Zionism and World War II

In all probability, the Russians would have advanced further west eventually reaching the Atlantic coast of France. That would mean Berlin remaining undivided and the entire Germany becoming a big Deutsche Demokratische Republik also known as DDR. The Stasi would have been operating successfully in Muenchen, Frankfurt am Main and Hamburg as well. And we would have all lived happily ever after with the US having to confront an enormously large superpower of Europe launching its Sputniks one after another to make America feel GREAT again!


True words have been spoken ...

If Hiroshima hadn't been bombed, in all probability at least according to published State Dep't. evidence at the time, Tojo would have unleashed a chemical war on the US, the likes of which the world had never seen!

Here I disagree!

The US was already heavily involved before the actual landing...just think about the endless bombings of Germany...and the material support of the already fighting allies....the Russians wouldn't had made it out of Russia without the concerted effort of so many countries AND the US meddling.

So stating the war wouldn't had been won without the US ist true, but then so to say in the same sentence the US was just another part of the effort makes hence no sense.

The involvement of the US was the deciding factor for the victory of the Allies, the game changer!

I would feel frustrated about european "ungratefulness" too...especially after walking the graveyards....

I think eventually, post-War Europe, particularly Germany, grew ever tired of eternal gratitude! France as well, slowly became fed up with les americaines! Ruefully, the Germans were forced to suck up to the effects of the Marshall Plan.

West-Germans!

Both sides weren't exactly crazy about having an occupier living practically as unwanted tenant in their own backyard, tenant acting as "landlord" with power of their country!!

Were you guys in the East all lovey-dovey with the Soviets??!

I don't think so.

Then that makes it true.


Quote me of posting your projecting hallucination.


Milo makes up fibs.

The United States originally wanted to divvy up a defeated Germany into rural territory, the spoils of which would have been sectioned off or apportioned to each of the Allied Powers under the infamous, thankfully unsuccessful "Morgenthau Plan".

The Marshall Plan, concomitant with the Berlin Airlift in '48, allowed for America to funnel millions into helping then West Germany rebuild her country and her devastated economy in order to become a useful partner and trading "satellite" of the US.

Former East Germany wasn't so lucky and the Soviets showed themselves a punitive conqueror.
On the other hand, American G.I.s too raped plenty of German women, much as the Soviets had done. Motto of the ol' story is that NO side was perfect:-)

That wasn't "the US", that was one nutter and he got shot down, so?


I very much doubt that....


Most East-Germans would had preferred the US as occupiers...rarely any West-German did choose the Soviets actually...Even back then the people made their choices with their feet...says it all, really!

Your meaning escapes me. If you're referring here to Henry Morgenthau, indeed his plan was rejected, though not by much, if my memory's correct.

Doubt what you like, the facts are a matter of published record!
Would the West Germans have preferred instead the English or even the French?

You said:


And I disagreed. It was one lone nutter and his fever fantasies which were rightfully shot down...so it wasn't "the US" which planned that.

Oh, but it was.

If there ever was an officially popularity contest of all occupiers with all Germans (East and West):

1.) US
......(with place to spare)
2.) Brits
3.) French
.....(with place to spare)
4.) Russians


No, it wasn't!

The Marshall plan was official US policy....the Morgenthau plan was not!

BIG ******* DIFFERENCE!!!

I never implied, at least I didn't intend to, that the Morgenthau Plan was anything other than a planned implementation which never got off the ground. We're all well aware, I trust, that only the Marshall Plan acquired the status of "official US policy", much as did the Berlin Airlift.

Thank you! :)

Don't mention it:-)

Here you have two articles

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4j8zos/pay_of_american_gis_during_world_war_ii/
moneywise.com/a/financial-facts-about-world-war-ii

What do you have to support your words about GI's loosing money?

Again- I think everyone here agrees that it's great America took part and that they were huge part of the allies efforts. However- it was in their interest as well and that they were part of a group and not a single struggler in the hardship.

I don't understand why that is an argument....an argument for what? That the US fighted on behalf of the free people because it is a free country too? That makes it's support something less, or what?

An argument for the fact that there is no sainthood in it deserving more awe then all the rest of allies. Every country put an enormous effort and deserves the same respect for that.

Not to mention that why should anyone be grateful for something that one does in self interest?

The US came from another continent...they didn't had to come and support you at all from that far away...it wasn't "their" war...they could had said "no". Many wanted to stay out...the mood wasn't for doing anything for a long time:

exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941

Without Roosevelt it could had been gone differently....

Of course they didn't have to! Theoretically no country had to fight.
But they were attacked! And either Germany or Russia as a super power in Europe wasn't something they wanted. It's enough to look at the cold war. They would go berserk.

By the Japanese....

True but part of the same struggle. If that was not important why they joined after that?

They wanted to help you???

Yyy, that might have been part of it but as you said yourself- before then they weren't so eager. So it wasn't the help part that was the deciding issue.

Btw- I'm out. Thank you for nice discussion but after few days when I was tied to the internet waiting for certain info I'm back to my real life. Thank you for helping me kill the time :)

As I understand the polls they didn't came because of Gemany invading Western Europe (NO 93%) and also not for France (Keep out 61%), it was the question about to help England out (Help 52%) which turned the tide slowly in favour of becoming involved...

So...the Brits have to be most grateful! :)


I aim to please! :)

*waves*

Political Correctness is Tyranny with a Happy Face.

Whoever wrote that one was a world-class genius. It's a variant on the sixties "Love me or I will kill you".
To anyone with an ounce of brain it is clear that NAZI, Nazis, or Nazi Germany are not used to inform, but to express anger.

Subjectivity mascareding as objectivity.

It's scarcely political correctness to be accurate, is it? After all, while all "Nazis" by definition were either Austrian or German, not every Austrian or German was necessarily a Nazi.

Recall a wartime joke popular in the States during the early 'forties' as Hitler was gaining even greater force. Two people overheard in conversation as one is eavesdropping on somebody speaking with their neighbor in German, if only here to indicate typical homegrown hysteria:

Person 1: Hey, Harry! We got us two Nazis in that there room over there!

Person 2: Aw come on now, Ed. How d'you know they's Nazis?

Person: Confound it, man! Just listen to 'em. They's talkin' Nazi, ain't they?

For numerous rank-and-file Americans during those years, "German" and "Nazi" had already become practically synonymous.

Like I said, angry or stupid.