Really? You forget about D-Day already?

The operation was the largest amphibious invasion of all time, with over 175,000 troops landing on 6 June 1944. 195,700 Allied naval and merchant navy personnel in over 5,000 ships were involved.

Thank you very much too and stop playing the games. There was a map posted above. Try to learn it and find the US troops near Berlin. Over 70% of Nazi Germany army was destroyed by USSR. Only the rest 30% are common result of the rest part of anti-Nazi coalition (yes, some party of that % goes to the USA). And this is a FACT.

Ah, thank you again for stopping speaking nonsense :thumbsup

Everything you said there is true. That's not my point.

Here's my real point in "bro language" :

We lost the football game, we fucking lost. Stop going to the press
and bitching about the running back dropping the ball in the 4th quarter, the bad call
by the ref, the coach calling the wrong defense, the gatorade sucked and the
cheerleaders being too ugly to motivate us to win.:1orglaugh

Fuck that!

Just win!

There is way too much whining going on these days.
I want to stop that shit, and start fixing shit and move America up.
Were getting ready to get run over because were so busy making excuses that
we don't have anytime left to make progress.

"175,000 troops landing..." - you make me laugh man. Would you like to read something about Battle of Kursk, Battle of Moscow, Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Berlin and other really big and deadly battles of WWII???

Comparing so-called D-Day with them is like to put an ant against an elephant.

FYI: Try to find out how many men, tanks, guns etc took a part in Battle for Berlin which... was "allowed by 175,000 American troops" :1orglaugh sorry, but the guy who said that phrase has really made my day! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Pretty much. Patton would've been in there quite a few months before Russia was had Allied command not told him to slow down. :1orglaugh

Saying "they allowed them" doesn't really tell the whole story, granted, but if you think at some point the Allies didn't sit down and discuss Berlin strategy and such things as "should we beat the Russians to it or let them have it?", you're sadly misinformed.

Another interesting fact is that Stalin sacrificed tens of the thousands of his Russian troops in order to do just that, rush to take Berlin first. As in at all costs.

It's not as if they did something the Allies couldn't. Berlin would have been taken eventually either way.

Pointing out someone else's "dumb statement" and then following it up with one of your own -- not smart. See my earlier post re: Lend-lease. The US not only sent millions of tons of war materials over to Russia during WWII but also mobilized an incredible amount of equipment and armaments in Europe themselves. Pattons tankers weren't riding horses dude. The US sent via lend-lease to Russia to the tune of just over 11 billion dollars worth of war supplies (a couple of hundred billion by today's standards). Canada sent nearly half as much as well, a detail a lot of war buffs skip over.

I'm not trying to diminish Russia's role in the war, just saying that they had help. A lot of it.

Lest we forget.

It's not a football game Lt.
In order to "make progress" we must not deny or ignore the fuckups of our leaders in the past, because obviously, it's kind of important to the "just win!" that you seek.

Man, how much time it has took? Has it been done within a day, week or may be a month? Ah? Now imagine an oversea military operation against multi-million army. Try to follow my logic... :winkwink:

BTW, as about lend-lease, so it wasn't a help. It was a business, and the USSR has paid in GOLD for it. We were dying, you were making money. Not a bad role in the World War. I'm totally agree with you.

I know your point fully. I don't think anyone here is saying that vietnam wasn't for all intents and purposes a loss. Just clarifying, that's all. No whining. It stands as a shining example that one can win 90+% of the battles and still in effect lose the war.

A loss, yes, but not so much the decisive military loss you seem to want to intimate it was.

Dead on...CD...the U.S. dicussed Berlin and for multiple reasons they made the decision (primarily because of Ike's input) to allow the Russians to take Berlin and withhold our forces from taking Berlin.

You said,

And you are wrong. No comparisons are needed other than the comparison of 60 year old war tech and today's war tech.

Right in my yard, two mouses has discussed should they let a fat cat cross the grassy plot, or should they attack it. And you know, for multiple reasons they made the decision (primarily because of whit mouse input) to allow the cat to got where it want.

What exactly the USA were do if they decide to not allow the Russians to take Berlin, ah? :winkwink: Just curious :1orglaugh

I see your logic. But the fact that millions of tons of munitions and military armaments WERE brought over and used negates your point completely. "easier" doesn't really factor into it, because easier or not the US along with GB and all of their allies made it happen. To say "it was too far for them, they did not have a real fight" is simply incorrect on all counts. It obviously wasn't too far for them.

Yes it was "a help", a major help at that, and it came at a crucial time for Russia to mount a much needed counter offensive, and then maintain that offensive. no, it wasn't a gift free of charge, and yes Russia did pay it back.

It may not have been a gift but that doesn't change the fact that it was the USA and to a lesser degree Canada sending help. Lend-lease was also done with GB and several other countries who needed war materials from the US, not just Russia.

I looked up "lend-lease WWII quotes" and found this: "Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war.""

Patton, upon hearing this, was reported to have muttered "No shit, Sherlock" under his breath, but this is unconfirmed. :D

If I am not mistaken...and I don't think I am...England is the only country to repay the U.S. for the lend/lease it incurred during the Second World War...and they did not complete payment untill 2006.

Obvious answer...take it ourselves...instead of purposely holding our forces back too allow the Russians to put themselves in a position to take Berlin.

You have to re-read it through carefully. I said it was very hard those days and actually it's still hard today. Please don't tell me nothing about "modern tech war" and other computer game-related nonsense. Simple take a look at the war in Afghanistan. Do you think the USA and NATO will still be able to continue it if they lose all possible ways to supply the war (I mean the base in Kyrgyzstan, the transits through Russia and Pakistan etc)? You will be surprised, but the NATO command doesn't share your optimism.

As about 60 years ago, the REAL oversea war against well trained and equipped multimillion army was even not worth a science fiction story, because there was nothing scientific in that fantastic idea. :pimp

It's like if I sell you an anti-dote when you will be bitten by a snake. You can call it a help or whatever. I will call it a business. A bit inhumane business, but money has no smell, right?

How many American forces were able to start a battle over Berlin? How many Nazy forces were concentrated there? Read some book man, at least ask wikipedia. :pimp

Several sources on the web say the war debt Russia owed the US was finally repaid in full as of 2009.


I wonder what sort of debt the N Koreans will owe the world should they decide to start more trouble over there. This ain't the 50's and I doubt China or Russia will back them today.

War itself is inhumane. War is also business.

We intentionally held back our forces...so that the Russians could advance and position themselves to take Berlin. The decision was made for multiple reasons...one of them being...let the Russians die taking Berlin...instead of U.S. boys dying. Much of the decision to allow the Russians to advance and take Berlin was due to General Eisenhower's input.

So it was "help" for money, right? That it's much easier to earn the money rather to die in the battle? Don't you agree?

I never once mentioned computer games in any form. I'm talking about real aircraft carriers with enough fighters and ammo to decimate any location on the planet, right up close and personal. I'm talking about subs and destroyers and cruise missiles and bombers you never even see. If you really believe it's "difficult" for the U.S. to go anywhere it wants to, you are very mistaken.

What "forces" are you talking about? Can you call some numbers: how many troops, tanks etc the USA have in Europe that time?

I stand corrected...CD.

This is not a way to win a war. Look at NK, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. No war can be won w/o a land operation. In modern times, both countries (the USA and Russia) have enough nukes to wipe all the military infrastructure of each other a few times in a raw. But what's next? Think of it.

Of course you need ground troops. I just don't understand why you think the U.S. would have a "hard time" reaching Europe today. That makes no sense. We use Frankfurt to refuel flights to the mid-east as we speak. Europe is our gas station.

No it's you the one who is very mistaken. The USA can not go anywhere. Actually it can not go into the biggest part of the World. For example it can't go to Russia, China and India for the reason I mentioned in my previous post.

*sigh*

I was speaking in the context of war. Nevermind.

You seem to be having a problem with the "repayment" part of the the lend-lease "help" scenario. Tell me, if you were to go to your bank for "help" would they give you money free and clear? No. Would they still consider any sort of loan as helping you even though it requires repayment?

The US had not one but two major wars to consider. A country tends to need to keep their economy alive in order to fight such world wars. Trashing one's own economy in order to help another country in it's time of need wouldn't really have been very smart now would it?

Fact is at the time Russia needed help. Lend-lease was the best plan available at the tiime, something designed to provide that help yet keep things fair economically. It's not like there was a long list of countries lined up offering the Russians thousands of tons of much-needed war materials. Only a few, and those few were well-invested in the war themselves and thus could not afford to just give billions away freely without a repayment agreement. Had the roles been reversed is it your contention that Russia would have given freely of it's supplies?

Come now, let's be real.

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.