Because the USA already having a hard time to reach Afghanistan. Without the base in Kyrgyzstan and the transits through Russia and Pakistan the war will be over.

What does Afghanistan have to do with reaching Europe?
Am I in an alternate dimension today or something?

Here is a quote:
BTW what is the real difference between reaching Europe and Asia? Would you like to say that Europe is reachable and Asia is unreachable for the USA? Hmm... :)

All of that is well-documented. And easily googled I'm sure.

In fact a quick search for "Size of US forces during WWII" found me this document:
http://www.history.army.mil/brochure...overview.htm#9
and in it I found this passage that doesn't tell the whole story but does shed some light on an answer to your question...

What forces indeed.

Btw a typical US division in WWII was around 15,000 men.


At any rate I'm not sure why some Russians get so bent out of shape whenever someone has the tumerity to say the US played a vital role in the outcome of WWII. it is an inarguable fact that they did, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Did they do it alone? No. Those who are saying that are also quite ridiculous.

And Russia's accomplishments in that war, lend-lease "help" notwithstanding, were also numerous and incredible. If we can agree on that then there isn't much left to argue about is there?

Vital role was played by Soviet Union, but the USA just helped (in a bigger way for money (land-lease)...) As I mentioned above, about 70% of Nazi army was destroyed by Soviet Forces.

However we were talking about Berlin. This is why I asked to show the numbers. Forget about the US loses in battles against Japan (that's a different story), try to count how many forces the States had in Europe and how many German forces were defending Berlin. Now you should understand why I was laughing on the guy who said that Russians took Berlin just because the USA allowed it. That's really funny, isn't it? :)

sorry, I remember my tour guide around Berlin telling me it thats all. I guess he's wrong.

Welp, looks like I will cancel my trip to Seoul next week.

I think the US has around 30k troops in South Korea + whatever South Korea has. North Korea's army, even though large in numbers, is malnourished and probably poorly trained. There would be a huge loss of Korean life, but this is bond to happen sooner than later so bring that shit. Lets let the little man know what's up and hope he's not dumb enough to light off some nukes.

Vast.

If we're talking about today's military a US warship can sail into the Mediterranean (or Baltic) Sea, launch aircraft and hit virtually any target in Europe. Not possible in much of Asia though, because it's so huge a completely different kind of deployment has to take place. Plus, not to mention the US already has military bases in the EU, in Germany, Lar I believe. Can't say the same for large parts of Asia.

Maybe you weren't paying attention though, when Iraq invaded Kuwait or later when the US initiated Gulf War V2, as to just how bloody FAST things moved. Seemed like only a matter of days before over 100K troops were ready to start rocking Soutern Iraq in 2005, along with full air and naval support.

Seriously, if you think for a second that if, say, something major were to happen in some remote place like upper Mongolia or something, that the US couldn't get forces in there quickly if requred well, all I'm saying is you'd be in for a surprise. I bet you'd shit yourself at how fast it would come down.

Btw in case anyone's thinking it I'm not a war-monger, I'm merely someone who has a fascination for studying war's history, as well as someone who has a lot of war vets in his family and thus has always had a healthy respect for veterans and a thirst for knowledge regarding their sacrifices.

Which is probably why this business with N Korea galls me so much. They need to get themselves 1.2 million X-box's and get busy having mindless fun like the rest of us instead of pissing around playing wannabe superpower.

The "real" difference is approx. 3000 miles. Europe is closer.
As far as reachable goes, I stand by what I already said: There is no place on Earth the U.S. cannot reach. (and some parts of space).

I am enjoying the debate between alot of the veterans here, but try and keep it clean, you are ruining your arguments with the insults and alot of you all give good arguments whether true or false.

I'm off to sleep. Good night everyone!

The passage I highlighted in yellow DOES pertain to US forces in Europe, not in the Pacific.

Not really. Because my friend, the US as I said earlier didn't go it alone. Great Britain also had a huge force in Europe at the time, as did Canada. There were sizeable troop contributions from several other countries as well. The combined Allied force was quite massive. Not as large as what Russia's had grown to at the time, but still massive enough to, had the decision been made, take Berlin ahead of the Russians.

Again, these discussions and the race for Berlin and Eisenhower decided against it etc is well documented. One document I just read recently said that it simply wasn't worth the effort to take Berlin ahead of the Russians because we'd be fighting for land that would later have to be turned over to Russia anyway.

There's a lot on the web about this, by all means go read it. It's really quite fascinating, to me anyway.

Under promise, over deliver. :winkwink:

Just wait until they do one of these fancy pantsy parades and cluster bombs away!



lights out

Yes...indeed. We have transport capability that cannot begin to be matched by any other country on the earth...and pre-positioned supply bases...around much of the world. Some routes are just somewhat easier than others but whatever route is needed it will be taken...one way or another. The U.S. can reach out and touch anyone...anywhere...at anytime.

LOL. That's comical.

It's funny how Americans think we sailed in and saved the day.

Russia was invaded by Germany in 1941. D-Day didn't go down until 1944. Germany surrendered in 1945. Do the math. The Russians pushed back the Nazis all the way from Moscow back to Berlin. We basically fought a one year rear guard action.

Russia lost twenty-four million people during WWII. The US lost 400k, which includes what we lost in the Pacific fighting Japan. Staggering difference.

This is the problem.... Americans complain about the "huge amount of deaths" we are suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq, but those are numbers are really small. Wait until we start hearing about millions of people fleeing the war zone and tens of thousands dieing in days.

Same with the UK : repaid last year or previous one ... War is profitable ... First Iraq War was also repaid by other countries .

And if the US or South start the trouble .. Will they pay ... unlike IRAQ ...?

The U.S. will pay no matter who starts it. We'll be financing & policing the rebuilding of a new unified Korea for decades. Isn't that what we do? Burn it down, then build it up. Out with the old n' busted, in with the new hotness.

You left out the North Africa campaign which began in May of 1942 and you left out the Italian Campaign which began in September of 1943 and was still being fought when the Germans Surrendered in May 1945...so try again sport.

This is true. Yet it pales in comparison to the numbers and amount of time the Russians fought. We got 200k troops on the beach, while the Russians had millions that had been in combat for four straight years.

I agree with you. But for anyone to suggest that we can't move troops or machinery, or have an impact anywhere we need to is just absurd. We clearly did it 60 years ago, we can do it today. That was really my only point with the D-Day reference.

What's scary today is not how to maneuver & position, but the types of people we are engaged with. People that only know war. Generations of fighters that do not know what giving up even means.

North Africa campaign? Yeah, sure thing. That was mostly a British action, not American. As for Italy, it was like fighting a rear guard action against a country that was already out of the war. Also, the reason we went through Italy was because we weren't ready to invade France which was the primary goal.

And your right, btw. We were still fighting in Italy when Germany called it quits. We were the Elbe river in Germany when Russia had captured Berlin. A year after D-Day and we had barely crossed France and only half way into Germany, while Russia fought the Nazis through 1/3 of Russia (huge distance) and through Poland.

Well we do agree on some things. The US is one of the few nations in the world that can instantly project a military force anywhere in the world. War has changed a lot since WWII; The US can bomb any country within hours if it so decides. There's only one other country that can do that and it's not China.

As for "Korea", well, just keep in mind we already have tens of thousands of troops there and god only knows how much equipment we have stored there - not to mention Japan isn't too far away, and I know the US has a huge military presence there including the third largest concentration of US Marines....

Might make watching the news a bit more interesting....

No plans were made by the Western Allies to seize the city by a ground operation.[24] U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower lost his interest in the race to Berlin and saw no further need to suffer casualties in attacking a city that would be in the Soviet sphere of influence after the war.[25] General Eisenhower foresaw excessive friendly fire if both armies attempted to occupy the city at once.[26] The major Western Allied contribution to the battle was the strategic bombing of Berlin during 1945.[27] During 1945 the United States Army Air Forces launched a number of very large daytime raids on Berlin, and for 36 nights in succession scores of RAF Mosquitos bombed the German capital, ending on the night of 20/21 April 1945 just before the Soviets entered the city. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin ]

Yes like Afghanistan and Iraq were not a problem but I guess its taking a bit longer than you thought 8 years ago?


NK would roll over SK before the US had any serious presence there.
These may be poorly equipped soldiers but they are brainwashed fanatics that makes Al Qaeda fanatics look like Sunday school children.

During the cold war the US strategy were to be able to fight two different wars at the same time you are during that now. Beside the 30K soldiers and the Pacific fleet how many more men do you think the US could put in Korea within 1-2 weeks?

You need a hell of a lot of air strikes to take out 1 million soldiers.

Plenty of Iraqis were happy to run away and not fighting on Saddam's side Sunnis and Shias.
Russia had troops behind the canon fodder with orders to shoot anyone that hesitated or did not follow orders to attack.
NKs are fanatics thinking their great leader is God.

See the differences?

That's a huge line of crap. So in other words, we landed in Europe not to take Berlin and defeat the Nazis, but just to say we were there? It was a race to Berlin and we had no chance of winning - Not after the Russians pushed back the Germans over a thousand miles.

Afghanistan & Iraq weren't problems. Not until that drunken cowboy decided to make papa proud.

Ummmm, we already have a presence there. "Rolling over" SK will include our people and will absolutely be an act of war against the US.

1-2 weeks? We wouldn't put any in there until most of NK was leveled to the ground in smoking ruins. It's not like they have anywhere to run.

Yeah, I understand the differences. Whether or not those people believe Kim Jong Il is God or not is irrelevant unless he actually is God. Do you think our government and military haven't already gone over every possible war scenario with NK a few thousand times?

And how exactly did you pull that out of the statement that was posted?

Seen this documentary some time ago, well worth a watch in regards to brainwashing, propaganda, fear and suppression. Some footage in here that shows North Korea's true colors. It's 5 parts, this is 1/5

kji is a fucking lunatic. he really might decide to nuke korea itself as a way of "shitting on em niggas"

I was also shocked when was reading the Rochard's post. I thought that if not all Americans/Canadians are seriously brainwashed, but at least those who post on GFY (no offense, but most of you know shit about World's history). But I was wrong. Rochard shown me there are well-informed people over the sea who learned the history.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. The Atomic bomb was the only reason why Soviets stopped at Berlin and allowed the Allies to occupy the western part of Europe.

Actually bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing common with the war against Japan. It was a sign/warning/menace to the USSR. Poor civilian Japanese people have burned in nuclear hell just because the US government wanted to say: "Hey Russians, do you see what we have? It's going to be used against YOU!"

2baddog: Sorry man. May be you are real wikipedia ninja, but you still can't understand the simple thing. The there was not enough US forces in Europe to take over Berlin. This is a historical fact. And BTW:
a) Berlin was a one big stronghold, so the defenders always will have much less losses than attackers;
a) the German forces were much better trained (remember, they were fighting during the years in real battles);
b) the German forces were fighting for their motherland and their capital, so it was knowingly the last battle for many of them...

Once again, there was not enough the US forces in Europe to go on Berlin. And the only reason why Soviet Army didn't move to that small western part of Europe (after it defeated Hitler in his own home) was American A-Bomb. PERIOD.

My Grandfather died in WWII in the South Pacific. Although I didn't notice it at the time, I started studying WWII when I was in high school although most of my interest at the time was on the German side. I devour books about WWII on a weekly basis (although right now I'm reading a book called "Riptide" about a firebase in Vietnam).

Currently I'm going back to college part time to get a degree in history, focused on WWII.

Simple. There is a huge difference between fact and American history.

When I first started studying WWII when I was (much) younger, I honestly believed in what we were taught in high school - You know, D Day, Omaha Beach, and how the Americans sliced through Europe and saved the world from the Nazis. But the more I read about WWII, the more I discovered Americans had no clue of what really happened there.

For the US, WWII started with Hawaii and we accept this now as a direct attack on the US. But in 1941 everyone said "Oh my god, Hawaii was attacked. Where the fuck is Hawaii?". We accept Hawaii as a US state, but in 1941 it was little known US outpost in the Pacific along the lines of Guam or Midway.

Americans are taught and tend to believe that American sailed in and saved the day with Europe. The truth is we were fighting the war in the Pacific single handedly without much assistance from anyone. For the first two or three years of the war in the Pacific the US only helped out with material and money. The US was busy trying to rebuild the Pacific fleet to take on Japan, and building Liberty ships so we could send supplies to the UK. In the mean time, it's a little known fact the Germans in their submarines owned the east coast sinking American ships at will.

Americans have no clue of what really happened during WWII.

After the Japanese attacked Perl Harbor the Germans declared war on the U.S. which opened the door for us to enter the European war. The administration took the position Europe first and the Pacific second. Until VE day the bulk of materials and man power went to Europe and the war against Japan was secondary.

Having come from a long line of military myself...I too have studied the Second World War and war in general since I have been old enough to read. I also studied war when I attended University...and spent 12 years on active duty...with my military career being terminated in '92 because of injuries sustained in the '91 Gulf War.

You etiher forgot...or are not aware of the Yalta Summit between Roosevelt...Churchhill...and Stalin...in February of '45. It was then that the decision was made to divide Germany up with Berlin to be in the Russian sphere of governance. Thus General Esienhower being the Supreme Allied Commander decided for multiple reasons not to make an effort to take Berlin. One of the reasons was to prevent Allied/American deaths for something that they would have to turn over to the Russians.

You keep saying there were not enough US Forces in Europe. General Esienhower was the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces and it would have been the Allied Forces that would have taken Berlin not just U.S. Forces. After the Yalta Summit in February of '45...and because of the decisions made there by Roosevelt...Churchill...and Stalin...General Esienhower...for multiple reasons...made the decision not to push foward to take Berlin...but instead allow the Russians to take Berlin. End of story.

Wrong.

The main effort on the United States in the early stages of WWII was fighting in the Pacific.

In 1942 only the Russians were really fighting the Germans. The United States had yet to land any forces in Europe. About the same time the battle of Midway took place, which was one of the first times the US beat Japan. 1943 saw the Russians fighting in Stalingrad and Moscow, which was the start of the German defeat. It wasn't until September of 1943 - two years after war was declared on the United States by both Japan and Germany - that the US put a large military force on the ground, which was in Italy.

The US was attacked, stunned, and was loosing ground. It was fighting Japan from day one while German submarines had a fucking field day off the US east coast - nearly unopposed by the US Navy. By the time D Day happened, the Russians had beat down the Germans in Stalingrad and Moscow, had pushed them out of Russia, into Poland and Estonia - nearly into Germany and Berlin. In June of 1994, the month of D Day, the Russians (after destroying entire German Divisions in bulk) took on and defeated the German Army Group Centre, which if I recall correctly, was the large military army in modern history. In the mean time the United States was fighting second hand troops in France. The German army has lost, defeated on, and or retreated nearly a thousand miles of Polish and Russian territory before D Day took place.

No...I am not wrong. The bulk of war materials was sent to Europe through the Lend/Lease act until VE day...including to Russia. That was the policy decided upon by Roosevelt.

In 1941...Europe had been lost to the Germans...England was on the verge of being lost...Russia was being defeated by the Germans. On September 15, 1941, Germany began the Siege of Leningrad. It would not end until January 1944. It was in October of 1941 that the U.S. began supplying Russia with war materials and the overwhelming majority of its motorized vehicles. Once the U.S. began supplying Russia the Russians slowly began to turn the tide and by July of '44 they had retaken their country.

Late in 1943, Stalin met with Roosevelt and Churchill for the first time -- The Teheran Conference. They agreed that the Western Allies would invade France in June 1944 and once the invasion began the Russians would began a push from the East.

You say the U.S. did not save the day...but Eurpoe had been lost...England was on the verge of being lost and the Russians were losing but once the U.S. began supplying Europe and the Russians with war materials and once the U.S. entered the war and once A U.S. General was made Supreme allied commander the tide of war turned. Seems pretty much like saving the day to me.

Feel free to think as you like...I do...but you cannot rewrite history.

armchair geopoliticians

:Kissmy

The Russian victory at Stalingrad happened at the end of January '43. The Russians were provided...in part...this victory because of the Lend/Lease provided to them by the U.S. beginning in October of '41. It also happened in part...because German troops were tied down in the North African Campaign...the Sicily and Italian Campaign...and they were tied down in France awaiting the invasion.

Without the assistance of the U.S. in war materials and motorized vehicles and without the entry of the U.S. into the war and engaging German Forces...by land...sea and air...the victories of the Russians over the Germans...may never have took place as they were losing and losing badly prior to these events.

The Russians never regained complete control of their country until July of '44 when they took back Minsk...a month after D Day. So it seems to me that the tide of the war changed when the U.S. began supplying materials to Eurpope/Russia and put troops on the ground in North Africa...Sicily...Italy and France...since the Russians did not regain their country until a month after D Day.

It is true that the Russians engaged...captured and killed more German troops than the Allied forces did...but they could not have done it without the assistance of the U.S. in war materials/motorized vehicles and U.S/Allied forces engaging...capturing and killing German troops...end of story.

Eurpoe had been lost...England was on the verge of being lost...the Russians were being badly defeated...but when the U.S. begin to supply and when they entered the war and when they engaged the German forces...this losing trend began to reverse itself. Once again it pretty much sounds like saving the day to me.

guys theking watches the History Channel, you will not win. he gets the facts. he has fought in every major war since WW1 and has personally scalped over 1 million people to protect america.

every morning he drinks napalm to wake up.

my guess is hes just some fat son of a army guy who has struggled his whole life to meet daddy requirements as a son, but hasnt ever done so, he wacthes history channel to get his facts and pretends he is a war veteran. LOL

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that sheer numbers of soldiers alone does not make for a strong military. It may have been true 60, even 30 years ago, but not with today's technology.

You're right. 1 US carrier group may not be enough. A second carrier will likely have to be sent.

11,000 sorties later let's take a head count.

You're forgetting North Africa. British and US forces fought some fairly huge battles there in late 1942. From there Patton and the armies under several other generals including the Canadian army and British forces under Montgomery then invaded Sicily.

So in 1942 the Russians were so NOT the only ones fighting the Germans.


See above. You're forgetting N Africa and Sicily. Both were huge campaigns. Not minor. Huge.

The rest of what you said is largely true, although it does leave out many details. Russia took horrendous losses and even several defeats before doing all the great and wonderful things you described. They needed a massive amount of supplies and munitiions to mount their comeback offensive and the US was vital to that, via the lend-lease program.

Frankly I have no idea why Hitler pushed so far East anyway. 1000's of miles of frozen tundra, wooh, I want it! Canada would have been next. He was described as an evil genius but in many ways Hitler was no genius. Far from it in fact. :D

only russia? britain had already repelled germany in the battle of britain and in 1942 britain was fighting the battle of the north atlantic against the germans and in north african campaign.