I have kept copies and in order of this Commentary I wrote, or Patrick and I wrote, along with the Reply from Europe, which in case anyone is still interested is still up on my site.

I was going over the comments and as they finally started to show people where actually checking their history, and became more accurate, I became quite impressed and even more so with three of you, will not give names as I don’t want you feeling to smug.

But . . . .(and yes I know you do not start a new paragraph with But, but if you knew how many spelling errors I have corrected when putting all comments into word doc, then a little slip of structure, let it pass.)

But . . . the comments are going somewhere and it looks as if they are going to who or which country won the war.

Below, I have copied and pasted part of the main commentary, please reread.

Apart from the historical error in this (not one of the countries Germany occupied before and during World War II were required to change their native language to German), we imagine that it is a metaphor for “America saved Europe from the nasty Nazis”.

Really?

When Germany started invading and occupying the different countries of Europe, did America stand in its way?
No.

When the last surviving opponent to Hitler was about to be invaded, was it America who stepped into the breach?
No.
It was the Battle of Britain (fought by the Brits and their European allies) who prevented it.

America only came into the war when its own ships were attacked, and even then it only declared war on Japan. It was the Germans who declared war against America, who then suffered eventually and were invaded by the Americans and the Brits, to bring the war in Europe to a close.
Let us wind the clock back to 1588, when the Spanish (the dominant power in Europe, and main colonizing power in the New World) tried to invade England. They were defeated, and as a result the naval power slipped from the Spanish to the English, and so it was English and not Spanish colonies that got established in America.

In other words, if it was not for us, you would be speaking Spanish.

_______________________________________________

Now, as far as I understand what is stated above, nothing is written that states had the US not entered the war, the outcome would have been the same.
It only states specific events prior to American entering the war, along with how history was changed by these events; including America’s past, present and future history.

I think we should all agree that if America had not entered the war, the outcome would have been very different. It was a joint effort on the part of America and our Allies; these are the factors and facts that determined the final outcome of WWII.

Is not it amazing what can be accomplished when countries work together unified, and with one goal, together to fight for that which is right, and to destroy that which is evil?
Although, on the other hand, is it not amazing and sad, the complete upheaval when countries all pull is different directions; thus nothing is ever solved.

The commentary was not to belittle America, but to state that some of the events in the past have made a major difference in the present.

I wish more of you had read the Reply from Europe and for those of you who have, it is important, that you separate, the article from The Guardian – from the comments from Patrick. As The Article in The Guardian, may have statements that does not necessary reflect the views of either me or Patrick.

Now, because all of you seem like family, and because suddenly I have been thrown into doing a lot of research on politics, (a subject I have stayed away from) I have found lots of information I was never aware of; some good, lots bad.

I am putting together my next commentary, and it will do one of three things. 1 – Those who read it will not care and will not make comments. 2 – You will read it and disagree, and make comments 3- You will read it, and do something about it.

I am hoping dearly, that the number 3 will be the majority.
Keep it going, that is what this site is all about.
My site will be in two parts starting soon, my art part, and then a second site the political part, as somehow the two do not mix.
I want to thank all of you for the interest and time you have taken in your comments and by the way – this is the correct way to spell –Britain- not (Britian).

When our President made the speech with the word “infamy” – That speech was after Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan, thus wars in both side of this country, Japan, and Europe. (The above is in reference to “gonna cry” comment 15.

If one really thinks about those years, and the unified America, all working towards the same goal, supporting our troops, the women working the factories,, and on and on.

I wonder, and this is in reference to “America Divided” should the same situation come about today, would America, and Americas, be today, as we were then?

Have we lost that special strength inside of ourselves, which allow the differences between people to be put aside, and work as one huge power to accomplish one single goal.

I wonder, as this is the base of the strength of America, Could we as a country do the same today?

I really wonder, as I watch the events of the world, and somehow I feel, we as Americans, are loosing the ability to become one nation, with one goal, and together as one power overcome any and all that which might threaten our freedom..

Suzanne

As for the Pacific Front not mattering in Europe… I don’t believe that an enemy, anywhere on the Earth, doesn’t matter to someone who is trying to defeat that enemy.

The USSR did do a major part of the defeat OF GERMANY, but played little part in freeing the European nations on the western side of Germany. And, who was it that liberated Italy? Patton, you say? He was British, right?

And as far as the boxing analogy goes, you have it wrong. Think of it like this: 2 guys are in a ring and one guy beats the other guy to a pulp (hence Germany having their way with the rest of Europe) then another guy (America) jumps in the ring and supports the guy who is getting beat (the Allies) and then the 2 guys (Allies) join together to bring down the other guy (Germany). Now of course the Allies had absorbed alot of German artillery, bullets etc.. up to that point so I guess you could say the did their part in the war (while being over ran), so like I said before continue your denial with “your boxing analogies” because you arent getting anywhere my friend.

BTW feel free to ask any WWII veteran if what I stated above is an “assertion”. The reason I know that they arent assertions and personal opinions is because my Grandfather served in the War and he feels very underappreciated when he reads posts like yours. And yes my so called “assertions of superiority” are very correct, because we were a Super power during that time… Not even one as ignorant as you could argue that.

On that point, I still don’t think we disagree in principle, just in matter of emphasis. Take your boxing analogy: if two guys box for four rounds, beating each other to a pulp, then in the fifth round a new guy jumps in the ring to support one side: if those two guys now deliver a blow that knocks the the other, weakened opponent out, it would be hard to say that the guy who joined in the fifth round won the fight. And you can’t even say that the first ally was on the ropes (remember, at D-day the UK landed 5 divisions, the US 4 and Canada 1, so the injured boxer was still very much in the match for the fifth round).

Therefore, in addition to what I have already said about the USSR contribution to wearing down the Germans on the Eastern front, I stand by my conclusion that while US contribution was essential to the Allied win, the US “DID NOT LIBERATE” Europe.

Call it “denial” if you want, Concerned American, but I have supported every conclusion with fact and argument. You, in the other hand, simply make assertions of superiority which you try to pass as historical fact. Sean at least makes an attempt to support his claims.

Now there is no doubt that the eastern front played a part in WWII; however, the United States was still the key to winning the war. You CANNOT deny that Europe was on the ropes ready for a knockout early in the fight when we entered the war. The Soviet Union was fighting Hitler, but they were also taking massive casualties and losing several conflicts with the Nazi troops.

In addition, I don’t quite know how you can separate the Pacific theatre, which as you said the U.S. clearly dominated, from liberating Europe and winning WWII, since Japan was part of the Axis of evil with France and Germany. You found no problem when you included the U.S. with the Allies, so as to downgrade and minimalize the U.S. contributions in the conflict. But somehow you claim that when the U.S. defeated Japan (who was part of the Axis) that had no effect in liberating Europe and bringing an end to the War. It just doesn’t make sense.

I really don’t see how you can rationalize an argument that states that the U.S. was not the primary reason for winning WWII. With Europe all but conquered except for Britian (lets not forget Britian was mostly reduced to rubble), the USSR taking large casualties, and Hitler and Japan showing no signs of slowing down or losing momentum.

And I am not sure which “what if’s” you are talking about. I wasn’t presenting what if scenarios, I was presenting actual events according to alternative (non-US centric)perspectives, ones you might actually see if you weren’t so insecure and ignorant and arrogant and chauvinist…