Well, you make a point. But IMHO WWII was won by the great trio of British bulldog determination, American productivity and Russian manpower. Without any of those, the war would have been lost.
Speak for yourself, there, bucky.
Yes, indeed. Much as if the King of the UK, in whose name “Le Roy le veult” signifies that he has formally assented to an Act of Parliament, were to deliver an address to the nation entirely in Norman French.
All terrible examples.
North Vietnam did not win by having its soldiers die. They won by killing Americans and South Vietnamese. That Americans couldn’t take as many and keep the war effort politically viable is why they lost.
Pyrrhus is famous for, of course, commenting that winning battles while having too many of your own men killed can ruin you.
Zhukov, of course, did not win by having his men killed. He won because he killed so many Germans. The better the kill ratio they achieved, the better the Soviets generally did. The USSR’s highest casualty rate and ratio was during the opening Barbarossa phase, and the result was rather clear; they had their asses handed to them.
What are you trying to say? I can’t even parse it. You really feel there’s been extensive discussion of Soviet military prowess in Don’t-Teach-Evolution, Arkansas? 'Cause that’s America’s internal monologue.
Don’t agree with the idea that it was tea party but it is true that in some places, because the Germans were on the run, the allies had a relative easy time like in the case of the campaign in the south of France.
Wynford Vaughan Thomas was a British war correspondent that described the scene:
Others claimed that what he said was “even if you are 4 years late” 
As Thomas told it in the classic “The world at War” documentary from the BBC “and from then on that campaign in the south of France came to be known as the Champaign Campaign”. Easy in comparison to the north of France as the Germans and Italians were retreating from the south then.
Only if you interpret the quote to mean you literally don’t kill anyone on the other side, like the Battle of the Blood River. Then yeah, that won’t work out too well in the long term. But then there wouldn’t be any examples, except for a pacifist movement that shames the other side.
I was referring to the type of body count analysis that ignores other strategic factors, like the type of thinking that still leads Americans to think they should’ve won in Vietnam. For even more examples you can add most colonial wars where the locals tend to get slaughtered en masse but can still throw the occupying force out. Or Hannibal. He was pretty good at killing Romans. And for fun, quantity over quality is the entire concept of the Zerg in Starcraft. Even when they win they lose 2-3x as many units as the other side. But they’re crazy mobile and can expand faster, so it doesn’t matter.
To bring it back around, the original objection was that just because the Soviets suffered a crazy amount of casualties doesn’t by itself mean they did all the work. Which is true enough. But they kinda did. It is known. Especially as far as macho jingoistic bar room debates go. I guess someone could beat their chest over lend lease, but I’ve never seen it. Soviet casualties are trotted out to show how huge the battles were, or to contrast it with how “easy” the Americans had it.
And back to the OP, if you wanted to look for unfair bashing of WW2 contributions wouldn’t it be the French? lol cheese eating surrender monkeys, 1 French rifle for sale never fired, dropped once, etc. Their biggest mistake was sharing a land border with Germany. They weren’t brave like the British, able to flee to their cozy island after getting their asses handed to them. Otherwise Hitler might’ve added Big Ben to his vacation slideshow.
France is a country with a long and proud military history. As it has been said, there is a reason so many military terms come from French.
But, no, they are not unfairly bashed for their performance in World War II. France’s performance in that war was, in fact, abysmally bad.
You don’t really have much to say do you?
Southern France (Operation Dragoon) isn’t really a fair or valid comparison though; it was an attack into a strategic vacuum that Germany wasn’t making any real effort to defend. Their biggest problem was their inability to retreat from the area fast enough- The Germans started the withdrawal, while the motorized Allied forces broke-out from their bridgeheads and pursued the German units from behind. The rapid Allied advance posed a major threat for the Germans, who could not retreat fast enough. The Germans tried to establish a defense line at the Rhône to shield the withdrawal of several valuable units there. The US 45th and 3rd Division were pressing to the north-west with uncontested speed, undermining Wiese’s plan for a new defense line. Barjoles and Brignoles were taken by the two US divisions on 19 August, which also were about to envelop Toulon as well as Marseille from the north, cutting-off the German units there. The necessity of the operation has come under criticism from a number of quarters both at the time it was launch and in post-war years. Saying the Western Allies had it easy in Southern France is analogous to saying the Soviets had it easy in the Caucasus in early 1943; while it is technically accurate the only reason it is true is because the Germans were trying to retreat back to the north bank of the Don before they were cut off by Soviet forces advancing from the direction of Stalingrad.
That is why I did not agree with marshmallow, indeed the “some places” had that huge conditional of the Germans already on the run.
What’s controversial about Das Boot?
Ack! Sorry…
I’m still not sure, but reading Biritsh military history magazines from the 80’s & 90’s the very existence of this movie was offensive to them.
I’m guessing it was because the movie presented the UBoat crews as sympathetic characters facing life-or-death struggles rather than the British battleship sinking, baby-starving demons of the depths that they obviously had to be!
No, really.
Ok, thanks!
A couple back at ya: It’s Bridge ON the River Kwai, not ‘over’. And it was also based loosely on actual events. They’re still both fictional accounts. 
You have to remember to spin it.
And now you’re just digging yourself in deeper, with your ignorant stereotyping and hateful prejudices.
"Again, the official British history of the war against Japan concluded: “The Russian declaration of war was the decisive factor in bringing Japan to accept the Potsdam declaration, for it brought home to all members of the Supreme Council the realization that the last hope of a negotiated peace had gone and that there was no alternative but to accept the Allied terms sooner or later.” [THE DECISION, p. 646 n.] * We may also note that on August 13–even as Tokyo struggled to devise a final response to Washington–intercepted MAGIC cables reported a “Japanese Army General Staff statement on surrender.” The text (dated August 12) from the vice chief of the Army General Staff to Japan’s military attaches in Sweden, Switzerland, and Portugal, included two main points. The first concerned the cause of surrender negotiations:
As a result of Russia’s entrance into the war, the Empire, in the fourth year of its [war] endeavor, is faced with a struggle for the existence of the nation.
The second used a traditional formula to make clear the one critical point which would not be given up:
You are well aware of the fact that as a final move toward the preservation of the national structure [i.e., the Emperor and the Imperial system], diplomatic negotiations have been opened. . . . Unless the aforementioned condition is fulfilled, we will continue the war to the bitter end.
The atomic bomb was neither mentioned in this internal message nor cited as reason for the surrender negotiations. [THE DECISION, pp. 418-9.]"
– Decision: Part III (from book by Gar Alperovitz)
Malacandra made a good point, though – I slightly misremembered. It was the internal dialogue along Japanese officials that basically failed to mention the atomic bombs, but rather focused on the Soviet invasion. Their public declaration a few days later did in fact mention the a-bombs. (But, some have posited various possible reasons for this change, including a bid for worldwide sympathy.)