<p>Dionysus-
Even those who doubt the veracity of Wirt’s account note that it first occurred in print “in 1817, 42 years after he supposedly made the speech”. That would have put it in 1775. Your Frenchman was describing an earlier 1765 speech, the one in which Henry was purported to have said, “If this be treason, make the most of it!”</p>
<p>I agree that we don’t have a reliable text of Henry’s speech, but as coureur notes, whatever speech he did make clearly had an effect on the audience.</p>
<p>Dionysus58, the Patrick Henry quotation issue shows how risky it can be to rely on a single popular source–in your case, this was obviously Bryson’s book, no matter how “boring” you thought it was. He just got it wrong about the Frenchman’s diary–in fact, the French writer confirms one of Henry’s famous quotations: “If this be treason, make the most of it.” The “give me liberty” quote, from an entirely different speech, comes from Wirt’s biography. Wirt claimed that he reconstructed the speech by consulting people who were there. Obviously, that isn’t strong evidence, 50 years later, but it is evidence (and there’s really no counterevidence).</p>
<p>Re #122: No doubt this is why Churchill wrote about his reaction to Pearl Harbour in these words:</p>
<p>“Silly people, and there were many, not only in enemy countries, might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. . . . Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. . . . Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.”</p>
<p>Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. 3</p>
<p>I have heard that Hitler once dismissively said of the US that we only knew how to make two things: razor blades and refrigerators. My spouse thinks this is a case of Hitler’s having all the information (precision manufacturing + large-scale manufacturing) to know what would happen when the US entered the war, but not recognizing it.</p>
<p>This is not to discount the horrendous loss of life and awful suffering by the Russian people during WW II. If Russia had fallen, the outcome might have been different. </p>
<p>But if Britain had fallen before Pearl Harbor, the outcome would almost certainly have been different. I credit the incredibly brave reaction of the British people during the Blitz. If developments on the Russian front caused Hitler to end the Blitz, then I suppose that the Russians deserve credit for that–don’t know whether that was the cause, or something else.</p>
<p>It’s no myth. The British knew the potential of American military force. That’s why the Brits insisted that the Americans concentrate their might and join them in the European theater first rather than start in the Pacific, as Eisenhower wanted.</p>
<p>I don’t care what Churchill said to be perfectly honest, America joining the war (so late, to its shame) made very little difference to Britain. Whilst the US busied herself in the Pacific the war was being won by Russia and Britain in Europe. Now you will say there were American troops in Europe too, this is true but their presence was not instrumental to the defeat of Hitler.</p>
<p>I am no historian, but I think post #125 is factually wrong, unless you count North Africa as part of Europe.</p>
<p>Or credit geography: the Russian winter, the length of the German supply lines to Moscow, the island nation.</p>
<p>I don’t know: What was the distribution between U.S. and British forces on D-Day? What was the distribution during the Italian campaign? How many planes did the RAF have, and how many planes did the 8th Air Force have?</p>
<p>Re North Africa: It is the only place I can think of where the British army fought and an argument might possibly be made that the Americans were not vital to the effort (no disrespect intended to the brave Americans who fought in northern Africa and those who died there).</p>
<p>Edit: I suppose I should have written “advanced against the German army” rather than “fought.” The evacuation at Dunkirk, taught to me as “the miracle of Dunkirk,” was an example of a retreat that carried elements of success.</p>
<p>Actually, for that matter, if you look at the distribution of American troops between the European theater and the Pacific theater, I think that calls post #125 into question.</p>
<p>Among other elements, he mentions that Roosevelt and Churchill were agreed on a “Germany first” strategy, and that about 2/3 of the American army fought in the European theater.</p>
<p>(Atkinson is the author of An Army at Dawn, The Day of Battle, and the Guns at Last Light, collectively the Liberation Trilogy, about WW II in Europe, though with a US/British focus. The first two volumes have been published, while the third has not yet appeared. He was a journalist with the Washington Post.)</p>
<p>I’m not an expert either but I agree that post no. 125 seems to completely miscontrue the facts.</p>
<p>Sure, Roosevelt didn’t jump right into the war when Germany stomped into Poland in 1939, but remember that the American public was in no mood for war in 1939, 1940, and nearly all of 1941 notwithstanding Nazi domination of Europe. Some historians argue that the Furher’s most glaring error (aside from mass murder) was declaring war on the U.S. because it gave England and Churchill more gravitas to get America involved militarily and discard the ‘Lend-Lease’ facade.</p>
<p>Chashaobao, I could nitpick that quote for hours but unfortunately I haven’t got time right now. I will say that a lot of that is exaggeration; former British colonies have in general fared much better than their Spanish, Portuguese, French or Russian counterparts. The British Empire certainly did a lot of bad things, but it did a lot of good things too. I don’t know why Tibet, Northern Ireland and Cyprus are mentioned as being problems caused by the British Empire, they weren’t. And I wouldn’t call the Sino-Indian border dispute a major problem either, or particularly indebted to the Brits.</p>
<p>I can’t say I am surprised than people disagree with me, this is an American forum after all. One only has to do a little research and one quickly begins to realise that America did not save Britain. I can’t think of any time during the European theatre of WW2 where American troops outnumbered the British, so if you’re inferring that through sheer numbers the Americans saved the UK then you’d be wrong.</p>
<p>Per wikipedia: about 73K Americans, 61K, British, and 22K Canadians. </p>
<p>I’m sure for the purposes of winning an argument a Brit might wish to count the Canadians as British, but I don’t think very many Canadians would agree.</p>
<p>I’m afraid statistics often do not tell the real story. On the ground where it counted, British troops were never outnumbered by American ones. I enjoy a good debate but when someone uses Wikipedia statistics you know you’ve hit a brick wall. </p>
<p>Can anybody show me any credible evidence which proves America’s presence in Europe during WW2 significantly impacted the result? I have never seen any.</p>
<p>I can’t tell if OP is an older curmudgeon-- or a youngster. Most of us, over time, have let other CC’ers know something of who we are- parent, student, work in some field, studied some topic, whatever. Not OP. </p>
<p>I respect both the knowledge of several/many posters here and their willingness to seek out some clarifications or point to sources- this shows, I think, the intellectual curiosity and interest in delving that I personally thought was being maligned by OP. </p>
<p>As OP notes, he could nitpick for hours. Now the two questions in my mind are: why? and has this thread run its course?</p>
<p>Paraphrasing: It’s the sun. Nay, it’s the moon. Ok, fine, it’s the moon. Oh, silly, can’t you tell it’s the sun?</p>
<p>I think it’s time to stop feeding OP. He’ll just keep batting balls in our direction.</p>
<p>Both the UK and USSR were being supplied by US industries before and during actual combat involvement of the US.</p>
<p>In hindsight, the US did not need to be “saved” by the USSR’s efforts on the eastern front. Had the USSR and UK been defeated by Germany, Germany would not have been able to effectively threaten the US. By 1945, the US Navy was larger than all other navies in the world combined (despite losing some ships while sinking the Imperial Japanese Navy), and the US had built working nuclear weapons. In 1946, the US flew an intercontinental bomber capable of delivering such nuclear weapons to Germany.</p>
<p>I grew up in Europe and frequently used the British library. It had a partial shelf of books on the American Revolution. Not exactly a big deal thing in British history. When you go to any US library, trying to pick out the best books for ones purposes is very difficult.</p>
<p>There are many opinions about history. Too use terms like “not ill treated”, “not over taxed”, those are opinions For every country, there are stories, legends, facts, opinions, and lies, and the US is no exception. I assure you there are books and writings attacking just about every historical tenet out ther.</p>
<p>When one studies history, it is important to know how the history has been taught and what is conventionally viewed as the course of events as well and then questioning them and dispelling them.</p>
<p>“Can anybody show me any credible evidence which proves America’s presence in Europe during WW2 significantly impacted the result? I have never seen any.”
I am not a historian , so I don’t know though I was an American in Europe for many years after WW2 due to our presence in Europe for WW2. From what I understand, the Brits were particularly hoping, praying, begging for American presence in WW2. Also in Germany, US troops opened up a number of the death camps something that is widely recorded. I’ve been to them as a visitor myself and seen the stills. I think it impacted some of those survivors that looked like a day longer and they would have joined the pit of bodies.</p>