Can anyone explain the anti-American sentiment to me?

[Docno]

See above (i.e., I rounded up by three weeks). That said, the first offensive action by the US following the declarations of war was in January 1942 (US attack on the Japanese-occupied Marshall Islands).

it was 1941

USS Enterprise attack on Marshall islands in 1942 (see http://cv6.org/1942/marshalls/default.htm). Rather than repeating three words, please provide an example of an earlier planned/coordinated offensive action. Repetition does not a debate make.

BTW, you're still missing the point, which is that in the 'American mind', WWII began in 1942 (or 3 weeks earlier if you want to be a stickler). Anyway, if you want to argue that the US was engaged in WWII in 1941 because the entered the fray in the final three weeks of the year, I'll give it to you. Better (very) late than never....

the original claim was the war STARTED in 1942. wars start with a declaration of war. they dont start with the first offensive action by one side. it started in 1941

No it wasn't go back and read what my posting said... I will repeat to save you the trouble (but go back and check for yourself if you don't believe me). I facetiously said that most Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942. Please believe me when I say that, not being an American, I believe neither of the former....

[Lancelot]

Many hate US foreign policy

But they like American culture. European kids dressing in US ghetto style, rapping and hip hop.

They don't hate everything about us

Edited July 22, 2014 by Lancelot

[AYJAYDEE]

Many hate US foreign policy

But they like American culture. European kids dressing in US ghetto style, rapping and hip hop.

They don't hate everything about us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cxi75Yv65hk

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cxi75Yv65hk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

you base your county's status in the world on the opinion of teenagers?

[Jingthing]

Ppl confuse regular Americans with American (foreign) politics. But in general Americans from all walks of live etc, etc are the nicest ppl you can meet. And of course like in every country there are some bad ones around

Sent from my Galaxy S4 4G LTE

It's kind of a superficial "nice" though, innit?

Just visit their country.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 4G LTE

Good idea. We need the money!

[rijb]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

how was britain forced to withstand years of japanese pressure before december 1941?

Docno - A lot of good people died because of that war. Who the hell are you to judge their contribution?!

[AYJAYDEE]

No it wasn't go back and read what my posting said... I will repeat to save you the trouble (but go back and check for yourself if you don't believe me). I facetiously said that most Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942. Please believe me when I say that, not being an American, I believe neither of the former....

and youre wrong, americans know very well when their war started. dec 7, 1941.

[thailiketoo]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

Edited July 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Lancelot]

Many hate US foreign policy

But they like American culture. European kids dressing in US ghetto style, rapping and hip hop.

They don't hate everything about us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cxi75Yv65hk

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cxi75Yv65hk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

you base your county's status in the world on the opinion of teenagers?

I've often found teenagers to be more open minded than set in their ways elderly folks

Where do you fit in?

[AYJAYDEE]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

the battle of stalingrad demonstrates that the nazis never would have defeated the russians. they would have fought them tooth and nail all the way to kamchatka. and the point was that many americans claim they WON THE WAR! period.

[AYJAYDEE]

Many hate US foreign policy

But they like American culture. European kids dressing in US ghetto style, rapping and hip hop.

They don't hate everything about us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cxi75Yv65hk

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cxi75Yv65hk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

you base your county's status in the world on the opinion of teenagers?

I've often found teenagers to be more open minded than set in their ways elderly folks

Where do you fit in?

pull up your pants and put your hat on straight

[rijb]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

the battle of stalingrad demonstrates that the nazis never would have defeated the russians. they would have fought them tooth and nail all the way to kamchatka. and the point was that many americans claim they WON THE WAR! period.

Don't worry. You guys can take the credit for winning the next world war.

[thailiketoo]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

the battle of stalingrad demonstrates that the nazis never would have defeated the russians. they would have fought them tooth and nail all the way to kamchatka. and the point was that many americans claim they WON THE WAR! period.

One of the big reasons the battle of Stalingrad was fought was to cut off American Lend Lease supplies.

US supplies to the Soviet Union: in 1941-1945, they totaled $11b (in terms of the 1945 prices) and included 22,150 aircrafts, 12,700 tanks, 8,000 anti-aircraft cannons, 5,000 anti-tank cannons, 132,000 machine guns, 376,000 trucks, 51,000 jeeps, 8,000 tow trucks, 35,000 motorbikes, 472 million artillery munitions, 4.5 million tons of food, 2.1 million tons of fuel, 1.2 million tons of chemicals and explosives, 11,000 rail cars, 2,000 locomotives, 128 freight ships, 3 icebreakers, and 281 military ships. In fact, Lend-Lease was not limited to the above: the Soviet Union was receiving from the US advanced aerodrome equipment and, importantly, got 9,351 US-made radio stations for installation on Soviet-made aircrafts. In 1943, the US supplies helped equip 150 Soviet divisions with radio stations and 329 divisions – with field telephones. Soviet front and army-level headquarters along with aerodromes were fully equipped with US-made 400W radio stations.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/05/08/lend-lease-contribution-to-the-victory-over-nazis-overstated.html

[nontabury]

I'm Scottish, i absolutely despise 99% of Scottish people and i hate Scotland as a country. We have a huge chip on our shoulder, we seem to think "everyone loves us" yet we are ignorant, unhealthy, violent vermin.

We like to tell everyone how nice we are before stabbing them, we tell everyone we invented everything when in fact we didn't, other did before us, we just lie.

Well what a change, a Scotsman telling it as it is, good on you mate. I do think though that you are being a bit strong with your condemnation of 99% of your fellow Scots, there are some good Scots, those are the ones who don't go around shooting their mouth off, thinking that they are the chosen people.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[spidermike007]

I am an American. It is govt. policy, and the extent to which the US Govt. is compromised. Run by $35 street whores from Obama right on down. Bone headed foreign policy. Tremendous arrogance and hubris. And an unwillingness on the part of the listless, incompetent US govt. to acknowledge how much less relevant they are, at this stage. And lastly, there is tremendous resentment due to the useless wars we keep getting ourselves involved in, and the problems they create for the planet. So, basically I can sum up the problem by saying US Govt hubris, arrogance, carelessness, incompetence, poor foreign policy, and recklessness. I do not think it is about most American people. Yes, some are loud and clumsy. But, most are decent folks, and most people I meet seem to hate our super corrupt govt. whores, not us.

Spidermike007

Be honest. You live in Russia and your first name is Edward and your last name is snow-something?

Nah. But I am a huge fan of that man. Anybody with cajones large enough to out the biggest spy organization in our lifetimes (I doubt the KGB had the kind of budget these ridiculous fools have) is my kind of guy and nothing short of my hero. And I am an American. Sorry, but spending all that money spying on American grandmothers is a bit excessive. Oh is criticizing the US now illegal for Americans? Hard for me to keep up with the rapidly developing level of fascism Blundering Barry is engaging in. Let's see, a fascist, very incompetent and completely lacking in vision? Real leadership qualities. I always like to say, he would have made a decent leader of the Illinois chapter of the Boy Scouts. But the (supposed) leader of the free (when it comes to the US that description is a stretch) world?

Spidermike007

[Docno]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

This has gone way off tangent from 8 words I said in a longer post on the American view that the world (and perhaps universe - "God Bless America" and all that) revolves around them. Please look up the notions of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny. My point was that many Americans have a limited historical perspective that puts them at the centre of events.

But let me, as briefly as possible, address your argument above with a parable of sorts. Two street gang were fighting it out over many days for dominance. Sam, sat comfortably on his porch watching the goings on, and quietly cheering on the Allies street gang. Day after day, he watched as the two sides exhausted themselves, and sometimes he would offer fresh lemonade to the Allies street gang to help keep them in the game. But still he watched from the sidelines as time went by. Then one day, an Axis gang member unexpectedly attacked Sam. So Sam finally got off his porch, all fresh and eager, and joined in the fray. Eventually, the Axis gang couldn't last any longer and they surrendered. And Sam, who had sat on his porch for so long watching both sides exhausting themselves in battle, took credit for winning the fight because he'd supplied the Allies with lemonade and despite the fact that he had joined in (all fresh and eager) after things had been underway for some time. Some of the other Allied members, especially Dimitri who had been there from the early days, had suffered more and had caused more damage to the Axis gang, but somehow that was all forgotten. And Sam went off happily patting himself on the back....

[Franky Bear]

I'm Scottish, i absolutely despise 99% of Scottish people and i hate Scotland as a country. We have a huge chip on our shoulder, we seem to think "everyone loves us" yet we are ignorant, unhealthy, violent vermin.

We like to tell everyone how nice we are before stabbing them, we tell everyone we invented everything when in fact we didn't, other did before us, we just lie.

Well what a change, a Scotsman telling it as it is, good on you mate. I do think though that you are being a bit strong with your condemnation of 99% of your fellow Scots, there are some good Scots, those are the ones who don't go around shooting their mouth off, thinking that they are the chosen people.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You're right. It's probably about 80% who are not nice people at all. They don't realise it though because they are used to being around other bitter and twisted sh1tpigs

[spidermike007]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

the battle of stalingrad demonstrates that the nazis never would have defeated the russians. they would have fought them tooth and nail all the way to kamchatka. and the point was that many americans claim they WON THE WAR! period.

One of the big reasons the battle of Stalingrad was fought was to cut off American Lend Lease supplies.

US supplies to the Soviet Union: in 1941-1945, they totaled $11b (in terms of the 1945 prices) and included 22,150 aircrafts, 12,700 tanks, 8,000 anti-aircraft cannons, 5,000 anti-tank cannons, 132,000 machine guns, 376,000 trucks, 51,000 jeeps, 8,000 tow trucks, 35,000 motorbikes, 472 million artillery munitions, 4.5 million tons of food, 2.1 million tons of fuel, 1.2 million tons of chemicals and explosives, 11,000 rail cars, 2,000 locomotives, 128 freight ships, 3 icebreakers, and 281 military ships. In fact, Lend-Lease was not limited to the above: the Soviet Union was receiving from the US advanced aerodrome equipment and, importantly, got 9,351 US-made radio stations for installation on Soviet-made aircrafts. In 1943, the US supplies helped equip 150 Soviet divisions with radio stations and 329 divisions – with field telephones. Soviet front and army-level headquarters along with aerodromes were fully equipped with US-made 400W radio stations.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/05/08/lend-lease-contribution-to-the-victory-over-nazis-overstated.html

Amazing post. Thanks for all that detail. I am certain King Vlad does not encourage Russian school curriculum to include that information. The arrogant prick he is.

Spidermike007

[rijb]

I am an American. It is govt. policy, and the extent to which the US Govt. is compromised. Run by $35 street whores from Obama right on down. Bone headed foreign policy. Tremendous arrogance and hubris. And an unwillingness on the part of the listless, incompetent US govt. to acknowledge how much less relevant they are, at this stage. And lastly, there is tremendous resentment due to the useless wars we keep getting ourselves involved in, and the problems they create for the planet. So, basically I can sum up the problem by saying US Govt hubris, arrogance, carelessness, incompetence, poor foreign policy, and recklessness. I do not think it is about most American people. Yes, some are loud and clumsy. But, most are decent folks, and most people I meet seem to hate our super corrupt govt. whores, not us.

Spidermike007

Be honest. You live in Russia and your first name is Edward and your last name is snow-something?

Nah. But I am a huge fan of that man. Anybody with cajones large enough to out the biggest spy organization in our lifetimes (I doubt the KGB had the kind of budget these ridiculous fools have) is my kind of guy and nothing short of my hero. And I am an American. Sorry, but spending all that money spying on American grandmothers is a bit excessive. Oh is criticizing the US now illegal for Americans? Hard for me to keep up with the rapidly developing level of fascism Blundering Barry is engaging in. Let's see, a fascist, very incompetent and completely lacking in vision? Real leadership qualities. I always like to say, he would have made a decent leader of the Illinois chapter of the Boy Scouts. But the (supposed) leader of the free (when it comes to the US that description is a stretch) world?

Spidermike007

Like they say in the movies... I disagree with you. But, I'll fight for your right to say it.

[thailiketoo]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

This has gone way off tangent from 8 words I said in a longer post on the American view that the world (and perhaps universe - "God Bless America" and all that) revolves around them. Please look up the notions of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny. My point was that many Americans have a limited historical perspective that puts them at the centre of events.

But let me, as briefly as possible, address your argument above with a parable of sorts. Two street gang were fighting it out over many days for dominance. Sam, sat comfortably on his porch watching the goings on, and quietly cheering on the Allies street gang. Day after day, he watched as the two sides exhausted themselves, and sometimes he would offer fresh lemonade to the Allies street gang to help keep them in the game. But still he watched from the sidelines as time went by. Then one day, an Axis gang member unexpectedly attacked Sam. So Sam finally got off his porch, all fresh and eager, and joined in the fray. Eventually, the Axis gang couldn't last any longer and they surrendered. And Sam, who had sat on his porch for so long watching both sides exhausting themselves in battle, took credit for winning the fight because he'd supplied the Allies with lemonade and despite the fact that he had joined in (all fresh and eager) after things had been underway for some time. Some of the other Allied members, especially Dimitri who had been there from the early days, had suffered more and had caused more damage to the Axis gang, but somehow that was all forgotten. And Sam went off happily patting himself on the back....

Nonsenses post because you are so wrong there are no facts available to back up your silly argument.

The Allies ran out of cash to buy food and guns and ammo early in 1940. If the US had not supplied Russia and Britain the war would have been lost. Military deaths USA 407,000 UK 383,800 including Overseas Territories.

Americans lost as many soldiers killed as the UK and provided the supplies to win the war. Without the USA the war would have been lost. The Allies could not have won without America. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

The Allies would have lost the war in 1940 before the Americans formally entered the war except for the passage of the Lend Lease Act which made the supply of the Allies possible without cash from Russia or the British.

Edited July 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[sustento]

Americans lost as many soldiers killed as the UK and provided the supplies to win the war.

Out of a population three times as large. We lost 5 times as many civilians as you did. You were never attacked on your home soil.

The US lost about 0.3% of its population during WWII. The Soviet Union lost around 14%.

Per capita losses are available in the last column of these tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[rijb]

Pearl Harbor is home soil.

[duanebigsby]

It's the blanket statement. WE WON THE WAR that gets people upset with Yanks.

It was an Allied effort, no single country won.

Could it have been won without the US? I don't think so. It couldn't have been won without Russia's huge commitment either. They lost more than anyone. It couldn't have been won without England's holding on during the battle of Britain, with pilots from all over the Commonwealth. and Canada's contribution of fighting men, pilots, production of Lancaster bombers and ammo on a massive scale and the famous North Sea convoys, two full years before the US even entered.

Did the Lend Lease bail England out. Yes, and the price was heavy debt into the 1980's.

Many Americans forget that they sold weapons to both sides before entering and many companies continued to supply the Nasties throughout the war. Ford, GM, IBM, Coca-Cola, and Standard Oil all continued.

I think Americans are fantastic and generous people. It's just a little too often you meet the loud, in your face, like the stereotype ones.

[Franky Bear]

The only War America has won on its own is the Civil war

[thailiketoo]

It's the blanket statement. WE WON THE WAR that gets people upset with Yanks.

It was an Allied effort, no single country won.

Could it have been won without the US? I don't think so. It couldn't have been won without Russia's huge commitment either. They lost more than anyone. It couldn't have been won without England's holding on during the battle of Britain, with pilots from all over the Commonwealth. and Canada's contribution of fighting men, pilots, production of Lancaster bombers and ammo on a massive scale and the famous North Sea convoys, two full years before the US even entered.

Did the Lend Lease bail England out. Yes, and the price was heavy debt into the 1980's.

Many Americans forget that they sold weapons to both sides before entering and many companies continued to supply the Nasties throughout the war. Ford, GM, IBM, Coca-Cola, and Standard Oil all continued.

I think Americans are fantastic and generous people. It's just a little too often you meet the loud, in your face, like the stereotype ones.

The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, (Pub.L. 77–11, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 3034, enacted March 11, 1941)^[1] was a program under which the United States supplied Great Britain, Free France, the Republic of China, later the USSR and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and August 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939 and nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941.

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.

I will await your totals on the amount of war supplies the US sold the Axis powers.

[watso63]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

how was britain forced to withstand years of japanese pressure before december 1941?

Burma, Malaysia for starters.

[thailiketoo]

Americans lost as many soldiers killed as the UK and provided the supplies to win the war.

Out of a population three times as large. We lost 5 times as many civilians as you did. You were never attacked on your home soil.

The US lost about 0.3% of its population during WWII. The Soviet Union lost around 14%.

Per capita losses are available in the last column of these tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

UK war dead 450,900. US war dead 420,000. The dead don't care about per capita.

[Wat dee]

I am an American. It is govt. policy, and the extent to which the US Govt. is compromised. Run by $35 street whores from Obama right on down. Bone headed foreign policy. Tremendous arrogance and hubris. And an unwillingness on the part of the listless, incompetent US govt. to acknowledge how much less relevant they are, at this stage. And lastly, there is tremendous resentment due to the useless wars we keep getting ourselves involved in, and the problems they create for the planet. So, basically I can sum up the problem by saying US Govt hubris, arrogance, carelessness, incompetence, poor foreign policy, and recklessness. I do not think it is about most American people. Yes, some are loud and clumsy. But, most are decent folks, and most people I meet seem to hate our super corrupt govt. whores, not us.

Spidermike007

Be honest. You live in Russia and your first name is Edward and your last name is snow-something?

Nah. But I am a huge fan of that man. Anybody with cajones large enough to out the biggest spy organization in our lifetimes (I doubt the KGB had the kind of budget these ridiculous fools have) is my kind of guy and nothing short of my hero. And I am an American. Sorry, but spending all that money spying on American grandmothers is a bit excessive. Oh is criticizing the US now illegal for Americans? Hard for me to keep up with the rapidly developing level of fascism Blundering Barry is engaging in. Let's see, a fascist, very incompetent and completely lacking in vision? Real leadership qualities. I always like to say, he would have made a decent leader of the Illinois chapter of the Boy Scouts. But the (supposed) leader of the free (when it comes to the US that description is a stretch) world?

Spidermike007

Like they say in the movies... I disagree with you. But, I'll fight for your right to say it.

[rijb]

Pervert.

[duanebigsby]

It's the blanket statement. WE WON THE WAR that gets people upset with Yanks.

It was an Allied effort, no single country won.

Could it have been won without the US? I don't think so. It couldn't have been won without Russia's huge commitment either. They lost more than anyone. It couldn't have been won without England's holding on during the battle of Britain, with pilots from all over the Commonwealth. and Canada's contribution of fighting men, pilots, production of Lancaster bombers and ammo on a massive scale and the famous North Sea convoys, two full years before the US even entered.

Did the Lend Lease bail England out. Yes, and the price was heavy debt into the 1980's.

Many Americans forget that they sold weapons to both sides before entering and many companies continued to supply the Nasties throughout the war. Ford, GM, IBM, Coca-Cola, and Standard Oil all continued.

I think Americans are fantastic and generous people. It's just a little too often you meet the loud, in your face, like the stereotype ones.

The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, (Pub.L. 7711, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 3034, enacted March 11, 1941)^%5B1%5D was a program under which the United States supplied Great Britain, Free France, the Republic of China, later the USSR and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and August 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939 and nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941.

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.

I will await your totals on the amount of war supplies the US sold the Axis powers.

Where in my post do I say they Lend-Lease wasn'r critical to the war effort?

Where in my post do I say sales by those companies exceed the Lend-Lease figures.

All I am saying, is that it was an Allied effort of many countries, and that some Americans claiming solo credit

for "bailing the entire world out" are arrogant and wrong.

You and Jingthing are beginning to sound like those "ugly Americans" being super loud and condescending at a bar.

On a side note.. this is an interesting documentary

[thailiketoo]

It's the blanket statement. WE WON THE WAR that gets people upset with Yanks.

It was an Allied effort, no single country won.

Could it have been won without the US? I don't think so. It couldn't have been won without Russia's huge commitment either. They lost more than anyone. It couldn't have been won without England's holding on during the battle of Britain, with pilots from all over the Commonwealth. and Canada's contribution of fighting men, pilots, production of Lancaster bombers and ammo on a massive scale and the famous North Sea convoys, two full years before the US even entered.

Did the Lend Lease bail England out. Yes, and the price was heavy debt into the 1980's.

Many Americans forget that they sold weapons to both sides before entering and many companies continued to supply the Nasties throughout the war. Ford, GM, IBM, Coca-Cola, and Standard Oil all continued.

I think Americans are fantastic and generous people. It's just a little too often you meet the loud, in your face, like the stereotype ones.

The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, (Pub.L. 7711, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 3034, enacted March 11, 1941)^%5B1%5D was a program under which the United States supplied Great Britain, Free France, the Republic of China, later the USSR and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and August 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939 and nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941.

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.

I will await your totals on the amount of war supplies the US sold the Axis powers.

Where in my post do I say they Lend-Lease wasn'r critical to the war effort?

Where in my post do I say sales by those companies exceed the Lend-Lease figures.

All I am saying, is that it was an Allied effort of many countries, and that some Americans claiming solo credit

for "bailing the entire world out" are arrogant and wrong.

You and Jingthing are beginning to sound like those "ugly Americans" being super loud and condescending at a bar.

Where in my post do I say the allies weren't critical to the war effort?

In fact I said a couple of post up, "the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies."

On the other hand you wrote, "Many Americans forget that they sold weapons to both sides before entering and many companies continued to supply the Nasties throughout the war. Ford, GM, IBM, Coca-Cola, and Standard Oil all continued." Lend Lease prohibits the above. You make it sound like it does not. America sold almost nothing to the Axis powers after 1940.