Does anybody know about The 506th Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division? Or am I the only one who knows. Somebody please entertain me and tell me if they know more about them than I do. (This isn't meant to be cocky, I just want to get into a heated debate)
They were airborne light infantry who took part in all the 101st Airborne Division operations in the ETO. Each US airborne division had two parachute infantry regiments and the 506th was one of them. Oh yes, and the late Stephen Ambrose wrote a book about one of their companies which was later made into a TV mini-series. As a result, many small boys seem to think that company won the war all on their own.
Naw actually they dont. They just look at them as heros. And another thing, How the Hell do you think the US waon the Damn war huh? the 506th 101st held a big contribution.
Originally posted by Hans@May 21 2005, 10:13 AM the 506th 101st held a big contribution. [post=34654]Quoted post[/post] You really think that do you? Sort of backs up Angies comments then doesn't it?
Originally posted by CROONAERT@May 21 2005, 11:41 PM You really think that do you? Sort of backs up Angies comments then doesn't it? [post=34672]Quoted post[/post] Got to agree Dave, Angie. "Some" (Not All, but especially the younger ones!) of our American cousins seem to have forgotten that there were any other nations fighting in WW2.
Just in case I gave a misleading impression of my views, let me say that the 506th PIR was a very good regiment. By 1944, the allied armies had many very good units and the allied airborne infantry was among them.
Not at all Angie. It's just annoying sometimes that people forget that there were British and Canadians involved. But when you hear of "The Battle for Normandy", all we're ever reminded of is Omaha. Yet the British and Canadians landed well over 80,000 troops either by Beach Assault or Parachute drop by the end of D-Day itself. And were the first Allied troops involved not the British Airborne 00:15hrs at the Caen and Orne Canal (Pegasus, Benouville and Horsa, Ranville) Bridges? If you include the Naval contingent aswell, this figure rises to around the 120,000 of British/Canadians involved. This compares with around 60,000 American troops, Airborne or otherwise. So approx' double then... I am NOT Anti-American, but I wish they'd drop the "We Won The War" speech. OK... Soap Box back in the cupboard.
Originally posted by Pte1643@May 22 2005, 02:40 PM But when you hear of "The Battle for Normandy", all we're ever reminded of is Omaha. [post=34694]Quoted post[/post] Part of the reason is that Omaha is judged to have gone wrong and there is a lot written about it. I must say that I have made my share of Omaha comments and find it a fascinating subject.
As an American, and a descendant of WWII vets, I must plead guilty to many of my countrymen of my generation clinging to the notion that the US "won the war". Certainly, the US played an enormous role, especially in the Pacific, but most thinking persons are quite clear that the US did not win anything by themselves. Our history books are partly to blame, when teaching 400+ years of American history, there is little time (unfortunately) to teach much more than the US's role in the World Wars (and precious little of that). By far most of what I have learned about WWII has come from my own study and from listening to veterans who were there. Sadly, many Americans have little interest in the War beyond knowing that "we went, we won".
Originally posted by nolanbuc@May 23 2005, 06:47 AM Sadly, many Americans have little interest in the War beyond knowing that "we went, we won". [post=34721]Quoted post[/post] I couldn't honestly say the Brits are much better. Those of us on this forum are probably not typical by a long way.
Originally posted by nolanbuc@May 23 2005, 07:47 AM As an American, and a descendant of WWII vets, I must plead guilty to many of my countrymen of my generation clinging to the notion that the US "won the war". Certainly, the US played an enormous role, especially in the Pacific, but most thinking persons are quite clear that the US did not win anything by themselves. [post=34721]Quoted post[/post] Thank You Nolanbuc. Rather than the heated "We and Them" arguements that fly back and forth, I personally much prefer the sensible debates. The ones in which all sides of the story are taken into account. I am English (Sorry British :P ), and as I said before I'm certainly NOT anti-American, in fact I'm very gald we're Allies. . Yes, the Americans played a HUGE part during WW2. But then Britain played a HUGE part too. I also certainly appreciate the fact that Britain couldn't have "Won the War" by ourselves either. But as Angie has also stated, there are some Brits who believe this to be the case. It Was A Joint Effort.... Best Regards Mark.
Originally posted by Pte1643@May 22 2005, 02:40 PM If you include the Naval contingent aswell, this figure rises to around the 120,000 of British/Canadians involved. This compares with around 60,000 American troops, Airborne or otherwise. It's a bit unfair on Americans to quote numbers involved on D-Day itself, when practically all of the reinforcements on the Western Front until the end of the war were American troops.
Originally posted by Johnny_Thunder+Jun 14 2005, 04:30 PM-->(Johnny_Thunder @ Jun 14 2005, 04:30 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Pte1643@May 22 2005, 02:40 PM If you include the Naval contingent aswell, this figure rises to around the 120,000 of British/Canadians involved. This compares with around 60,000 American troops, Airborne or otherwise. It's a bit unfair on Americans to quote numbers involved on D-Day itself, when practically all of the reinforcements on the Western Front until the end of the war were American troops. [post=35377]Quoted post[/post] [/b] It is not unfair at all, because it happens to be true. What would be unfair would be failing to recognise that the buildup of US forces after D-day eventually overtook the UK/Canada by a long way. The above quoted figure for US forces is unfair though unless it includes the large USN and USAAF element involved on D-day and this needs to be clarified by Pte1643.
Originally posted by Pte1643+May 23 2005, 04:25 PM-->(Pte1643 @ May 23 2005, 04:25 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-nolanbuc@May 23 2005, 07:47 AM As an American, and a descendant of WWII vets, I must plead guilty to many of my countrymen of my generation clinging to the notion that the US "won the war". Certainly, the US played an enormous role, especially in the Pacific, but most thinking persons are quite clear that the US did not win anything by themselves. [post=34721]Quoted post[/post] Thank You Nolanbuc. Rather than the heated "We and Them" arguements that fly back and forth, I personally much prefer the sensible debates. The ones in which all sides of the story are taken into account. I am English (Sorry British :P ), and as I said before I'm certainly NOT anti-American, in fact I'm very gald we're Allies. . Yes, the Americans played a HUGE part during WW2. But then Britain played a HUGE part too. I also certainly appreciate the fact that Britain couldn't have "Won the War" by ourselves either. But as Angie has also stated, there are some Brits who believe this to be the case. It Was A Joint Effort.... Best Regards Mark. [post=34742]Quoted post[/post] [/b]Absolutely Correst it was a joint effort by all the Allies. Each country tends to play up their role in WW2 whether it is an American who believes that his country defeated Germany on the Western Front single -handed or the British person who believes that the Battle of britain held the key to the war OR even the Russian who will adamently argue that they bled the Wehrmacht white and that if not for them the allies could never have landed in Normandy. The fact is everyone contributed and without each other, The Canadians, French, Polish, Russian, American, British, Indian, Australian, New Zealand, Dutch, Norwegian and other forces would never have defeated the Axis Powers. As for my country's role in WW2 it is to my eternal shame that we were probably the only country who officially offered its condolences upon the death of Hitler. Although thousands of our men gave their lives it was not under Irish colours and we denied the British and the US the use of our ports during the early parts of the war when they could have been really useful. Not my country's finest hour, I can assure you.
Originally posted by Gotthard Heinrici@Jun 15 2005, 09:09 AM Although thousands of our men gave their lives it was not under Irish colours and we denied the British and the US the use of our ports during the early parts of the war when they could have been really useful. Not my country's finest hour, I can assure you. [post=35384]Quoted post[/post] Quite, particularly considering that Ireland was supplied with many commodities which had been shipped to Britain by convoy. I think the British government would have been justified in telling the Irish government, "Sorry, we needed it all ourselves. There was none left for you". And stuck to it until southern Irish ports were opened to the RN.
Well, I never forget that WW2 was a joint effort, and I am reminded, when I read history, that for all the postwar bickering between generals and armchair historians over "Who was cooler, Patton or Montgomery, prove it?" and the movies that suggest that America's real enemy was the British, the fact of the matter was that the Allied alliance worked extremely well. Many of the "arguments" made at Anglo-American staff meetings about the issues historians carped about after the war, were only done for the record, usually with shrugs or grins, and then all involved moved on to the serious business of winning the war. I actually get tired of these arguments, because they really degenerate into "Who's cooler, Patton or Monty? Prove it." If I want to see 15-year-olds of all ages down in their parents' basement arguing over something pointless and idiotic, I can switch to a "Star Trek" discussion group, and listen to "Who's cooler: Kirk or Picard? Prove it."
