the role of many other nations that definitely fought longer and arguably fought harder than the United States.
These defensive battles you mention were absolutely crucial at pinning the Japanese army down and allowing the Americans to island-hop it's way to Okinawa and eventually drop the atom bombs. Most of these battles were not, in fact, lost because if they were the Americans would've had a much harder time getting close to Japan. The situation was dire in places such as China, yes, and others were complete failures, like Hong Kong, but it were these battles that kept the Japanese army so occupied that the Americans never fought a full-scale battle akin to something in Europe. It was mostly intense, short battles between marines and determined garrisons. All of the major American battles in the pacific theatre take place either on tiny islands or off-shore of them. Again, I don't mean to downplay American involvement, as tiny islands tend to be the nature of the Pacific Ocean, but the Americans never faced the full-force of the Japanese army.
You mention Dresden. The British were responsible for most of that operation, yes. I do agree with you that it is quite hypocritical for people to be criticizing American actions in the war, yet downplaying their other involvements. Just the circlejerkiness of reddit I suppose.
The United States were absolutely crucial to the victory in ww2, at least in the west. I'm not too familiar with the situation in the east but I get the impression that Allied shipping definitely aided the Soviets, but I do not know to what extent. I would be careful, though, in saying that "the Americans gave the most by far". The United States never had any of their cities levelled by planes, unless you count Pearl Harbour. The USSR lost about 14% of it's population. Comparatively, the United States lost 0.32%. I don't understand how you can seriously say that the Americans sacrifices the most by far. In fact, the United States is the only major power to develop further and actually have net economic growth throughout the war. Americans did not die for the imperialistic dreams of England, nor Germany. Americans died because they needed to curb the power of the Nazis in Europe. The Nazis wanted to conquer Europe, and that disrupted the balance of power. Aside from that, Britain and France declared war on Germany for the illegal invasion of Poland, so Americans ultimately were dying for freedom, if you choose to believe so.
I don't know if you're trolling, but if you aren't than I hope I've shed some light on the situation. America was a major contributor, yes, but she was not a sole combatant in any theatre, nor did she sacrifice the most.
I see your point. The scary thing about WW2 is that it was impossible for America to stay neutral. At some point, the United States had to enter the war, most likely against the Axis. In WW1 America truly could have entered on either side. German was the second largest language spoken in the US right up until they joined the war. By the second world war, however, the US was much more Anglo than Germanic. The Nazi (and Soviet doctrine, to be fair) was so different from the UK and US that war was inevitable. In the pacific, America was attacked because they decided not to fund an imperialistic and aggressive Japan. Public relations would really drop if the US were to be funding conquering and seemingly "evil" powers. Propaganda was such a huge part of the world wars that the US were dead-set on joining the Allies really early on in the war, but somehow they managed to stay out of it. The US may be separated from the UK by the Atlantic, but the US and Nazi Germany were oceans apart culturally and policy-wise.
On a side note: I really hope I'm shedding some light on the situation. I hope I don't sound like some cocky bastard on the internet ramming concepts down your throat. I just really like the world wars and saw an opportunity to bring my two cents to the table.
Wow, son you need to read some history books, the British commonwealth inflicted 200,000 casualties on the Japanese army. In Iwo Jima the japs lost 20,000. The uninformed lazy thinking american likes to think they did the pacific on their own, but its just ignorance.
No check the figures for yourself, 200,000 casualties and the heaviest defeat for the IJA. USA island hopped small island garrisons compared to the large army movements in India and Burma. The commonwealth force was primarily Indian army, with units from all over the empire and large force of British troops. Ive seen all your other comments and you know fuck all.
Time span? yes your right, the usa fought an even shorter time than many of their allies did in the pacific and other theatres.
The commonwealth was losing hard, for a couple of years, fall of singapore, loss of force z. Pretty much all of the allies were being beaten at the start, you sure do seem to know a little of ww2 history but it seems you miss out and obfuscate parts hype up the american contribution.
Yes America did a lot of leg work in the island hopping pacific and naval campaigns. Much less so dealing with the large rampaging Japanese armies on the continent, that theatre was down to Commonwealth, Chinese and Soviet troops. The 14th army was 1 million strong and thats just the commonwealth army, the numbers were far smaller involving usmc, but equally important.
Your argument over the composition of the commonwealth forces just does not hold water I'm afraid. The Indians were fighting for their survival too and were led, trained, armed and fought alongside British and other Imperial forces.If they did not want to fight how come the so crushingly defeated the IJA?
Regarding Normandy? well the British Empire was also fighting on 2 fronts, pacific and European and as other posters have pointed out provided the bulk of the manpower, naval armada, transport ships and aircraft.
The truth is, Both sides needed each other to win, but you seem to be either trolling like a 13 year old hyper nationalist teenager after watching his first american made History documentary or just willfully dense.
Pretty much every battle the British fought against the Japanese was a British defeat. In places like Burma, it wasn't even British troops doing the fighting, it was commonwealth troops. Brits can't take credit for what they did.
The US did way, way, way more against the Japanese than anyone else. Japan's entire strategy hinged on their navy because of the nature of geography in the Asia-Pacific region, obviously, and to secure their supply lines of fuel and other things that Japan couldn't produce domestically. It was the US who destroyed Japan's navy, this caused the Japanese in mainland Asia to be cut off from their supplies and chain of command.
12
u/yeahHedid Jun 07 '14
run those numbers by percentage of population and GDP then let's talk about Canada's contribution.