cos they didnt
they get upset cos US citizens keeps pushing the lie
(I aint going through all the things the US didnt do but others did . But If you want to put forward some of the positive things the US DID do then go ahead
The US did a HELLOVA lot to help europe - but the 1 thing it DIDNT do was save it
(the 1st positive action the US did was bombing france/belgium/ holland - easy targets with full air cover so as to get "aclimatised" fightin in european skies - but that wasnt until 1943 . AFTER the russians had already beaten the germans at stalingrad . The 2nd positive action was in bombing germany itself , but that didnt happen until just before D day - AFTER the russians had beaten germany at kursk and after which the germens never stopped retreating (they were retreating BEFORE D day
US efforts at D day wasnt to save europe from germany - it was to prevent europe becoming dominated by the USSR and becoming communist)
1) if the UK had lost the battle of britain WW2 would have been over in europe , and no way would the US have gone to war against germany in those circumstance
2) - partially stupid - you think the US would have just allowed planes to fly into its airspace ?
3) - enigma = not relevant
And if germany had not declared war on the US- how the f//k can they lose a war when there aint one?
4) "Manufacturing in the Ruhr Valley by bursting the dams and flooding the valley and the production of electricity" - this is one of the myths put about by the UK -
There were 4 important dams, 3 were attacked and only 2 were breached - and those 2 were repaired within 6 months and at 75% capacity within 9
(the eder damn was only a minor breach and It was a 100% waste of time (and effort) attacking the 3rd (the sorpe) cos it was a completely different design to the other 2 so the "bouncing bomb" would have absolutely NO effect on it)
The UK war effort required to breach those 2 was more than the loss of war effort to the germans
(it take a lot of training to train the crews, a lot of man hours and materials to construct the aircraft , and get the fuel (from the US) . A lot of man hours designing, constructing and testing the bombs
a LOT of that was lost when 8 aircraft were lost (53 out of 56 crew were killed - the other 3 taken prisoner)
(19 aircraft started out- 8 didnt return - A loss of 42% is VERY poor - dont think the US got anywhere near losing as many as a %age)
The official summary of the effect of the raid ".........impact on industrial production was limited"
5) "It was Britain that developed the earth quake bomb that could destroy underground manufacturing facilities that no US bomb could touch"
no such thing as the "earthquake bomb" - it was the principle of the design - to fall accurately at very high speed so that it would go well down into (or near to) the target before exploding and creating shock waves going "sideways" rather than "up"- thereby causing the effect of an earthquake by weakening the target's foundations
(i.e the target did not "blow up" as with a normal bomb - but collapsed when its foundations couldnt support it
2 bombs were designed using this principle - the "tall boy" and "grand slam" - both weighing more than a B17 could carry - So why on earth would the US need a similar bomb when there were a limited number of targets where it would be more useful than an ordinary bomb