While I agree that one has to look upon the ideologies in order to determine the righteousness(sp.?) of the sides involved, I disagree with MajorLee, who seems to argue that because of the political leadership, any town taken by germans would be the scene of an atrocity. Of course, there were those in Waffen-SS who were cold-blooded Nazis, and even some in Wehrmacht, but most of them were common soldiers, who did not want to commit atrocities. German troop commanders said after the war that when they had to execute someone, they would line up a bunch of soldiers, where only one of them would have an armed weapon. That way, noone could know who killed the victim.

I may agree with you to a certain degree if you're talking about the eastern front, Major, but in no way can I agree with you if it's the blitzkrieg-campaigns in the west you're meaning. The germans did everything they could in order to convince the french that they weren't barbarians, and here in Norway, german soldiers sometimes even lend away their Mausers to civilians, and competed in shooting tin boxes and so on. The german warfare in the west in 1940 was for the most a clean one, without any major atrocities.(I know there were some committed by the SS)
That goes for the NA-theatre too.

Bottom line is: The germans were people too, and the majority of the Wehrmacht-soldiers weren't nazis.

Yeah the yanks did destroy the british empire, read your history, 1940 and Suez, they wanted to get access to the markets, so britian said ok fine we cannot afford it, you take it and look at the mess the middle east is in now.

Oh this pathetic american attidue "oh we went to war to save u all and you should be grateful". while i am glad that america came in, what I am not glad about is that we had to pay a heavy price, meaning we are a crappy 2 world power trying to play the big game. Well the british have always done this.

Now as you say that we all have American goods, well it will not be for long, which to tell you the truth, I will miss , not unless the europeans stick to English as the main international format, so how I do not thnk so. America will be finished in 50 -60 years time, because of the racial and cultural tensions. There will be many different countries in america by then.

Hey but I guess this is ok because it is life and the way of the world. As for the americans doing us a favour by giving us all that crappy stuff, well they did not do this for our own benifit and this has left bitter fealing over here, we were betrayed, simple.

Like for example the making of the atomic bomb, the british had the forumula for it before the war, but no money, so when America comes in, we shared the secrets, and guess what after the wars end, they said thanks alot but now you cannot have it. SSh oh well that is life right.

Alot of american stuff now is getting old and the europeans,Russia,chinesses and japaneses, have superior equipment, but they do not have the money to mass produce it.

Let me say this I am not for the UK, Europe or anybody. I deal with historicl facts. The americans wanted the markets of the british empire so they sought to destroy it. Yeah the germans and japanessed did have a hand in it in, but our "allies" dealt the final blow.

I did not say the USSR would invade USA, but Geramny. If they had conquered the Uk and Russia, America would of been next, they would of been surrounded on boths sides. There was panic in 1941 of a japanesse invasion of the west coast.This could of been a real possiblity, if america was defeated in the pacific.and america would of been conquered.

Yeah alot of americans make people angry, because of their attitude, "we are the top dogs and u better put up or shut up". I know alot of american do not feel that way, well the educated ones any way, they know the true state of the way america is.

American education is one of the worst in the western world, well at school level and state universties are no better, though I think the Ivy leagues one are on par with british and european unis. Even Russian and eastern education is far superior to the american education system. I would say that they are better than the british system as shcool level any way.

So does not hold well for future of the USA as a superpower, Europe will united and it will include Russia eventually, will all her vast mineral wealth.

So america by all means continue to be arogant and blind, some day you will get a big shock.

------------------
best wishes

Isatheprophet is right. The US government did deliberately start the downfall of the British Empire using all financial and military means at its disposal.

However, he he has the date wrong. It happened in 1776.

------------------
"Can he ever be young again, or was his youth used up in the cockpit of his beloved Thunderbolt?"

Major Lee

Isatheprophet2, you said "
Britian protected the United States for nearly two hunderd years after the War of independence."

Does that include the fleet you sent over to protect us in 1812?

Personally I am very grateful that the Americans and many other nations came to our aid. It is very insulting to say the least to try and belittle anyones contribution. Nor do I hold the German people responsible for the crimes of their leaders at the time (or those who supported their ideologies.)

Our generation should have learnt the lessons from this conflict and regardless of who we are, British/American/German etc we must never let such a thing happen again. The starting point for this should surely be to never allow our own national pride become so exaggerated that we think ourselves superior to any other people.

Under the skin we are all the same. The sooner we realise this and stop thinking we are any better than anyone else the sooner we can achieve a truly peaceful world where the only wars are games like EAW

Peace, Hassan.

As a co-member of this forum with you and the others let me tell you this. You have stepped over the line. You have turned an honest discussion of history into another ugly debate about other people's beliefs, intents and actions. My friend, if I remember correctly, you are an unemployed schoolteacher in England. Fine. You are a Muslim. Fine. You claim to be a Communist. Fine.

I have sided with you on a couple of occasions and tried to make peace between you and BarryW and others on other occasions. I have deliberately NOT previously made any remarks about you personally even though the evidence from your many posts brings many questions to mind about your qualifications both as a 'Teacher' AND as an observer of history. I can guarantee that many on this forum have lived through MUCH MORE history than you. I, myself was born almost immediately after the War. My father was a career soldier. I grew up in a place which has a rich aviation heritage and was personally witness to many, many flights, test flights and operational, of most of the aircraft, both military and commercial, produced after 1936. I served my country proudly as a U.S. Marine for seven years until I was injured and retired. I have been a keen student of history for most of my life, especially WWII history. I have had friendships and other contacts with many, many people from Europe and Britain throughout my life.

Isa, you're full of it. Your views are inflammatory and skewed by your political leanings. If life is hard for you now and/or has been in the past, then you have my condolences and, I am sure, those of others here on the forum.

Everyone here is welcome to express their views freely. That is part of what is meant by Democracy. If I disagree with what you say about actual events, I will tell you so, hopefully giving you my reasons for doing so. I recognize that there is a strong revisionist movement afoot both here in America AND in Britain and Europe. I suspect this is a natural offshoot of Communist and Socialist movements from the Cold War era. But to continue to attack the beliefs and heritage of others on this forum is counterproductive to say the least. I agree that some, a small some, of what you say may have a basis in truth, but then, don't ALL big lies have to have a grain of truth to be believed? Even Josef Goebbels believed that.

Maj. Lee made some strong remarks which I do not completely agree with, especially his strong remarks about the debt owed America by the other Allied powers. That is something that each person must determine for himself. I can tell you that I, personally, have never met another person from either Europe or Britain who indicated any belief that the War could have been won without American involvement or who indicated anything other than gratitude for that involvement.

As for American Industrial dominance, you must remember. American was one of the few countries whose infrastructure was not seriously damaged by the War. The infrastructure of Britain, Europe and Asia was, for the most part, virtually wiped out. Unfortunately, that allowed the United States and Canada to make great strides both commercially and technologically while other countries were still trying to dig out the unexploded bombs and clear the rubble-strewn streets. That was NOT OUR FAULT. That was the natural result of naked agression on the part of the Axis powers and the inevitable backlash they suffered themselves.

In order to wrap up this long-winded post, please allow me to say, COOL IT WITH THE INFLAMMATORY OPINIONS, PLEEEEZE!!!

Please try to get at least some of your FACTS straight:
This forum is OWNED by Canadians, Run by Canadians AND is located in CANADA.

Germany was also very close to developing the A Bomb and had the best rocket scientists in the world. IE: Von Braun.

Cheers,

Excellent post, Hambone, couldn't say it better.

And to add a bit fuel to it...

I disagree with 'America destroyed the British Empire' Was there any involvement of the U.S in the Irish achieving their independence? No, except a branch of the Irish Republican Brotherhood doing some fund raising over there. And oh, de Valera gave speeches there, among others. Was Gandhi an American? No. The British Empire 'destroyed itself', it was a anachronism - what use is a Empire anyway?

Stan

------------------
Every man dies, not every man really lives.

We're not a people of chest beaters even though we have much to be proud about. Even on the battle field. Vimy Ridge in WW1, The Scheldt and even Dieppe. At one time in WW2 we had the fourth largest navy in the world. And we've had top aviators in both wars. On the TV discussion programme "The Editors" (joint US/Canadian), it was mentioned in the 20th century, on a per capita bases, Canadians killed more of the "enemy" than any other nation.

NO elected Senate.
NO term of office for out leader. {prime minister, the doddering old fool.]
No free vote in Parliament. [They vote as the party dictates.]
No check and balance in the selection of Supreme Court Judjes.
Taxed so heavily that we are going to lose more of our NHL hockey teams to the south.

Sorry state of affairs, this outdated Parlamentry system.

However our best friends are our cousins in the south.

Cheers,

The Senate, well who knows, it may change yet.
Term of office limitations I don't see the point. Vote him/her out.
Free vote is a problem, but it does occur on "safe" issues. Otherwise the PM is virtually a dictator if he has a majority.
Supreme court appointments are defenitely a problem.
Taxes .

The US Navy, under orders from Roosevelt, was actively escorting convoys in the Atlantic by early 1941, freeing up many Commonwealth escort vessels, even though the US was legally a neutral. Those fifty old destroyers were certainly not all that great, but they were used and appreciated. The real contribution the US made during the early days of the war was in supplying food, fuel, and ammunition.

The money generated by British orders and Lend-Lease orders gave US industry a jump start in moving over to a war footing.

Only a few countries involved in Lend-Lease financing activities for war material ever repaid those debts. Britain was one of those. US taxpayers paid for almost all the costs of the Marshall Plan, which started Europe on the road to recovery.

The rebuilding of European manufacturing, which took place in the fifties, did place British factories at a disadvantage. Brit factories were never flattened by Allied bombing raids and then rebuilt as was done in Germany and Japan. However, US manufacturing was in exactly the same situation. The efforts made in Europe and Asia to make the two major Axis powers into healthy countries was necessary, but not without cost.

The US and Britain are tied together by deep cultural links. However, the two countries are vastly different in many ways. My father served in England during the war and always found a generous welcome from the British people.

Out two countries have joined together and faced down real evil for a long, long time. Let's not forget that.

Whoops! I had read only the first page of posts when I made my reply. Nobody had mentioned Canada yet. Look around the world, people. I can't think of any other pair of countries with better relations on a day to day basis. Do we sometimes disagree? You bet! Is that a bad thing! No way! Contrary to the usual situation around the world, there is no military presence on the boundary between the US and Canada. I grew up in NW Montana, about 60 miles from Canada. They're just neighbors. Good ones.

And hey, you say Russia isn't a world power, since they can't get things straightened out in Chechnya, Major? Well, last news is that Mashkadov has told his men to release all russian prisoners, and to lay down their guns. What, you think USAs history in anti-guerilla is more impressive? Like Vietnam, perhaps? THAT really set an example to be followed, now didn't it?

And the european union WILL become a federal state. Within my lifetime.

Ironically, the USA, on one hand, shaved some time and lost lives off of what it might have taken to beat the Nazi’s, but on the other hand with US involvement the Soviet advance was stopped where it was. I doubt if the USSR would have stopped where it did, and indeed, would not have stopped at the Rhine.

I don’t think the US would have directly fought the Nazi’s if Britain had fallen. Without that giant aircraft carrier and the inspirational struggle of it’s crew to keep it afloat, it would have been nearly impossible until the ICBM.

As for criticism of yankee arrogance and the perceived imperialistic attitudes, well, all I can say is let he who is without guilt cast the first stone. In the previous few centuries European imperialism and arrogance brought new meaning to those two terms. And look at the Marshal Plan, actually helping your enemies revive and prosper! Wow, that’s different. Not only is that very intelligent, but it also shows the level of compassion of the new “imperial” power. Yes, there was some ulterior motives involved, however, say what you will about Americans, as far as imperial power is concerned, they are a people with a good and compassionate heart.

The collapse of the various empires after WW2 was a brought about by those countries in Africa and Asia demanding that the imperialistic powers of the time stop preaching freedom and self-determination and start practicing it. They sought help wherever they could.

As for European unity, it should, will and must happen. Europe will then reach a level of stability it has never known. And on this side of the pond, we will eventually do the same. Not by US annexation. Annexation is a bad word. I prefer to think of it as a marriage between two peoples who have been living in sin for a long time. However, there are some social, political and economic changes that would have to occur first on both sides before the marriage could be successful. We have learned to squabble and argue with eachother and work things out while maintaining mutual respect. The marriage ceremony would only be a formality and a celebration of two peoples mutual respect and honour. I do recognize that it will be easier here than Europe because we both speak the same language with a little accent (French in Canada, Spanish in the US).

National borders are becoming passe. At one time they may have been necessary to the growth and development of a people. However it has been the cause of a lot of grief and is now becoming a hindrance, and in almost all cases, totally artificial. Yugoslavia is a glaring example. Formed by the victors of WW1 and not by the people involved. The border was formed around several distinct societies who have always had difficulty getting along with eachother. A shotgun wedding with outsiders holding the gun. That is never a good situation, and we’re all paying for the divorce now.

--posted by Opa: "...USAs history in anti-guerilla is more impressive? Like Vietnam, perhaps? THAT really set an example to be followed, now didn't it?...

Actually, it's a common misconception that Vietnam was lost due to a guerrilla war. In the end, the defeat of South Vietnam occurred through a CONVENTIONAL invasion by the North Vietnamese Army in 1975. Guerrilla warfare had no real effect on the battlefield as long as American military forces were present.

The Viet Cong was never a "popular army rising up" against the South Vietnamese government. The Vietnam War was a case of one government (North Vietnam) attempting to conquer another (South Vietnam). Guerrilla warfare was simply one means to this end. Guerrilla fighting failed to produce any significant results "on the battlefield". The Viet Cong was virtually wiped out as an effective force during the Tet Offensive in 1968, in which it essentially attempted to engage in open warfare with a foe superior in firepower. After Tet, the bulk of the guerrilla fighting was taken over by regular NVA troops, operating as guerrillas in many cases.

The Viet Minh had defeated the French by surviving as a guerrilla army until it could establish a direct overland link to Communist China. After that, the Viet Minh ceased to be a true guerrilla force. It was instead a conventional army. This is how the Viet Minh functioned at Dien Bien Phu, defeating another conventional force in open battle (although the bumbling French "High Command" in IndoChina helped the Viet Minh immensely!). It is hardly surprising that North Vietnam would attempt basically the same strategy when it made it's efforts to "reunite" the country.

Guerrilla fighting was used as a method of dispersing the South's conventional military forces in preparation for an invasion by regular NVA troops. This invasion (in the Ia Drang Valley) failed due to the fact that American troops could concentrate quickly at the point of attack (due to helicopter-borne airmobile troops). In short, the force facing the North Vietnamese (American and South Vietnamese troops) could disperse throughout the country to deal with guerrillas, then rapidly concentrate in force to repel conventional invasions. The North Vietnamese strategy had to change, since they could not defeat American military forces in the field. There are more ways than one to defeat an enemy, however. If you cannot defeat your enemy's actual fighting forces (i.e., his ability to fight), you can attack his will to fight. This is why the North Vietnamese continued the guerrilla war in the South. The real effect of guerrilla war in South Vietnam was the destruction of the United States' willingness to fight the war (which is understandable considering how badly managed the war was in the US). After the United States began leaving South Vietnam, guerrilla fighting could again return to its role of dispersing the ARVN. Once the North Vietnamese felt that the ARVN could not concentrate sufficient forces in any one area, they launched the 1972 Easter invasion (yes, an invasion by CONVENTIONAL military forces, including tanks). However, this was defeated in large part because while the US had few combat formations left in South Vietnam, there was still considerable air power available. The North Vietnamese delayed any further attempts at conventional invasion until 1975, when they were convinced that the political situation in the United States (Watergate, et al) precluded further US commitment. They were correct. The ARVN was defeated rapidly and South Vietnam fell. So to characterize the Vietnam War as entirely a guerrilla war is simply incorrect.

We're way OT now, but I find this interesting .

American policy toward North Vietnam (as it related to the Vietnam War) was ALWAYS heavily influenced by a "Korean War Syndrome" regarding China. In short, the US operated with the fear in the back of its mind that China would become directly involved in the war in Vietnam (actual direct military involvement, not just supplying equipment and such to the North Vietnamese), thus making any long term solution completely impossible. This is, of course, what happened in Korea, where the only way to achieve "total victory" would have been to invade China. So the United States "tread softly" with regards to the Chinese. A declaration of war on North Vietnam, whom the Chinese supported, would never have been made for this reason. This was something that the North Vietnamese seemed aware of as well. Richard Nixon's presidency was, er, clouded (to the say the least!) by Watergate, but before this, Nixon was actually rather prescient on foreign affairs (his domestic record would be another story, though). Nixon correctly realized that American policy was being hamstrung by its "fear of China", and that China was a very important card to play, both against the North Vietnamese and the Russians. More importantly, he did something about it! Nixon's successful efforts at rapprochement with China largely removed (or at least greatly reduced) the "China Syndrome" affecting US foreign policy. However, by that time it was too late to do anything to rescue the war in Vietnam. American efforts were more in line with "getting out" than anything else (the American public was tired of the war; something that was due primarily to the mismanagement of the war during LBJ's Administration). In the meantime, relations between North Vietnam and China had begun to slide downhill (and would continue to do so until the 1978 invasion of Vietnam by China). Nixon was free to try to bring the North Vietnamese to the bargaining table and ordered things that would have never happened had the "China Syndrome" still been controlling US Foreign Policy, i.e., mining Haiphong Harbor and ordering the (mostly) unrestricted bombing of strategic and military targets in North Vietnam. With their Chinese "protection" removed, the North Vietnamese quickly conceded to negotiations with the United States.

Had China not been such a stumbling block (at least in the minds of American policy makers), then the United States would have had many more options open. I still doubt that war would have been declared; a more likely situation would have been what had happened in Korea (war was never actually declared on North Korea, but without Chinese involvement in late 1950, North Korea would been eliminated and the entire Korean peninsula would come under South Korean control.) By the time that China WAS removed as an obstacle, the American public was tired of the war; the United States was more interested in finding a way to end its involvement without appearing to have been defeated.

During those years, I was considered somewhat of a curiosity by my peers because I always said I did not fear the Soviets in the least. They had shown in Cuba that they had the good sense to back off before it was too late. What I feared was a China ruled by a more-or-less illiterate group of revolutionaries who would stop at NOTHING to achieve their aims. Marry such a group with the technology Russia could have supplied and you had a VERY volatile mixture.

I also agree that those who were there do not hold such an attitude. It is sad that our generation has so quickly forgotten the lessons and sacrifices of our parents.

If I remember corretctly, Churchill's exact (almost) comment was "When I heard the news about Pearl Harbor I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved!". Doesn't sound to me like a man who had things "well in hand". Of course, he said that years later. To have said it at the time would have created a firestorm of indignation in the U.S.

Nashers....you just had to grab that stat..hee..hee.

Opa...Your a smart guy...you've impressed me a number of times...I think you know what your talking about..almost ALL the time. It saddens me to detect a real slant in your feelings....not your facts. Maybe you've had bad expierence with an American....or..probably, many...too bad. I'll alway value what you say, and it carries a great deal of weight when you talk......thats why your balance is important.....

JWC...like nashwan...but with words...I love it.

They used to say that quite often (if us foreign "payos" were around).

At which point a friend of mine would say (in Spanish) "Well, I'M from the most powerful nation in the world."

After a moment of speechless silence, there would be hilarious laughter and a round of Tio Pepe for everyone........

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nashwan:
I don't want to quible(sp?) but Lee Enfields were chambered in .303

---

Yes they were....well the one I fired certainly was.

Someone could say if this two (which I have read sometime ago) are true:

1) US forces at D-Day had explicit orders to not to make prisioners until the beach-head was secured.

2) Heavy bomber's gunners and figthers had explicit orders to kill parachuted german jet pilots.

BTW, all sides commited war crimes, but only the winners write the history. The same is applicable to the Spanish Civil War, where "officially" only the Republicans had been commited crimes, executions, rapes, etc.

Have a nice day

*WWII from Germany's point of view was and always about attacking the Eastern Territories. Leibensraum was about occupying the lands East of Germany. Hitler did NOT want to 'rule the world' or other such nonsense, he wanted the East. WWII was fought mainly in Russia and won mainly by Russia.

*Hitler wanted to avoid war with Britain and France. He wasn't sure Germany would win against France, let alone the two countries together. He specifically wanted to avoid a war on two fronts. Period. He knew Germany could NOT win a war war like that.

*Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way round. Britain and France brought themselves into the war. There were many peace demonstrations going on in England and France during '39. Most of the cabinet in England were in fact behind the avoidance of war with Germany in '39, not just Chamberlain. Many people in Britain and France were aware of Hitlers aggresive nature against Russia, they also knew about his admiration of the British and the British Empire. They believed that countries west of Germany should let Germany and Russia get on with it.

*After the attack on Poland and Chamberlain's reckless "guaruntee" of aid to the Poles, there were still many in the west that believed that Britain and France should stay out of it. Realistically Britain could do very little and did very little to help the Poles. France Battened down the hatches and waited for the German's to come. The Poles stood on their own.

*Germany had no plans for an attack on France as all the plans lay East. New plans had to be drawn up, to avoid a bogging down situation that developed in WWI. A situation Hitler wanted so desparately to dodge. Plans were therefore drawn up to attack France through the Lowlands of Holland and Belgium. These attacks and occupation were necessary if Germany was to successfully launch an attack against Russia, it prime target. During the occupations Germany tried hard to compliy with the Geneva convention's rulings on occupied territories, to the point where they had to formally write for permission to use the naval facilites on the Coast of the country. They could have taken these by force if necessary, but wanted to convince the French that they were not there to wipe out the French.

*There was absolutely no plan to attack or occupy Britain. Hitler repeatedly made attempts to appeal to the British all the way through the period of Jan to July 1940. Still many believed that peace should be made and was considered by members of the cabinet. Britains army was vertually bankrupt and its airforce was considered by many to be very underweight and while not inadequate, certainly outnumbered. The question of attack on Britain was a very furstrating one for the Germans. Many Germans were well aware of the limitations of the Luftwaffe and the Werhmachts ability to make what would certainly be a hazzardous crossing over the channel. No troop carriers existed for a cross channel invasion as no country accross a large body of water was intended to be attacked. From the very beginning the attack on Britain was a half hearted affair. No solid structure was adhered to in the attack and British Cities were NOT to be bombed, indeed Hitler himself washed his hands of the opperation and left it to Goering, who, while he was no fool, was also no Tactician. After the 25 of August and a retaliatory attack by Britain on Germany for an accidental bombing on the outskirts of London, targets were switched, by the Germans, from airfields to London itself starting in September. By late September/October Hitler had told Goering to abandon any idea of an occupation of England and concentrated on Barbarossa. In realistic terms, Russia could never be successfully attacked if Britain had to be occupied. The battle of Britain remains a holding action, an effort to destroy the RAF's ability to bring the war to Germany while her attentions wer focused East. NOT an attempt to occupy Britain.

*Churchill destroyed his Country's once powerful Empire, by trying to drag America into the war. He had hoped that she would join of her own accord but when this was not forthcomming he had no choice but to basically sell off Britains wealth to fuel her war economy. This move was forewarned by people in both Britain, America and Germany as the destruction of Britain's Empire and world status, Churchill ignored all of these warnings. After the BoB he knew that all of Hitler's attentions would be in the East and no serious attempt would be made by Germany to occupy Britain. His place in history was assured, so much so that he confided to Conservative members that they would easily be in power for at least two more terms. Churchill asked America to 'Give us the tools and we will finish the job'. After two years of war, Roosevelt had drained Britain dry, stripping her of all her assets in the USA. The British owned the Viscose Company, worth £125 million was liquidated, Britain receiving only £87 million. Britain's £1,924 million investments in Canada were sold off to pay for raw materials bought in the United States.
To make sure that Roosevelt got his money, he dispatched the American cruiser, 'Louisville' to the South African naval base of Simonstown to pick up forty two million Pounds worth of British gold, to help pay for American guns and ammunition!. Not content with stripping Britain of her gold and assets, Roosevelt now proceeded to 'strip the flesh off the bone'. In return for 50 old first world war destroyers, he demanded that Britain transfer all her scientific and technological secrets to the USA. Also, he demanded leases on the islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica, Trinidad and Bermuda for the setting up of American military and naval bases and a 99 year term of use of British airfields. MP's on both side of goverment opposed this, but Churchill had his way.

*We are all aware of Russian and German attrocites like Malmedy, but here are some Allied ones....
No German prisoners were to be taken for the first 48 hours of D-day. In fact many SS POW's were shot outright upon capture during the battle of France.
A total of 49 US soldiers were hanged for crimes that were committed on French soil after the D-Day landings. In the whole European theatre of operations, 109 civilians were murdered by American soldiers. In Germany, 107 German nationals were murdered.
In the same time, 214 US soldiers were also murdered by their own countrymen.
Those sentenced to death for various crimes amounted to 443. Only 21 per cent of those sentences were actually carried out.
In France, there were 181 reported cases of rape that resulted in Court Martial.
In Germany, there were 552 reported cases of rape by US Forces. Very few convictions were made.
An American GI said the "..tour in France was one long trip of rape and pilage...."