# History: US Intervention in WWII



## maxiogee

tafanari said:
			
		

> But getting back to the original topic: The US has interventions that not many people complain about. For example, American troops landing in Normandy is generally seen as a good thing.


 
Numbers of Americans like to talk of how they had to save Europe twice. That's debatable - were they saving Europe, or saving themselves - especially in WWII?

What is indisputable is that had they come when sought (on both occasions) it would have been more of a good thing.

The First World War lasted from August 3rd 1914 to November 11th 1918.......1561 days
America's participation was from April 6th 1917 to November 11th 1918........584 days

The Second World War lasted from September 3rd 1939 to August 15th 1945.....2173 days
America's participation was from .December 8th 1941 to August 15th 1945.....1346 days

Those who talk of saving Europe seem to forget these proportions. Maybe those old westerns were accurately depictions of the the US Cavalry - always riding over the hill when the action was long started. 

*Mod Note: This thread was started as an offshoot from the already-existing thread entitled "Why do they Hate US."*


----------



## Fernando

Sorry, Maxiogee, I do not want to offend anyone, but coming from Ireland your comment is not very understable.

Summing up Ireland (and Spain) intervention in WWII: 0 days.


----------



## tafanari

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Those who talk of saving Europe seem to forget these proportions. Maybe those old westerns were accurately depictions of the the US Cavalry - always riding over the hill when the action was long started.


Saving Europe? I don't know if I would call it that. I wouldn't even say that the US won the war since the Russians were already turning the tide and if it weren't for D-Day you might be writing us from the former Irish Soviet Socialist Republic. And that's assuming Communism would have died in the late eighties like it did if the Russians controlled all of Western Europe.

The US would have entered those wars earlier if it felt it was in its interest. But isn't that how all nations states act?


----------



## Outsider

I have to disagree with you there, Maxiogee. The American intervention was still decisive in both wars. I doubt that Western Europe could have resisted Nazi Germany without American support (though the USSR undoubtedly could have). And I'm not so sure that the US were primarily looking after their own interests in those wars, when they joined the war.

Most of all, I don't think European countries had the right to expect American aid. The Americans would have been perfectly justified then in saying to themselves "Hey, it's their war, let them sort it out by themselves. Why should we die over petty wars between colonialists?"

The trouble is that these interventions are not exactly typical of US foreign policy.


----------



## maxiogee

I feel that this new thread was started in the wrong place. The opening post by Fernando here was in response to a post of mine on the "Why do they hate US?" thread. This post was as follows…


			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> tafanari said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But getting back to the original topic: The US has interventions that not many people complain about. For example, American troops landing in Normandy is generally seen as a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers of Americans like to talk of how they had to save Europe twice. That's debatable - were they saving Europe, or saving themselves - especially in WWII?
> 
> What is indisputable is that had they come when sought (on both occasions) it would have been more of a good thing.
> 
> The First World War lasted from August 3rd 1914 to November 11th 1918.......1561 days
> America's participation was from April 6th 1917 to November 11th 1918........584 days
> 
> The Second World War lasted from September 3rd 1939 to August 15th 1945.....2173 days
> America's participation was from .December 8th 1941 to August 15th 1945.....1346 days
> 
> Those who talk of saving Europe seem to forget these proportions. Maybe those old westerns were accurately depictions of the the US Cavalry - always riding over the hill when the action was long started.
Click to expand...


================
end of quoted post
* My inserting this should not be seen as a criticism of the mod who did the split-off.
================




			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> I can agree with you in many unfortunate US intervention, but I dislike your opinion on China policy. The only country which has oppossed Communist China is US:



You mean that all those troops both sides had staring at each other across the Sino-Soviet border for many, many years were just there to admire each other's uniforms and displays of precision marching?
If the independent country of Tibet was not seen as an 'oppression' by Beijing, why have they occupied it. One doesn't have to be 'big' to oppress - one can oppress by being 'in the way' and 'unwelcome'.

=====



			
				fernando said:
			
		

> Sorry, Maxiogee, I do not want to offend anyone, but coming from Ireland your comment is not very understable.


As to my Irishness — does that disbar me from comment? 
Anyone with any knowledge of the history of Ireland will know…

large numbers of Irishmen died with the Allies in World War 1 - having been volunteers in several of the Armies, mainly the British. Look up how many Irish have won the VC on service with the British.
that Ireland was neutral in the World War II. (And if you know any Irish history, you'll know exactly why that was.) 
- remind me again here about World War I being fought for "the freedom of small nations". 
We were one of those small nations and we were refused or freedom! 
(Check out Mr Churchill's threats of "immediate and terrible war" to Michael Collins) ​
And that despite this neutrality it gave much (well documented) help to the Allies, that again many men volunteered to serve in the Allied armies.
that some offers of Irish aid were turned down by the British - look it up.
and as I'm responding to a Spaniard, I'll add that many of the Irish who volunteered for the British forces in the Second World War had seen active service against the Fascists in Spain, when they were confronted by German and Italian troops.


----------



## maxiogee

tafanari said:
			
		

> Saving Europe? I don't know if I would call it that.


Neither did I. I spoke of that being an opinion held, and often expressed, in America.



> I wouldn't even say that the US won the war since the Russians were already turning the tide and if it weren't for D-Day you might be writing us from the former Irish Soviet Socialist Republic.


You seem to assume that I objected to the US involvement. I don't see why you would. I pointed out their tardiness in coming to the fray.



> The US would have entered those wars earlier if it felt it was in its interest. But isn't that how all nations states act?


And fighting Hitler in 1941 was suddenly more in their interest than it had been in 1939? Come off it.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with you there, Maxiogee. The American intervention was still decisive in both wars. I doubt that Western Europe could have resisted Nazi Germany without American support


Did I say that their intervention wasn't decisive?
The purpose of my comment was that France, Britain and the rest of Europe were spent and bankrupt in fighting the Wars. Britain was bankrupted to the US!



> And I'm not so sure that the US were primarily looking after their own interests in those wars, when they joined the war.


They were certainly looking after their own interests in staying out of the second. They were drawing up plans even than as to what they would do with the soon-to-be-ex-British Empire.



> Most of all, I don't think European countries had the right to expect American aid. The Americans would have been perfectly justified then in saying to themselves "Hey, it's their war, let them sort it out by themselves. Why should we die over petty wars between colonialists?"


Do you really think that Hitler and fascism were a petty problem? Had he won in Europe, America would now be fascist. Let's be honest, had he looked like winning, America would have sold him weapons. How long would America have allowed him to control the oil-fields of the Middle East without wanting in. And had he succeeded in beating Britain Stalin would have had to compromise, then could America have fought them both?


----------



## .   1

Fernando said:
			
		

> Sorry, Maxiogee, I do not want to offend anyone, but coming from Ireland your comment is not very understable.
> 
> Summing up Ireland (and Spain) intervention in WWII: 0 days.


I do not agree with everything that Maxiogee states on every post that he makes nor do I understand everything that he tries to say but he does have the gift of The Blarney and he is extemely informative and apparently willing to do the hard yards and actually research the topic at hand.

I will continue to not totally agree not completely understand him but I will learn.
It is slightly specious to state that a paddy can not comment on world wars because his tiny little flyspeck country was dominated by huge neighbours and the neighbours' terrifying ally. There are not many places in this weird wild world for brave young men to die senselessly that are not steeped in Irish blood.

.,,


----------



## Fernando

I agree with you that USSR made a tour-de-force with China AFTER Mao's accusations of revisionism (in the meanwhile, USSR helped Mao wholeheartedly). You can doubt about US. In the case of USSR they did not certainly intervene because of their love to their cause of freedom.

I simply can not undestand the Tibet comment.

Certainly many Irish (as in all British wars) fought bravely in British side but it was not exactly help what Ireland and nationalist movement gave to UK during WWI.

You got the freedom after WWI, did not you?

About WWII: You were neutral. You were not expected to help British since your independence was very close. We were neutral and we were not expected to help Allies because our Civil War was very close. The Spaniards who fought for Partisan Forces had seen service against Nacionales in Spain, when they were confronted by Axis troops (and some Irish volunteers).

The point is: Every country which intervened in WWII was because he was either invaded or in the point of being so.

US has the guts to do it when Germany was 5,000 km away. He could have defeated Japan with the left hand and do nothing in Europe.


----------



## Fernando

. said:
			
		

> It is slightly specious to state that a paddy can not comment on world wars because his tiny little flyspeck country was dominated by huge neighbours and the neighbours' terrifying ally. There are not many places in this weird wild world for brave young men to die senselessly that are not steeped in Irish blood.



Sorry again if I sounded offensive, but the point is that many countries in the world, from Argentina to Turkey and from SPAIN to Arabia, who did nothing and nowadays we are criticicing because they arrived too late.

As a matter of fact USSR did nothing (well, rather it helped Axis) until their vey soil was invaded.



			
				. said:
			
		

> but he does have the gift of The Blarney



Could something say what does it mean?


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> You got the freedom after WWI, did not you?


In a word, no.
Part of Ireland was granted "Dominion status" and politicians elected to its parliament had to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch. I don't expect people from other countries to know these things, but it would be nice to think, when discussions such as this 'get serious', that people involved would do some initial research. 
The other part of Ireland was retained within the United Kingdom - against the wishes of a large part of the region an unnatural border was drawn — What is popularly known as Ulster today comprises 6 counties. The real Ulster (an ancient province of Ireland) comprises 9 counties. Three were hived off to create a Unionist majority in the statelet.



> About WWII: You were neutral. You were not expected to help British since your independence was very close.


We *were* expected to. Great pressure was brought to bear on us. There were open threats from Whitehall to invade and seize our Atlantic ports. And yet, when Belfast was bombed we sent fire-engines to their aid.



> We were neutral and we were not expected to help Allies because our Civil War was very close. The Spaniards who fought for Partisan Forces had seen service against Nacionales in Spain, when they were confronted by Axis troops (and some Irish volunteers).


Yes, we too had our fascists here. They mustered a pathetic few to go. They were mocked and derided publicly on their return.



> The point is: Every country which intervened in WWII was because he was either invaded or in the point of being so.


Not true. Britain and France both declared war on Germany two days afer Poland was invaded. Simple facts please.



> US has the guts to do it when Germany was 5,000 km away. He could have defeated Japan with the left hand and do nothing in Europe.


With German wolf-packs operating in the Atlantic they couldn't have operated any eastern seabord ports without acting against Germany.

====

Thanks for the comments .,, they are appreciated.


----------



## .   1

Fernando said:
			
		

> Could something say what does it mean?


To have the gift of The Blarney is to have the gift of The Gab.
There is an old Irish concept that a person who has kissed The Blarney Stone is blessed with an above average ability to communicate.

.,,


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Did I say that their intervention wasn't decisive?
> The purpose of my comment was that France, Britain and the rest of Europe were spent and bankrupt in fighting the Wars. Britain was bankrupted to the US!


I wasn't familiar with that aspect of the war, so I best not comment on it. 



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> They were certainly looking after their own interests in staying out of the second. They were drawing up plans even than as to what they would do with the soon-to-be-ex-British Empire.


Maxiogee, there will always be cynical/prudent voices in a government who plan for the worse, and who think up ways to make the most profit out of a war. It's part of their job. But can you tell me that that was the US's leading motive for going to war?
Anyway, you wrote that you don't think Hitler was a petty problem. If that is so, then is the loss of their empires too high a price for the Western European powers to pay, to be free of him and Stallin? 



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Do you really think that Hitler and fascism were a petty problem? Had he won in Europe, America would now be fascist.


World War I definitely seemed like a callous power struggle between greedy colonialists. When it came to an end, all the European powers had lost, and the US had gained power. It served the Europeans right, but they did not learn their lesson.

World War II was perhaps more ideological, but I can understand how, from an American perspective, it could have seemed like "those crazy Europeans at each other's throats again".

You mentioned Hitler. What did the leading Western powers do to stop him and other fascists from gaining support? Not much; just look at the Spanish Civil War. In fact, many kind of admired him, or thought the fascists were the lesser of two evils (the other being communism), until the Germans started invading or bombing their land!

And, while I do not wish to make alternate history here, I have great doubt that the Nazis could have taken on the US, which were already a power to be reckoned with by then. As proof, I give the fact that the US did defeat Germany in Western Europe, as well as Japan in Asia.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Let's be honest, had he looked like winning, America would have sold him weapons.


I am not convinced of that.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> How long would America have allowed him to control the oil-fields of the Middle East without wanting in.


I have no idea, and I'm not going to speculate. I still think the US had no moral obligation to save the necks of the Europeans in either of the so-called World Wars, which were caused mostly by the greed of some Europeans.


----------



## .   1

Outsider said:
			
		

> I have no idea, and I'm not going to speculate. I still think the US had no moral obligation to save the necks of the Europeans in either of the so-called World Wars, which were caused mostly by the greed of some Europeans.


By a strange quirk of fate the end result of both wars (that the U.S.A. did ?nothing? to cause) resulted in the greatest superpower the world has ever known to rise from the ashes of a desecrated Europe.

I can swallow many things under duress but I will never believe that U.S. America just got lucky and derives so much benefit from utter abject misery.

.,,


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> In a word, no.
> Part of Ireland was granted "Dominion status" and politicians elected to its parliament had to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch..



What is far more than you have before the war. 



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> The other part of Ireland was retained within the United Kingdom - against the wishes of a large part of the region an unnatural border was drawn — What is popularly known as Ulster today comprises 6 counties. The real Ulster (an ancient province of Ireland) comprises 9 counties. Three were hived off to create a Unionist majority in the statelet.



And I sympathize with you in this point (except for IRA actions). But it is not the point. The point is that WWI was important for the small nations, including Ireland.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> We *were* expected to. Great pressure was brought to bear on us.



Then , it is even worse. You were expected and you did not intervene. US did the opposite.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Not true. Britain and France both declared war on Germany two days afer Poland was invaded. Simple facts please.



Britain and France were the next one in Hitler's list and had a deffensive agreement with Poland (an agreement they did not honour in Czech case). 



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> With German wolf-packs operating in the Atlantic they couldn't have operated any eastern seabord ports without acting against Germany.



They could have allied with Germany or let the British perish.

As a matter of fact, Britain owed billions to US in 1941 because US lent them money and boats (Lend Lease Act) without collaterals. US had huge investments in Germany which were lost when they entered into the war.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> What is far more than you have before the war.


You don't appear to be aware that what we got came not from the World War, but from our own War of Independence, and a massive popular vote for republican MPs at Westminster - who, instead of going there set up a parliament in Dublin.



> The point is that WWI was important for the small nations, including Ireland.


As Britain refused to recognise us as a state, that comment doesn't apply. Our achievement of Dominion status came in treaty talks in 1921.




> Then , it is even worse. You were expected and you did not intervene. US did the opposite.


When I said "expected" I meant by England. No others expected us to. Many in England still don't know why we were not 'with them'.



> Britain and France were the next one in Hitler's list and had a deffensive agreement with Poland (an agreement they did not honour in Czech case).


At that point Hitler had made no threats to invade England.




> As a matter of fact, Britain owed billions to US in 1941 because US lent them money and boats (Lend Lease Act) without collaterals. US had huge investments in Germany which were lost when they entered into the war.


The Americans lost nothing in Germany which they didn't recoup.


----------



## Brioche

I don't know about Ireland not being with Britain during "the Emergency".

Ireland was _officially_ neutral, but _de facto_ on the side of the Allies. It allowed the crews of British and American aircraft which crashed in Eire to cross over into Northern Ireland, whereas German airmen were interned, and the bill for their keep sent to the German Embassy.

American planes were permitted to overfly, and to refuel at Shannon.

70,000 Irish citizens volunteered for the British Army, and 200,000 Irish went to Britain to participate in the war economy - and send lots of money back to Ireland.

The Irish intelligence services co-operated with Britain.

The Irish government knew that if the Nazis had successfully invaded Britain that Ireland would have been next.


----------



## cuchuflete

Maxiogee began this thread with the comment that "Numbers of Americans...." say that the US saved Europe.  They must be more numerous in his neighborhood than in mine.  I have not heard remarks like that for more than forty years.

My understanding is that there was an alliance, of which the US was a significant part.  I think it's a ridiculous stretch to say that any one nation did the entire job.


----------



## Brioche

In the end, the Nazis were defeated by the combination of American money and Soviet blood.

I have heard some interesting academic arguments to the effect that it would have been better if the US had not intervened in WW1. Then the Great War would have ended with less humiliating [for Germany and Austro-Hungary] peace treaties than those of Versailles and Trianon.

Many historians say that the Treaty of Versailles was in effect the trigger for World War II.


----------



## Victoria32

Fernando said:
			
		

> Sorry, Maxiogee, I do not want to offend anyone, but coming from Ireland your comment is not very understable.
> 
> Summing up Ireland (and Spain) intervention in WWII: 0 days.


 
Nevertheless, his point is valid. My father fought in WW2 in the British Army (his brother was killed) and was astounded when he came to New Zealand in the 1950s, to discover New Zealanders giving all the credit to Americans! 

Now they claim such things as capturing the Enigma machine, which my friend's mother in Liverpool worked on at Bletchley Park before the Americans captured their one!


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Maxiogee began this thread with the comment that "Numbers of Americans...." say that the US saved Europe. They must be more numerous in his neighborhood than in mine. I have not heard remarks like that for more than forty years.
> quote]
> I have heard these assertions very recently, on websites both British and American, within the last 5 years! Needless to say, they make me very cross.


----------



## Fernando

- US did not win the war alone, obviously. The Brioche's blood-money equation could be a good summary, though US lost about 350,000 men.

Losses of USSR (claimed 20 million) were far worse and contribution of British Empire (comprising Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, India, etc.) was huge.

The point, again, is that USSR could not stand away from the war and France and Britain hardly could. US decided to enter in the war (giving more importance to European Front) when they could stand aside, selling weapons to both enemies.

- About Irish independence: Maxiogee is true about that Ireland only got de-facto independence in 1921, after a guerrilla war in 1919-21. I was wrong since I thought it was more inmediate to WWI.

Anyway, Ireland had got "home rule" just after WWI, and Easter Rising took place in 1916, in the middle of WWI.


----------



## tafanari

Fernando said:
			
		

> - US decided to enter in the war (giving more importance to European Front) when they could stand aside, selling weapons to both enemies.



Even after Pearl Harbor?


----------



## Fernando

Yes, because they could smash Japan (which was their real enemy in their influence zone, where US had Philippines and Hawai) without having many troubles in Europe. 

Germany had declared the war to US after Pearl Harbor but it could easily ignored. The collaboration UK-US in Atlantic Battle had begun so soon as 1940 to protect English convoys in the radio of US Air Force (apart from Lend Lease Act).

The priority was given to Europe and only comparatively minor effort was dedicated to Pacific.


----------



## tafanari

Fernando said:
			
		

> Yes, because they could smash Japan (which was their real enemy in their influence zone, where US had Philippines and Hawai) without having many troubles in Europe.



Tensions with the Germans was already mounting. It's not about just declaring war, it was about uboats sinking American ships. Was the US to ignore that as well?

I'm not a historian but from what I have read there are a few things that are not quite right about what you have stated. I think the United States was seriously worried about a Japanese invasion of California. I don't think they were expecting the Germans to invade. In that scenario, only a madman would give priority to Europe. It would be completely absurd.


----------



## Fernando

Absurd or not, it is what they did. If you check any comments or minutes from the first Churchill-Roosevelt conference after Pearl Harbor it was what they decided to do. 

You can check Churchill memories, who says one hundred times how large was US help.

Edit: Remember that in 1942 US had dispatched several hundred thousands men to Operation Torch (N Africa) while they were fighting in Guadalcanal.


----------



## tafanari

I think that's where your error lies, Fernando. One thing is what Roosevelt told the British Prime Minister and another was the US's priority. If I wanted to look for proof that the US priority was Europe I would not look in the memoirs of the leader of another country.

I think you need to look elsewhere for evidence that the US gave priority to Europe. The US had been telling the British they were priority since at least 1939, before they had even sent a single soldier over.

Sorry, Fernando. None of this adds up for me. I guess we can just agree to disagree.


----------



## Fernando

Victoria32 said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, his point is valid. My father fought in WW2 in the British Army (his brother was killed) and was astounded when he came to New Zealand in the 1950s, to discover New Zealanders giving all the credit to Americans!
> 
> Now they claim such things as capturing the Enigma machine, which my friend's mother in Liverpool worked on at Bletchley Park before the Americans captured their one!



Well, that is the problem of not having Hollywood. 

You are right that in Objective Burma and in others, English role is minimized.

If you were a Spaniard (we do not have ANY role in History, according US films) you would not complain that much.

Now seriously, NZ role was as big as it could, but still a tiny one. US role was huge. US could pass without NZ, not in the opposite.


----------



## Fernando

tafanari said:
			
		

> I think you need to look elsewhere for evidence that the US gave priority to Europe. The US had been telling the British they were priority since at least 1939, before they had even sent a single soldier over.



Well, I think if the country that was supposed to be given such a priority, he should have complained. He did only not complain but rather thanked them.

Check how many US soldiers were in West Front and in Pacific Front at any time.

Check which Front lasted more.


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:
			
		

> My father fought in WW2 in the British Army (his brother was killed) and was astounded when he came to New Zealand in the 1950s, to discover New Zealanders giving all the credit to Americans!
> 
> Now they claim such things as capturing the Enigma machine, which my friend's mother in Liverpool worked on at Bletchley Park before the Americans captured their one!



Who are the very ignorant they?  Since the 1950s, I've been reading US books, and watching US programs which all emphasize the tremendous importance of this British act.

The role of the US in WWII was important.  To argue about its relative importance within the alliance, or that of any other major or minor member, is fruitless and speculative.

Without doubt there are a relative few idiots running at the mouth without reading history.  They may as well claim that
Italy was more important than Germany in that alliance.

Suppose the US had participated for 60 days more...before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US people would have been far less supportive of a war effort, would not have voluntarily enlisted in the armed services in the same numbers, and might have even elected a pacifist/isolationist president at the earliest opportunity.  It would be equally useless to speculate about that.


----------



## ireney

(I think they refers to Hollywood)

Was the US contribution in WWII important?
Yes. Undoubtely so. Very.

Was the US the country who won WWII for the rest of the world?
Nope. It wasn't.

Would the Allies have won without the participation of the US?
I don't know. That's pure speculation. I don't think they would but, even if they had, it would take them oh so much more.

Is the importance of the US taking part in WWII bigger than i.e. New Zealand or Greece?
Depends on how you look upon it. Yes and no.

Is it more important than the participation of i.e. the USSR.
I'd say no.

Did the US participated out of the goodness of their heart?
There's no such thing as that. Whether you think the US participated because there was
a) fear of an attack 
b) monetary gain
c) other kind of gain
there was a reason beyond altruism


----------



## Fernando

About the "Europe first" policy, I have found this. I know it is a Wiki link, but it gives wider links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia_Conference


----------



## tafanari

Fernando said:
			
		

> Well, I think if the country that was supposed to be given such a priority, he should have complained. He did only not complain but rather thanked them.



I'm sorry, Fernando, I don't understand your comment. Could you please rephrase it?


----------



## tafanari

Fernando said:
			
		

> About the "Europe first" policy, I have found this. I know it is a Wiki link, but it gives wider links.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia_Conference



Thanks for the link, Fernando. I still don't get it, though. Doctors tell mothers that they should feed themselves before they feed their babies but I don't interpret that as "babies are the second priority." You do one first in order to do the second better (or make sure the second gets done at all).

The fact that I don't get it might very well be my own fault. 
But thanks again for the link.


----------



## Fernando

Sorry.

I mean: If US would have not met the "Europe First" policy, Churchill would have been the first one to complain. Quite on the contrary he praised US for their commitment in Europe.

The only problems among Churchill and Roosevelt arised because Roosevelt was too close to Stalin and agreed with the latter in the attack point (Normandy) against Churchill's opinion (Italy-Austria).


----------

