Quote:
|
Soviet victory over Germany in WWII doesn't count because the Soviets lost so many men, and by the way the Allies provided some supplies.
|
It has more to do with Operation Overlord (or, less accurately but more popularly, D-Day / the Normandy Landings); sending three million men across the English Channel and liberating the Republic of France from Nazi occupation, and the subsequent two years of brutal military campaigning toward the Rhine and into Germany that followed. Millions of men were involved in these conflicts -- can you imagine how things might have been different if the Nazis had been able to send all the men and supplies they used in massive offensives like the Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes) to combat Russia instead? If the United States hadn't gotten involved in World War II, Britain wouldn't have been able to do anything except defend themselves from Nazi attacks (they didn't have
anywhere near the manpower to drive Germany out of France, let fight their way to the Rhine and beyond).
Can you explain how it is sensible to discount nearly a dozen major battles, in which some of the best and finest generals and units in the Germany Army participated, count for nothing toward ending the war? It is complete nonsense to think Russia won the war by itself, just because they got to Berlin first (by sacrificing an overwhelming number of men and for it being geographically closer and more accessible to them).
Additionally, the United States fought against the Empire of Japan almost completey by itself, and they were a huge power.
World War II was one of the best expressions of American military power in history and it is considered by historians the world over to be a huge reason for considering our military the best in the world. You have been reading skewed history books if you think differently.
Quote:
|
"Few armies of great powers have ever won a war against a guerrilla force that came from the populace and land the battle was fought in."
|
Especially when those forces don't follow any of the typical rules of warfare, like not systematically blowing up innocent civilians to de-stabilize communities and make maintenance of order and public well-being all but impossible for the occupying force. Not even the totalitarian Axis power governments did that (although what they did do ultimately caused a greater loss of life).
I'm aware (and take a dim view of) members of the American military degenerating and breaking the standard rules of warfare (with clumsy excuses too), but for the most part, we adhere to the rules.
The United States doesn't do well unless we go in full force -- a "fumbling hand" is usually what we've put out for the last couple decades.