Poll: World War 1 and 2 - who did more for the French?

[Rolling Thunder]

Wasn't it largely American forces that liberated France? And didn't most of Europe not become liberated until the American forces intervened?

60% of forces were Commonwealth. Another interesting note is that American formations suffered a 20% higher casualty rate in Normandy, despite fighting fewer German formations, and even fewer quality ones (most of the Panzer Divisions were concentrated around the British sector, at Caen).

 

[Danny3005]

America Did everything ever, we killed the nazis as the french and the English were shitting there pants
the candians helped alot though
America Is so fuckin awsome that we were able to kick ass on 2 fronts
Were so awsome that other countries complain about us out of no where


scene in a london pub
Hi john
Hey dave
I hate america John
Thats nice dave

There might have been a bigger force of english in europe, but the americans kicked more ass

And here is a tip for you brits and such, Americans don't really care about vietnam, so when you go WELL YOU LOST VEITNAM we don't care cause you lost war of 1812, revolutionary war, And some other wars in the medieval period

AMERICA FUCK YEA
CAUSE FREEDOM IS THE ONLY WAY YEA

 

[tehbeard]

America always wins and always does the best, that is what makes it America!

No what makes America America is mobility scooters and waiting for goverment hand outs.
Britain and its.
WWI: The commonwealth. America only got their ass in gear once we brits showed America that Germany was trying to get Mexico to attack them (see the Zimmermann Telegram article on wikipedia).

WWII: UK, mainly because we told Hitler to go stick his hand up his arse if he thought we would lie down so easily. We also provided the rest stop for american troops to eat a burger before heading to normandy to help us liberate france and Europe.

United Kingdom, and this is coming from an American, I believe 1/4 of Americans are retarded though

Thank you for your honesty, while it may sound like I dislike America, its only on the whole that i dislike it, the individuals in America can be pretty nice people. Sadly few of them inhabit XBL.

Wasn't it largely American forces that liberated France? And didn't most of Europe not become liberated until the American forces intervened?

This is because we (UK and her territories) spent several years before you guys came along holding the line, and thus we lost alot of good men.

 

[Danny3005]

Wasn't it largely American forces that liberated France? And didn't most of Europe not become liberated until the American forces intervened?

60% of forces were Commonwealth. Another interesting note is that American formations suffered a 20% higher casualty rate in Normandy, despite fighting fewer German formations, and even fewer quality ones (most of the Panzer Divisions were concentrated around the British sector, at Caen).

My other posty may be a joke, but you are lying to yourself if you think that the defences at utah beach were the worst

Utah beach was extremly defended and the brits would have lost just as much if they were there

 

[Nomad]

Err, nothing much happened on the western front of WW1, so none for that war. For WW2, the Soviets.

 

[Danny3005]

Alright I'm going to be a heathen and vote for the US on this one. It was very close overall, but unless I am terribly mistaken about the timing for WWI by the time the first US expeditionary force arrived things were still locked in a stalemate on the western front. While they might have done less fighting than the other allied nations it proved to be a good morale boost for the Allies, and the prospect of having millions (2,810,000 draftees were in training, but not necessarily deployed by the Armistice) of fresh and eager soldiers to bolster the enemy ranks was a major psychological blow to the Germans. Then there was also the extra manufacturing of supplies that the US brought to the overall industrial power of the allies. The US was far more marginal on this one, so the UK probably did more in then end.

In terms of WWII I think we did a bit more to actually aid the French. Yes there were a lot of UK, Australian, and Canadian forces on D-Day, but it would not have been possible without the resources and manpower supplied by the US (on the other hand maybe Hitler did more on D-day by holding the reins of the Panzer divisions and spectacularly screwing that up). More likely is that if the US hadn't gotten in on the deal then the UK would have just sat on their island for the most part until the Russian finished the job for them. Also to throw in my two cents about the entire Russians winning the WWII single singlehandedly part: the Germans had a vast amount of their military in the East (2/3 is the agreed upon figure here I believe) they still poured a monumental amount of resources into the Western front that more likely than not would have tipped the balance in the eastern front, and the supplies that the US sent aided the Russians a bit as well. While the US may not have been doing a majority of the fighting we provided the distraction and the supplies that allowed the Allies to win the second world war. Now I'm going to go hide in my flame bunker and let the debate continue.

OH SHIT WATCH OUT ITS A BRITISH BUNKER BUSTER AHHHHHA WERE ALL GONNA DIE

 

[Hellenion]

The First World War - British Empire troops fought in the trenches with the French, losing millions of troops.

The Second World War - Britain hosted Charles de Gaulle and the "Free French", sent in spies to destabilise the Occupied and Vichy Governments and fought alongside them in Belgium and in Asia.

Hellenion

(Why so many French topics at the moment?)

 

[DND Judgement]

britain and all her lands across the seas... churchill even contemplated british and french unification during world war 2....

 

[Booze Zombie]

Didn't have to use nukes on Germany, the Dresdon Bombing was almost as bad as, if not worse than, a nuke.

 

[Pandalisk]

Ill just say the arctic, because we all know Antarctica acts like the bloody World police, they have their hands in everything.

Them and their Fucking Pirate penguins

No one contributed the most on the allied side, as they were all working together, they pooled what they had to help with a common cause, who contributed most is a matter of opinion, not fact, every battle is a key battle, you cannot say oh we took caen, or we held out in Chambois so we had the bigger impact on the field, even the smallest fire fight can effect an entire campaign

for WW2 in general though i would say the Soviet Union because no one else contributed the lives of 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 soldiers and 14,154,000 to 12,254,000 civilians

 

[historyfend13]

This is a great loaded question. Being an American....I know we suck. I admit and I must apologize for my brethren who like to flame others and can't be slightly respectful. I've taken classes on both of the subjects, so here is my two cents.

WWI: The British. This is because the fellows there lost a ton of men fighting the German war machine and trying to defend against the tyranny on the continent. The French needed help badly and the isolationist policy of the United States stopped them from doing anything. The United States didn't enter into the War until 1917, a full three years after it started. We were kinda late to the party, and yet we like to live up the glory....I hate us sometimes. But overall, the British helped to hold the line on French held territory.

WWII: The British again...kinda funny. They held the line and didn't give in like the French didn't...rolling over and letting Hitler tickles their balls. Anyhow, they gave the government a place to stay and kept the resistance up for French. The United States and it's manufacturing base, which is now dead it seems, was a hue force in helping to produce maaterial to fight the Germans after 1943.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Wasn't it largely American forces that liberated France? And didn't most of Europe not become liberated until the American forces intervened?

60% of forces were Commonwealth. Another interesting note is that American formations suffered a 20% higher casualty rate in Normandy, despite fighting fewer German formations, and even fewer quality ones (most of the Panzer Divisions were concentrated around the British sector, at Caen).

My other posty may be a joke, but you are lying to yourself if you think that the defences at utah beach were the worst

Utah beach was extremly defended and the brits would have lost just as much if they were there

I'm going to assume your not a troll, and merely misinformed. Firstly, I said 'Normandy'. Not 'D-Day'. 'Normandy' was a three-month campaign that began on D-Day and ended with the battle of the Falasie Gap, fought by American and Commonwealth forces - 60% of the forces present were, in fact, Commonwelth.

Omaha beach, I will concede, had the heaviest defences of the beachheads, however, I must submit that if it had been attacked by Commonwealth forces, it would not have been so great a slaughter, as Commonwealth forces possessed the requisite equipment to adequately breach heavy defences (DD tanks, Churchill AVRE's) under fire. Given that a Churchill tank could take an 88mm shell, and continue fighting, I submit that if Commonwealth forces had attacked Omaha beach, there would have been fewer casualties.

Note: The American beaches were Omaha and Utah. The Commonwealth beaches were Gold, Juno and Sword beaches, which were likewise heavily defended, though this was negated by the specialist equipment possessed and more accurate delivery of naval gunfire.

 

[daywalker1776]

For the topic, the Soviets because they could take one hell of a beating for WWII

As for WWI, it's between US and UK because the UK held out in stalemate thanks to the "tactful" Ferdinand Foch, while the Americans both sent vital supplies to the country less blockaded (Britain, Germany deemed this "picking sides")and scaring the Germans to the point that they launched a near successful attack that made it to within 32 miles of Paris.

By the way, we (Americans) contributed to the pivotal Battle of Amiens (1918) and the Russians (NOT Soviets) backed out because of that whole October Revolution thing with Lenin.

 

[daywalker1776]

Also, the French could have held out much longer had they better defended the Ardennes forest. After all, they did have better tanks than the Germans circa 1940. It's just that the French tanks lacked radios.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

D-Day, Canada was the only country to reach its objective. Now some ppl said Commonwealth which Canada was part of, but when you consider that the canadian soldiers were volunteers, I think the credit should go to canadian will to fight. Same in WW1, they were nicknamed "Stormtroopers" by the German forces. And they won many battles, and faced some pretty frightening things while standing firm and fighting back.

 

[cobra_ky]

it doesn't fucking matter. A lot of countries were involved in freeing france and they all lost good men. all this nationalist dick-waving from a bunch of pricks who weren't even alive during WWII is a disgrace to their memory.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

Canada.

We haven't gotten rid of Quebec yet.

Yet.

 

[thebrainiac1]

The UK!

Seriously though, most of the other countries in the poll where only involved due to allegiance/control/cultural ties with the british.

 

[Superbeast]

This is a great loaded question. Being an American....I know we suck. I admit and I must apologize for my brethren who like to flame others and can't be slightly respectful. I've taken classes on both of the subjects, so here is my two cents.

WWI: The British. This is because the fellows there lost a ton of men fighting the German war machine and trying to defend against the tyranny on the continent. The French needed help badly and the isolationist policy of the United States stopped them from doing anything. The United States didn't enter into the War until 1917, a full three years after it started. We were kinda late to the party, and yet we like to live up the glory....I hate us sometimes. But overall, the British helped to hold the line on French held territory.

WWII: The British again...kinda funny. They held the line and didn't give in like the French didn't...rolling over and letting Hitler tickles their balls. Anyhow, they gave the government a place to stay and kept the resistance up for French. The United States and it's manufacturing base, which is now dead it seems, was a hue force in helping to produce maaterial to fight the Germans after 1943.

To quote a good comedian of whom I'm a fan:

America turns up when WW1 is nearly over. Britain and France are leaning wearily on their rifles, saying "Where the f*** were you? We've been at this for years!". World War 2 is a repeat - the continent manages to stall Hitler and then the Americans turn up 3 years after the war starts again.

Mind you, to make up for it, they've been intent on starting every war ever since.

Seriously though, I'd say Britain/Commonwealth for both wars. Not being at all biased being a Brit. Obviously.

In WW1 it was Britian that supplied a large number of troops from the get-go and really helped the French out. The supplies the Americans gave were important, no mistake, but the amount of troops involved from the States is nearly negligable compared to the Commonwealth (don't want to forget those Aussies)/French troops.

WW2 is a little less clear-cut. American manufactoring power was certianly one of the major tipping points in the western front - the sheer numbers of bombers and tanks produced meant the Allies could stay in the game. But the Allied forces managed to stall the Germans in those 3 years - look how quickly France fell and then the Germans didn't get further.

Without the RAF then Britain would certainly have been invaded - the order to shift from boming the airfields to bombing the cities saved the RAF (it was supposedly days from collapse) and the air superiority the RAF had (German fighters only had 30mins of fuel for combat over the chanel, leaving the Bombers vulnerable) meant it was deemed too risky for a sea-based crossing (Operation Sealion that got cancelled). Britain and her allies provided the majority of troops for Normandy and the push into France, though without American re-supply things would have been sticky (look how Patton's armies were stalled when the fuel supply couldn't keep pace with the speed of the advancing war machine).

America's major influence was in the East though - with the fight against Japan. The Brits held out in Bhurma but things weren't going well, and only the Americans had the manpower needed to remove the Japanese from the island chains pace-by-pace (though arguably the Russians eliminating the most elite Japanese army in...China I think it was...was a massive morale-dampener, allegedly moreso than the A-bombs).