NationStates Jolt Archive

No one can deny that the Russians had a very big role to play. I mean, they fought back at the brunt of the German army, all the way to Berlin. But as many like to say on here, I don't believe that it was the Russians themselves that helped to win WWII.
While I was in Hawai'i, I visited Pearl Harbor. Pretty moving, btw. There, I bought a little book on WWII. From reading what was in that book, it convinced me that if Russia were fighting WWII with no American intervention, it'd be either an eventual loss, or an extremely long stalemate.
Let's look at the facts it provides. The person who made Russia so weak was one of the most popular figures in Russian histroy [sarcasm], Stalin. He purged the army throughout the thirties for threats to his dictatorship. However, most of those "threats" were some damn good generals. Fighting that war with Finland only stressed the Red Army even more.
His modernization program, while one of the better thing he did, was a little misguided. To give you an idea of what was lost, 40% of the population, 40% of electrical generation capacity, 63% of steel production, and 70% of iron refining was lost by the end of 1941, when the Germans first drove into Russia. Only about 10% of the total industry was saved by shipping it to the Urals.
What made matters worse was that General Winter didn't help the Russians much. Unlike with Napoleon, whose army went into full retreat, the Germans still had most of their 250 divisions to about 80% capacity. Even with Hitler's idiotic orders to the army, they still would've survived due to sheer fighting strenght.
Of course, that began to change with Lend-Lease. By 1942, the tide began to turn for the Russians, and every year since then, despite not having most of their own production, they were able to make enough tanks and planes with raw materials provided by Lend-Lease. It was only helped as the U-boat fleet in the Atlantic was being destroyed, leading to a complete withdrawl by the Germans in 1943. Even before then, most supplies didn't have to come in through the dangerous Murmansk route. Quite a few were unloaded in Iran, then sent by train up to Russia. And you know who helped in the process? The ever detested Shah Reza Pahlavi.
Then there's the fact that Stalin wanted a second front. North Africa was, for the most part, an Italian venture, augmented by Rommel's troops that had little impact on the overall army of Germany. However, with the invasion of Italy and the fall of Musolini's fascist government, Hitler needed to send in some troops to Italy. Among them, 24 divisions fighting in Russia. And once D-Day occured, the Germans obviously had to divert a lot more resources. It's also interesting to note that 1944-45 was the year Russia made its biggest advances against Germany.

Again, I'm not saying that Russia didn't make a huge contribution to the war. It'd be foolish to think that America (and a somewhat comatose British army) could take on Germany alone. However, I just wanted to point out that the Russians could've never drove back the Germans without a little help from the outside.

Just goes to show that a little cooperation and respect for your allies goes a long way. :)

I always take Russia's involvement with a pinch of salt. I am not saying that they did not contribute greatly with manpower and resources, and their soldiers fought bravely during the conflict. However, Stalin did originally have a Non-aggression pact of some sort with Hitler, and probably would not have stepped in except that Adolf decided to take the motherland of the USSR.

No one country won the war!
This has been said so many times, and only the Americans still believe that they played the biggest role.
Russia played the biggest part.
If America had only lend-leased. Russia would have won
This is Americas biggest contribution (Though in NO way do i mean to disrespect American troops.) Russia bore more than the brunt of the invasion. They pretty much bore it all.
German casualties 30 million
Russian casualties 20 million
American about 300,000
British about 300,000
These figures are indisputable

I personally believe WWII could not have been won without the U.S.S.R. Many (if not most) historians agree.

very quickly.
Stalin knew the Germans were coming
His non-aggresion wasequivalent to chamberlains year of peace.
He signed it as he thought he would get a few years to move industry east where the Germans could not get it.
It was not a way out for Stalin

Russia has always been fierce in defending the motherland. They deserve acknowledgment for their sacrifices in the war.

America just won the war in the Pacific.

It took Britian, America, AND Russia to do that. No one nation could have stopped Germany alone.

I think that in the end the Russians would have won because they already had the Germans on the retreat before we even set foot in Europe. Also the Germans were running out of resources before we came in so maybe the war would have lasted six months longer but we did almost nothing.

It would have been tough, but I think the Western Allies could have won without the USSR and vice versa.

It took Britian, America, AND Russia to do that. No one nation could have stopped Germany alone.

Russia lost more troops then any other nation.. and had Russia not had the elite German army engaged on June 6th D-Day never would of been able to happen. Russia was also the first to take Germany.. so, do the math. However, I do agree that no one single country won WWII alone. The allies that gave to the war effort were to many to mention.. certainly more then have been mentioned in this thread.

A slight twist in history alert.
If either Russia or Britain was prepared for the war, we would have mopped the floor with Germany.
Decadence is to blame for such a bloody war.
That, and the French, lol
But i do remember a quote for de Gaulle that said if churchill gave de gaulle the landing craft, he would beat the Nazi army with the free french. :lol:

German casualties 30 million
Russian casualties 20 million
American about 300,000
British about 300,000

Yeah, but this includes the civilians as well. The war was never waged on the core American territory. Britain was bombed, but not invaded. Russian casualties count in the civilians but as well the soldiers killed by the most idiotic decisions and lack of equipment(have you seen "Enemy at the Gates"? The situation, when one soldier is given the gun and another the ammuniton, was very possible with the Russians. I'm a Slav to. I know that. :wink: ). German cassualties can not be that high. in 1933 there were 55 mln of Germans. While many cassualties are obvious, there is no way for them to reach 83 mln in present, even when considering the existence of large foreign groups in Germany, such as Turks Yugoslavians, or Poles.

However, Stalin did originally have a Non-aggression pact of some sort with Hitler,

Yeah, but both expected war. It can be likened to the appeasement policies of Britain and France, except the USSR were also trying to grab strategically important lands.

If Russia did not have the benefit of lend-lease then it would have had less ammo, and ammo trucks, medical supplies, spare parts, tanks (we sold them matildas and valentines america sold shermans) than they already had. Also they would have less base materials to even make their own better tanks and weaponry. Do you imagine the Russians winning with no t-34?

I tend to agree that since Stalingrad, the Russians would have pushed the Germans back all throughout Europe. Our intervention greatly sped up the process, through diverting Hitler's forces, providing lend-lease, etc. Plus we made sure that the iron curtain stopped in East Germany. If we hadn't stepped in, it would have covered all of continental Europe.

Kahrstein are you deliberatly stealing exactly what i say, or is it an accident
Pole. What you say is true. I may have gotten the russian and German casualties the wrong way round. I thought you would recognise that civilians would make a large bulk of the casualties, but even so Russian and German casualties were astronomically higher.

Galicia i assume you are an american. Why would the iron curtain take control of all of europe because you stepped in? Thsi is the biggest lie of the 20th century, so i don't blame you for swallowing it.
Russia had no intention of taking the rest of the world.
There. Stalins ideology was that the rest of the world did not want it.
He deliberately concentrated on maintaining it in Russia. Several (pretty much all) of the other ex-communist countries turned that way out of their own will. such as Cuba, China Vietnam.
The Americans percieved this as a threat.
Think about it. Why would Russia want Americca, or the UK?
it would cost them millions of lives. Communist doctrine does not begin and end in "a good red will take over the world"

I tend to agree that since Stalingrad, the Russians would have pushed the Germans back all throughout Europe. Our intervention greatly sped up the process, through diverting Hitler's forces, providing lend-lease, etc. Plus we made sure that the iron curtain stopped in East Germany. If we hadn't stepped in, it would have covered all of continental Europe.
Well, it would be really nice, if you hadn't sold us to the Soviets and stop the Russians on the USSR border. But well...

I thought you would recognise that civilians would make a large bulk of the casualties, but even so Russian and German casualties were astronomically higher.
Yup. And I'm a proud member of a country that suffered biggest cassualties in percents. 6 mln(3 mln Jews, almost as much Poles and a bit of Gypsies and Belarussians) out of 35 mln, which gives about 19% of the population. Yup, I'm proud to be a Pole. :D

If Russia did not have the benefit of lend-lease then it would have had less ammo, and ammo trucks, medical supplies, spare parts, tanks (we sold them matildas and valentines america sold shermans) than they already had. Also they would have less base materials to even make their own better tanks and weaponry. Do you imagine the Russians winning with no t-34?

The Americans did not stand alone in "lend-lease" Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain's chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain..

Didn't Stalin also 'purge' the designer of the T-34 long before he had finished the designs?

German military casulaties were 5m, Soviet military casualties were 7m.

Russian civilian casualties were 13m, German civilian casualties were not even half that, as the Allies did not pursue a policy of genocide.

Three quarters of German military casualties were suffered on the Eastern front, so the bulk of their pain was indeed inflicted there.

Incidentally, the counter-attack by the Siberian divisions under Moscow in the winter of 1941/1942 was what turned the war around on the northern half of the front, and that was achieved little more than half a year after the start of the hostilities, before the Lend-Lease stuff really came into play.

I would not pour scorn on the French, they suffered more than any other nation during WW1 and had too little time to prepare for the second. They never stood a chance and can hardly be blamed for that.

The credit for WW2 could be argued over forever, but it is fair to say that removing the contribution of any of the three main Allies would have made it longer, bloodier and possibly unwinnable.

German military casulaties were 5m, Soviet military casualties were 7m.

Russian civilian casualties were 13m, German civilian casualties were not even half that, as the Allies did not pursue a policy of genocide.

Three quarters of German military casualties were suffered on the Eastern front, so the bulk of their pain was indeed inflicted there.

Incidentally, the counter-attack by the Siberian divisions under Moscow in the winter of 1941/1942 was what turned the war around on the northern half of the front, and that was achieved little more than half a year after the start of the hostilities, before the Lend-Lease stuff really came into play.

I would not pour scorn on the French, they suffered more than any other nation during WW1 and had too little time to prepare for the second. They never stood a chance and can hardly be blamed for that.

The credit for WW2 could be argued over forever, but it is fair to say that removing the contribution of any of the three main Allies would have made it longer, bloodier and possibly unwinnable.

Tactical.. you know I always tend to agree with most of what you say. However to undermine the effort of your other allies who were there from day 1, in 1939 to me is simply insulting. Canada was "Lend-Leasing" to you as early as 1940. I think to simply say "three main allies" is insulting.

Dresden? Berlin? These places were practically wiped out, hundreds of thousands, if not millions must have died then

I would not pour scorn on the French, they suffered more than any other nation during WW1 and had too little time to prepare for the second. They never stood a chance and can hardly be blamed for that.
Everybody suffered grately in WW1. And French had all the time they needed. The problem was that they did not want to fight. The think the way many people still do today: "If we'll be nice, the funny man with the moustache wont attack us. Eventually we'll feed him with Austria... or Bohemia. Or Poland." The Army was directed by generals fighting in the WW1 and the equipment was hardly improved. USA had to save French asses, and now they always use the famous phrase: "If not us, you'd be speaking German today!", which pisses me off, though I'm a strong supporter of american policies.

very quickly.
Stalin knew the Germans were coming
His non-aggresion wasequivalent to chamberlains year of peace.
He signed it as he thought he would get a few years to move industry east where the Germans could not get it.
It was not a way out for Stalin

This non-aggresion pact was way different from chamberlains one:
1) i believe it was secret.
2) It comprised more than just not attacking eachother: Germany and Russia actually divided eastern europe between them.

The designer of the t-34 was probably not purged before the t-34 was complete, as usually whatever they were working on would be stopped. However, it may be true, i don't know. I would bet against it though as the t-34 was one of the most produced tanks in the war, and certainly, on average the best

Everybody suffered grately in WW1. And French had all the time they needed. The problem was that they did not want to fight.
The elite did not want to fight, perhaps they were looking after their own interests, perhaps buying time. But it is a little disrespectful to the common soldier though, they were getting wiped out at a rate of two regiments a day. That doesn't sound much like cowardice, it sounds like they went into battle with the crap 20 year old equipment they were given and got slaughtered.

I would not pour scorn on the French, they suffered more than any other nation during WW1 and had too little time to prepare for the second. They never stood a chance and can hardly be blamed for that.
Everybody suffered grately in WW1. And French had all the time they needed. The problem was that they did not want to fight. The think the way many people still do today: "If we'll be nice, the funny man with the moustache wont attack us. Eventually we'll feed him with Austria... or Bohemia. Or Poland." The Army was directed by generals fighting in the WW1 and the equipment was hardly improved. USA had to save French asses, and now they always use the famous phrase: "If not us, you'd be speaking German today!", which pisses me off, though I'm a strong supporter of american policies.

I think you may confuse the American army of today with that of WWII. Night and day. America emerged out of WWII as a power.. they were isolationists before that. It wasn't until after WWII that they became a real power. WWII would have been won without the Americans.. granted it may of taken longer.. but Russia had more to do with the victory then the US did. That is not to say the Americans didn't put up a grand fight, because they did. America was also not the best trained army in WWII either. However I would never turn my nose up at the help they did provide from 1941 on.... sure they provided supplies before 1941 when they were forced into WWII.. but they were also paid quite well for it.

This non-aggresion pact was way different from chamberlains one:
1) i believe it was secret.
2) It comprised more than just not attacking eachother: Germany and Russia actually divided eastern europe between them.
What sense it would make to keep it in secret. Everybody should know about it, so they would do nothing if Germany invaded one of the minor Allies. The only secret part was about territorial claims. (Carelia, Baltic States, Western Belarussia and Ukraine[at time to Poland] nad Bessarbia[todays Moldavia]- were to be given to USSR. The rest- to Reich).

Who the heck posted those casualty figures? The German one is just flat out wrong, and the numbers seem to be a dodgy mix of civilian and military.

Human casualties.

UK military: 264,000
UK civilian: 92,700
UK total: 356,700

USSR military: 13,700,000
USSR civilian: 7,000,000
USSR total: 20,700,000

USA military: 292,000
USA civilians: 6,000
USA total: 298,000

German/Austria/Sudetenland military: 3,500,000
German/Austria/Sudetenland civilian: 2,760,000
German/Austria/Sudetenland total: 6,260,000

The total number of people killed in the entire War throughout all of the countries as a result of the war was just over 50 million, so the idea that Germany and Russia alone make up those figures is silly, especially compounded with the fact that Russia suffered by far the most casualties.

Russia was extremely important in that it held fast against the blitzkrieg, the only nation to do so, and also faced the brunt of the German military might: but the idea that any one nation won the war - or could have won the war - is ridiculous. After El Alamein, Stalingrad and Kursk, it became apparent that the Allies would win the war - except, of course, the Japanese posed a problem which none of the Allies except America could really curtail. The Americans proved valuable in the East, where the Royal Navy was greatly overstretched. Although arguably, America cutting supplies to Japan after Japan invaded China and the threat of The Pacific Fleet is what caused Japanese to enter the war in the first place. The Americans were also extremely important in that they posed a counterpoint to further USSR expansion in the West.

illich. It would not matter whether the pact was secret to the outside world or not. Hitler and his generals knew about it.
Stalin and his generals knew about it.
Also, it would not matter whether Stalin divided Europe with Germany. He would say whatever it took to postpone Germanies invasion. He wasn't a fool, though he was insane, and knew that Hitler regarded the slavs as sub-human, and so knew an ivasion was inevitable.

Tactical.. you know I always tend to agree with most of what you say. However to undermine the effort of your other allies who were there from day 1, in 1939 to me is simply insulting. Canada was "Lend-Leasing" to you as early as 1940. I think to simply say "three main allies" is insulting.
OK, I am willing to admit that Canada got written out of the history even more than Russia did.

I logged in as Galicia. So that was all me.
The elite did not want to fight, perhaps they were looking after their own interests, perhaps buying time. But it is a little disrespectful to the common soldier though, they were getting wiped out at a rate of two regiments a day. That doesn't sound much like cowardice, it sounds like they went into battle with the crap 20 year old equipment they were given and got slaughtered.
Most of them were taken as PoWs. No wonder- with such equip... Well, they didn't wan't to die for Danzig, they had to die for Paris. :twisted:

Tactical.. you know I always tend to agree with most of what you say. However to undermine the effort of your other allies who were there from day 1, in 1939 to me is simply insulting. Canada was "Lend-Leasing" to you as early as 1940. I think to simply say "three main allies" is insulting.
OK, I am willing to admit that Canada got written out of the history even more than Russia did.

Battle of Britain

About 104 Canadian pilots flew in the Battle of Britain (August-October 1940), some of them in the all-Canadian R.A.F. 242 Squadron and the rest with various squadrons. Their numbers as non-British pilots were second only to the Poles (who were expatriates whose air force had already been destroyed by the Luftwaffe).

On August 30, in a major engagement, 242 Squadron attacked a formation of over 100 Germans and shot down 12. None of the squadron's planes were lost.

The men of No. 1 Squadron RCAF were the first Canadian fighter pilots to arrive in Britain as a unit. They crossed the North Atlantic in ships, with their own Canadian-built Hawker Hurricanes still in wooden crates.

No. 1 Sqn. arrived in England at the height of the Battle of Britain. Their operational training took place virtually between the air battles raging around their base at Croydon. The Squadron (later re-numbered to 401) was swiftly declared "operational" and became the first RCAF unit to engage the enemy when it intercepted German bombers over southern England on August 26th. It shot down three and damaged four, for the loss of one Hurricane.

By mid-October No. 1 Squadron had shot down 31 German planes, with another 43 "probables" or damaged, for a loss of 16 Hurricanes.

Flight-Lieutenant Gordon R. McGregor of No.1 Squadron shot down five German aircraft and won a DFC.

Dieppe

The Dieppe Raid in 1942 was the first large scale attack on Hitler's Fortress Europe, and it was 5000 Canadian troops who made up 85% of the force. The attack had little chance of success from the outset. Only 2000 Canadians returned. 1000 were killed and 2000 were taken prisoner after a single day of fighting.

I could go on and on and on.. Just ask any one from Holland why Canadian history is part of their culture in school. We pretty much single handily freed them as well.

Oh yes, Canadian involvement in the Battle of Britain is certainly well-known here, and anyone who has heard of the commando raid on Dieppe, as I have, is aware of the Canadian contribution, and their extensive participation in the Normandy landings, etc. It's just that the Lend-Lease thing is a bit new to me, the Canadian side of it anyway. America took all the credit, Steph. :wink:

Keeping quiet about who posted the figures.

Oh yes, Canadian involvement in the Battle of Britain is certainly well-known here, and anyone who has heard of the commando raid on Dieppe, as I have, is aware of the Canadian contribution, and their extensive participation in the Normandy landings, etc. It's just that the Lend-Lease thing is a bit new to me, the Canadian side of it anyway. America took all the credit, Steph. :wink:

Haha don't they always? Don't even get me started on the Avro Arrow.. LMAO! ;)

Tactical.. you know I always tend to agree with most of what you say. However to undermine the effort of your other allies who were there from day 1, in 1939 to me is simply insulting. Canada was "Lend-Leasing" to you as early as 1940. I think to simply say "three main allies" is insulting.
OK, I am willing to admit that Canada got written out of the history even more than Russia did.

Can I suggest that we take the "three main allies" to be (in no particular order):

USSR
USA
British Commonwealth

This would then include the contributions made by Canadian, ANZACs forces and so on?

Tactical.. you know I always tend to agree with most of what you say. However to undermine the effort of your other allies who were there from day 1, in 1939 to me is simply insulting. Canada was "Lend-Leasing" to you as early as 1940. I think to simply say "three main allies" is insulting.
OK, I am willing to admit that Canada got written out of the history even more than Russia did.

Can I suggest that we take the "three main allies" to be (in no particular order):

USSR
USA
British Commonwealth

This would then include the contributions made by Canadian, ANZACs forces and so on?

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?

Then the only true "allies" would be the British Commonwealth and the French Empire? (And of course a host of Latin American states which declared war on Germany voluntarily...)

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?

It is something that can frustrate me to no end :(

To have the USA pose as the Great Freedom Fighter when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The USA entered both WW out of self-interest. Not for humanitarian reasons, not out of the nobility of their heart, but because it was what was best for their own pocket, their own power.

And what is even more frustrating is that many USAers are seemingly totally ignorant of this fact. Having bought the image of America the Freedom Fighter as being fact when it is only fiction.

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?

It is something that can frustrate me to no end :(

To have the USA pose as the Great Freedom Fighter when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The USA entered both WW out of self-interest. Not for humanitarian reasons, not out of the nobility of their heart, but because it was what was best for their own pocket, their own power.

And what is even more frustrating is that many USAers are seemingly totally ignorant of this fact. Having bought the image of America the Freedom Fighter as being fact when it is only fiction.

So, Britain and France didn't act to preserve their own power? Of course they did, to say that *only* the USA did is silly. The reason Britain and France joined the war was to prevent a German-dominated continent. Then to say that the USA only joined WW2 because of it wanted to preserve its own power is silly... (We were attacked by Japan and declared war on by Germany).

Wow, this thread really did grow by a lot. I feel like I need to defend my position somewhat.
America was not the most important player in WWII, nor the USSR. Britain, I feel, gets far too much credit for winning WWII. Sure, their troops helped. But until we entered the war, the only thing Britain did was hold fast to a few locations, and let the others fall (Burma, Singapore, and Malaya fell, and the Suez Canal would've eventually gone had it not been for our troops and the Algerians). The British, if you ask me, were ancillary, but not as big of players as the US or USSR.
As for the USSR. It certainly would've taken them longer to win against Germany without Lend-Lease. However, that in itself shouldn't be counted as what helped Russia. What really did was the battle of the Atlantic. The Russians were, in a sense, lucky that they never faced the brunt of the German navy. The decimation of the German Navy in the North Sea was really what Britain was best for, but the real problem was the U-boats. Even before we officially entered the war, U-boats torpedoed our merchant ships. They certainly torpedoed British cargo ships in American waters since 1939. By June 1941, after they managed to sink American destroyers, Roosevelt ordered unrestricted warfare against the subs. This only stiffened their resolve. By 1942, they sank ships along the East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the Carribean, threatening to isolate America from the European theater, and critical supplies. But, the Atlantic Fleet bombed them as they surfaced. The British gave the German navy a less deadly edge by destroying the surface vessels helping U-boats. By 1943, they withdrew from the Atlantic. But had the battle of the Atlantic been won by the Germans, the entire war could've been lost. It goes to show how much supplies were needed.
Of course, I'm not trying to diminish the role of the Russians. I'm just saying that they needed a lot of help in defeating the Germans, and they certainly got help.

Another thing that has been mentioned is if Russia did manage to liberate Europe all by itself. Someone said that their intention to conquer the world was the biggest lie of the 20th century. That's sort of right. They didn't want a global empire. They wanted, however, governments with the upmost loyalty to them. And what better way could they do that than to liberate Europe from the Germans? It was enough to prompt a British invasion of Greece, to make sure they had a toe hold in Eastern Europe. And if Stalin could, he certainly would try and liberate other countries, then install puppet states. Eastern Europe was never really that wealthy, but Germany was. Or what if they got Italy, France, the Netherlands? It's the only way an econmy as centralized as the Soviets can survive long: find more vassal states that swear loyalty to you, and contribute heavily to that country. They may have gotten a little in return, but with all of the communist propaganda and the KGB, it didn't matter. Conquering all of Europe was needed if the USSR wanted to survive into the next century, and Stalin knew it.

It's the past, who cares.

Hardly any of us were even alive.

Another thing that has been mentioned is if Russia did manage to liberate Europe all by itself. Someone said that their intention to conquer the world was the biggest lie of the 20th century. That's sort of right. They didn't want a global empire. They wanted, however, governments with the upmost loyalty to them. And what better way could they do that than to liberate Europe from the Germans?

.....And the Americans were different how?

Tactical.. you know I always tend to agree with most of what you say. However to undermine the effort of your other allies who were there from day 1, in 1939 to me is simply insulting. Canada was "Lend-Leasing" to you as early as 1940. I think to simply say "three main allies" is insulting.
OK, I am willing to admit that Canada got written out of the history even more than Russia did.

Can I suggest that we take the "three main allies" to be (in no particular order):

USSR
USA
British Commonwealth

This would then include the contributions made by Canadian, ANZACs forces and so on?

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?
FDR was the one who wanted America to get into the war, and I think that've been best. Stop Germany from getting too powerful, while at the same time, drawing up a little sphere of influence in Europe. But Congress wouldn't have it. So the most FDR could do was Lend-Lease and such. But then again, we never really aligned ourselves with the Germans or the Japanese during WWII.

Another thing that has been mentioned is if Russia did manage to liberate Europe all by itself. Someone said that their intention to conquer the world was the biggest lie of the 20th century. That's sort of right. They didn't want a global empire. They wanted, however, governments with the upmost loyalty to them. And what better way could they do that than to liberate Europe from the Germans?

.....And the Americans were different how?
Well, Britain was brought into our orbit, but did they have to change governments? Not many of the Western European nations did (with the exception of Germany).

Britain given TOO much credit opposed to the Americans!
LOL!
Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers. That Errol Flynn movie in which the Americans win Burma. The fact that nobody seems to remember that we held Africa whilst you sat around ?
Where would you land in Europe if we were taken?
3000 miles is a little beyond the fuel range of a: all your planes b: landing craft.
Market Garden, the embarrasment operation of Monty, failed for one reason. The colonel with all the attack plans landed in a German held area and was captured. This went unnoticed and so the plans were not changed, meaning Germany deployed perfectly.
Then we have the whole Japanese army focused on you and not half you and half us!
Then....... who would put the spanner in the work of German heavy water production over and over, damaging their nuclear weapon project.
What do the Yanks do? Turn up, attack with crappy Shermans, get bogged down, almost lose it all in the Ardennes, not make it to Berlin until after the Russians, and then say God Bless America We won the war on our own!

No one country won the war!
This has been said so many times, and only the Americans still believe that they played the biggest role.
Russia played the biggest part.
If America had only lend-leased. Russia would have won
This is Americas biggest contribution (Though in NO way do i mean to disrespect American troops.) Russia bore more than the brunt of the invasion. They pretty much bore it all.
German casualties 30 million
Russian casualties 20 million
American about 300,000
British about 300,000
These figures are indisputable

I agree with your argument. It was only the cost of so much sacrifice of Russian people and military that pushed the Germans back to Berlin. Perhaps, it might have been more difficult without American involvement but it would have been impossible for the Americans to defeat germany by themselves.

I would like to retract the first half of the last paragraph. I was just annoyed at another attempt to minimise The British empire and commonwealth forces, and maximise yank involvement. I, once again mean no disrespect to those who fought. Just those who rewrote history.

No one country won the war!
This has been said so many times, and only the Americans still believe that they played the biggest role.
Russia played the biggest part.
If America had only lend-leased. Russia would have won
This is Americas biggest contribution (Though in NO way do i mean to disrespect American troops.) Russia bore more than the brunt of the invasion. They pretty much bore it all.
German casualties 30 million
Russian casualties 20 million
American about 300,000
British about 300,000
These figures are indisputable

I agree with your argument. It was only the cost of so much sacrifice of Russian people and military that pushed the Germans back to Berlin. Perhaps, it might have been more difficult without American involvement but it would have been impossible for the Americans to defeat germany by themselves.
I never said that. What I was trying to say was that it was impossible for the Russians to win without our help. Just like it would be impossible for us to win without Russia's help. We needed eachother to win.

Britain given TOO much credit opposed to the Americans!
LOL!
Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers. That Errol Flynn movie in which the Americans win Burma. The fact that nobody seems to remember that we held Africa whilst you sat around ?
Where would you land in Europe if we were taken?
3000 miles is a little beyond the fuel range of a: all your planes b: landing craft.
Market Garden, the embarrasment operation of Monty, failed for one reason. The colonel with all the attack plans landed in a German held area and was captured. This went unnoticed and so the plans were not changed, meaning Germany deployed perfectly.
Then we have the whole Japanese army focused on you and not half you and half us!
Then....... who would put the spanner in the work of German heavy water production over and over, damaging their nuclear weapon project.
What do the Yanks do? Turn up, attack with crappy Shermans, get bogged down, almost lose it all in the Ardennes, not make it to Berlin until after the Russians, and then say God Bless America We won the war on our own!
It's more than you guys did. Sure, you guys did what you could. But without our help, you guys would've lost the Suez. Of course, it wasn't that big of an objective. If you guys would've allowed a transatlantic invasion, perhaps we'd have gone to Berlin, and forced Hitler to disband his army. But no, you guys wanted to defend the Suez Canal, forgetting that you could still sail around the Cape of Good Hope.
Then, need I mention what you guys lost? France, the Low Countries, Burma, Singapore, Malaya, etc. I understand we lost the Philipines, but that was out of pure stupidity. You guys, on the other hand, had plenty of warning to save the other colonies once Burma fell, especially with India around. Do it? No.

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?

It is something that can frustrate me to no end :(

To have the USA pose as the Great Freedom Fighter when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The USA entered both WW out of self-interest. Not for humanitarian reasons, not out of the nobility of their heart, but because it was what was best for their own pocket, their own power.

And what is even more frustrating is that many USAers are seemingly totally ignorant of this fact. Having bought the image of America the Freedom Fighter as being fact when it is only fiction.

So, Britain and France didn't act to preserve their own power? Of course they did, to say that *only* the USA did is silly. The reason Britain and France joined the war was to prevent a German-dominated continent. Then to say that the USA only joined WW2 because of it wanted to preserve its own power is silly... (We were attacked by Japan and declared war on by Germany).

Canada didn't have to join. Not if we had not wanted to or felt we needed to. The UK could not of forced us to.

and as to France...

France Crumbles

For a full year, from June 1940 when France fell until June 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia, Canada was the second largest power in the struggle against Hitler's Europe.

After the evacuation at Dunkirk and while Paris was enduring its short-lived siege, a Canadian and a Scottish division were sent to Normandy (Brest) and penetrated 200 miles inland toward Paris before they heard that Paris had fallen and France had capitulated. They retreated and re-embarked for England, and that was a good thing. At this stage of the war, the Germans would probably have destroyed them.

At the same time as the Canadian 1st division landed in Brest, the Canadian 242 Squadron (Douglas Bader's squadron) of the RAF flew their Hurricanes to Nantes (100 miles south-east) and set up there to provide air cover.

After the fall of France, the 1st Canadian Division was the only mobile, armed and fully manned ground division in all of the British Isles, and defence against a German invasion might have fallen squarely on it.

Yep, virtually all of Europe had fallen, North Africa was about to be over-run, the roundup of Jews was under way, and Hitler was preparing to break his non-aggression pact and invade and destroy the USSR. The UK, Australia and Canada were the only powers left to deal with it, while America wondered what all the fuss was about.

Of course, this historical oversight has since been corrected. :wink:

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?

It is something that can frustrate me to no end :(

To have the USA pose as the Great Freedom Fighter when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The USA entered both WW out of self-interest. Not for humanitarian reasons, not out of the nobility of their heart, but because it was what was best for their own pocket, their own power.

And what is even more frustrating is that many USAers are seemingly totally ignorant of this fact. Having bought the image of America the Freedom Fighter as being fact when it is only fiction.

So, Britain and France didn't act to preserve their own power? Of course they did, to say that *only* the USA did is silly. The reason Britain and France joined the war was to prevent a German-dominated continent. Then to say that the USA only joined WW2 because of it wanted to preserve its own power is silly... (We were attacked by Japan and declared war on by Germany).

Canada didn't have to join. Not if we had not wanted to or felt we needed to. The UK could not of forced us to.

and as to France...

France Crumbles

For a full year, from June 1940 when France fell until June 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia, Canada was the second largest power in the struggle against Hitler's Europe.

After the evacuation at Dunkirk and while Paris was enduring its short-lived siege, a Canadian and a Scottish division were sent to Normandy (Brest) and penetrated 200 miles inland toward Paris before they heard that Paris had fallen and France had capitulated. They retreated and re-embarked for England, and that was a good thing. At this stage of the war, the Germans would probably have destroyed them.

At the same time as the Canadian 1st division landed in Brest, the Canadian 242 Squadron (Douglas Bader's squadron) of the RAF flew their Hurricanes to Nantes (100 miles south-east) and set up there to provide air cover.

After the fall of France, the 1st Canadian Division was the only mobile, armed and fully manned ground division in all of the British Isles, and defence against a German invasion might have fallen squarely on it.
But it wasn't enough to defend the British Isles. If the RAF failed, and the Germans got to England, they'd wipe the floor of Canadians.

Yep, virtually all of Europe had fallen, North Africa was being over-run, the roundup of Jews was under way, and Hitler was preparing to break his non-aggression pact and invade and destroy the USSR. The UK, Australia and Canada were the only powers left to deal with it, while America wondered what all the fuss was about.

Of course, this historical oversight has since been corrected. :wink:
Like I said, Congress prevented it, but FDR wanted to get into the war. That's why some historians argue that FDR went as far as to invite the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. This idea is silly, of course. Why the hell would he want them to bomb some our most strategic troops? Nevertheless, it was the excuse FDR was looking for.

But it wasn't enough to defend the British Isles. If the RAF failed, and the Germans got to England, they'd wipe the floor of Canadians.
Luckily, recent historical analysis suggests that the Germans didn't have sufficient landing craft for the job, and the Royal Navy would have made the Channel run red with blood anyway.

And then the royal navy comes into things. You cannot argue with the fact that we had 44 fully operational aircraft carriers, which did far more than your navy did at keeping the atlantic more secure.
The RAF won the battle of Britain. I'd like to see your bombing raids doing so well without us ensuring superiority.
And again. The suez canal was vital. cutting thousands of miles off the journey meaning supplies could arrive in weeks rather than months.
Radar. enough said there.
experience. Our troops were by far the superior than yours, just take commandos for example.

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?

It is something that can frustrate me to no end :(

To have the USA pose as the Great Freedom Fighter when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The USA entered both WW out of self-interest. Not for humanitarian reasons, not out of the nobility of their heart, but because it was what was best for their own pocket, their own power.

And what is even more frustrating is that many USAers are seemingly totally ignorant of this fact. Having bought the image of America the Freedom Fighter as being fact when it is only fiction.

So, Britain and France didn't act to preserve their own power?

I never said they didn't....

Of course they did, to say that *only* the USA did is silly. The reason Britain and France joined the war was to prevent a German-dominated continent. Then to say that the USA only joined WW2 because of it wanted to preserve its own power is silly... (We were attacked by Japan and declared war on by Germany).

You missed the point of my post entirely. All I critized is the fact that the USA entered both WW for reasons of self-interest, yet promotes the image of being Freedom Fighters when in fact they only entered both WW when they no longer had no other choice, unlike Canada for example. Not a course of action a true Freedom Fighter would take. In other words: the USA entered the ring when the fight was almost over and next claimed the victory. Never giving proper credit to those who had fought longer and harder than them during those two WW.

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?

It is something that can frustrate me to no end :(

To have the USA pose as the Great Freedom Fighter when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The USA entered both WW out of self-interest. Not for humanitarian reasons, not out of the nobility of their heart, but because it was what was best for their own pocket, their own power.

And what is even more frustrating is that many USAers are seemingly totally ignorant of this fact. Having bought the image of America the Freedom Fighter as being fact when it is only fiction.

So, Britain and France didn't act to preserve their own power? Of course they did, to say that *only* the USA did is silly. The reason Britain and France joined the war was to prevent a German-dominated continent. Then to say that the USA only joined WW2 because of it wanted to preserve its own power is silly... (We were attacked by Japan and declared war on by Germany).

Canada didn't have to join. Not if we had not wanted to or felt we needed to. The UK could not of forced us to.

and as to France...

France Crumbles

For a full year, from June 1940 when France fell until June 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia, Canada was the second largest power in the struggle against Hitler's Europe.

After the evacuation at Dunkirk and while Paris was enduring its short-lived siege, a Canadian and a Scottish division were sent to Normandy (Brest) and penetrated 200 miles inland toward Paris before they heard that Paris had fallen and France had capitulated. They retreated and re-embarked for England, and that was a good thing. At this stage of the war, the Germans would probably have destroyed them.

At the same time as the Canadian 1st division landed in Brest, the Canadian 242 Squadron (Douglas Bader's squadron) of the RAF flew their Hurricanes to Nantes (100 miles south-east) and set up there to provide air cover.

After the fall of France, the 1st Canadian Division was the only mobile, armed and fully manned ground division in all of the British Isles, and defence against a German invasion might have fallen squarely on it.
But it wasn't enough to defend the British Isles. If the RAF failed, and the Germans got to England, they'd wipe the floor of Canadians.

Well, only because of the size of our army.. A Canada of 12 million people put 1.1 million citizens into uniform during WWII. That per capita is more then the Americans sent.. Also the Canadians were a far better trained army.. in fact in WWI, Canada was the best trained army in the world. So there! :P

But it wasn't enough to defend the British Isles. If the RAF failed, and the Germans got to England, they'd wipe the floor of Canadians.
Luckily, recent historical analysis suggests that the Germans didn't have sufficient landing craft for the job, and the Royal Navy would have made the Channel run red with blood anyway.
The Navy would've done a lot. But they did need to periodically go to England to resupply. A few well placed bombs would've ended everything, but that's why the Battle of Britain occured. Not that the Luffwaffe wanted to destroy anything military, though. They seemed so obsessed with the idea that they could win by breaking the people's will. However, a.)that's a little hard to do when it's a democracy threatened by a fascist state, and b.) they were still supporting the military in what ever way they could. So Hitler's plan to invade Britain would've never worked, anyhow. But still, one division on Britain isn't a lot.

And then the royal navy comes into things. You cannot argue with the fact that we had 44 fully operational aircraft carriers, which did far more than your navy did at keeping the atlantic more secure.
44 Carriers? Yes. But you neglect to say what kind of carriers. Most of the "aircraft carriers" in WW2 were small, sometimes only five or six-plane carriers. You should also know that the US Navy, which by the end of the war was larger than every other navy combined, helped tremendously in the Battle of the Atlantic as well.

experience. Our troops were by far the superior than yours, just take commandos for example.
How were British troops far superior to American ones?

And then the royal navy comes into things. You cannot argue with the fact that we had 44 fully operational aircraft carriers, which did far more than your navy did at keeping the atlantic more secure.
The RAF won the battle of Britain. I'd like to see your bombing raids doing so well without us ensuring superiority.
And again. The suez canal was vital. cutting thousands of miles off the journey meaning supplies could arrive in weeks rather than months.
Radar. enough said there.
experience. Our troops were by far the superior than yours, just take commandos for example.
Where would we go if Britain was invaded? Easy, Ireland. There were many ways it wouldn't be a neutral country. I'm sure it would've been glad to join if England wasn't a factor.
And as for our bombers, they had no escort fighters until 1944 (American made, btw). They needed lots of defensive weapons, and they won entire air battles over France.

the USA entered the ring when the fight was almost over and next claimed the victory.
WW2 was far from over when we joined. The three harshest, bloodiest, and heated years were still to come. ('43, '44, '45)

Purly Euclid - Throughout the war, Canada provided training facilities and instruction to airmen from all over the world and in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, graduating 132,000 pilots and aircrew, over half of whom were Canadian.

U.S. president F.D. Roosevelt called Canada "the aerodrome of democracy".

The war would of been won without America!

44 Carriers? Yes. But you neglect to say what kind of carriers. Most of the "aircraft carriers" in WW2 were small, sometimes only five or six-plane carriers. You should also know that the US Navy, which by the end of the war was larger than every other navy combined, helped tremendously in the Battle of the Atlantic as well.
The US carrier fleet operated exclusively in the Pacific theatre. Naval air support over the Atlantic fell mainly to the RAF and the Canadians.

experience. Our troops were by far the superior than yours, just take commandos for example.
How were British troops far superior to American ones?

British commandos were FAR better trained than anything America had just as today the SAS are better trained and disciplined than anything amrica have. Its all in the numbers and money with Americans.

See, not to snub American forces.. there is no doubt that they fought the good fight. But what bugs me a little about it all, is they only became allies by default. I mean, Canada went to war in 1939 because we choose to. We didn't have to. It was the right thing to do. However, the Americans only joined in 1941 because they were forced into it. This has always bothered me. They were forced into it.. and then they took all the credit and all the elite German scientist etc .. this creating the whole space program and took credit for that as well.. I have always had a problem with they way America became an ally to begin with. Is that just me? Or do any other non-Americans think like this?

It is something that can frustrate me to no end :(

To have the USA pose as the Great Freedom Fighter when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The USA entered both WW out of self-interest. Not for humanitarian reasons, not out of the nobility of their heart, but because it was what was best for their own pocket, their own power.

And what is even more frustrating is that many USAers are seemingly totally ignorant of this fact. Having bought the image of America the Freedom Fighter as being fact when it is only fiction.

So, Britain and France didn't act to preserve their own power? Of course they did, to say that *only* the USA did is silly. The reason Britain and France joined the war was to prevent a German-dominated continent. Then to say that the USA only joined WW2 because of it wanted to preserve its own power is silly... (We were attacked by Japan and declared war on by Germany).

Canada didn't have to join. Not if we had not wanted to or felt we needed to. The UK could not of forced us to.

and as to France...

France Crumbles

For a full year, from June 1940 when France fell until June 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia, Canada was the second largest power in the struggle against Hitler's Europe.

After the evacuation at Dunkirk and while Paris was enduring its short-lived siege, a Canadian and a Scottish division were sent to Normandy (Brest) and penetrated 200 miles inland toward Paris before they heard that Paris had fallen and France had capitulated. They retreated and re-embarked for England, and that was a good thing. At this stage of the war, the Germans would probably have destroyed them.

At the same time as the Canadian 1st division landed in Brest, the Canadian 242 Squadron (Douglas Bader's squadron) of the RAF flew their Hurricanes to Nantes (100 miles south-east) and set up there to provide air cover.

After the fall of France, the 1st Canadian Division was the only mobile, armed and fully manned ground division in all of the British Isles, and defence against a German invasion might have fallen squarely on it.
But it wasn't enough to defend the British Isles. If the RAF failed, and the Germans got to England, they'd wipe the floor of Canadians.

Well, only because of the size of our army.. A Canada of 12 million people put 1.1 million citizens into uniform during WWII. That per capita is more then the Americans sent.. Also the Canadians were a far better trained army.. in fact in WWI, Canada was the best trained army in the world. So there! :P
Well, arguably, Canada had a younger population, and was not as tied up in the Pacific. As for the best trained army in the world at the time, I don't doubt you there. I admit we did win by sheer numbers (and some equipment superior to the Germans). But you can't blame us: our military went from one million to a total of 16 million in a few years. But the fact that such a large army could be put in the field, so quickly, is rather baffling to me. Then consider the fact that we were able to give away supplies. It helped Russia especially win the war.

As far as I know into Russian history.

Mikhail Khordovsky

Anyone know who that is?

44 Carriers? Yes. But you neglect to say what kind of carriers. Most of the "aircraft carriers" in WW2 were small, sometimes only five or six-plane carriers. You should also know that the US Navy, which by the end of the war was larger than every other navy combined, helped tremendously in the Battle of the Atlantic as well.
The US carrier fleet operated exclusively in the Pacific theatre. Naval air support over the Atlantic fell mainly to the RAF and the Canadians.

In 1943 Canada took over naval control of the north-west Atlantic, and by war's end, 80% of the convoys across the North Atlantic were protected by Canadian escort vessels.

The Royal Canadian Navy operated 373 mostly Canadian-built escort vessels on convoy duty in the North Atlantic, CORVETTES and destroyers for the most part, and sank 27 U-Boats. (Canadian aircraft sank another 25.)

experience. Our troops were by far the superior than yours, just take commandos for example.
How were British troops far superior to American ones?

British commandos were FAR better trained than anything America had just as today the SAS are better trained and disciplined than anything amrica have. Its all in the numbers and money with Americans.

Its argueable that SAS is better than Delta Force, but thats besides the point. He said that British troops in general were superior to Americans, and pointed to commandoes as an *example*. Commandos are a very small portion of the entire fighting force.

Purly Euclid - Throughout the war, Canada provided training facilities and instruction to airmen from all over the world and in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, graduating 132,000 pilots and aircrew, over half of whom were Canadian.

U.S. president F.D. Roosevelt called Canada "the aerodrome of democracy".

The war would of been won without America!
Perhaps. But it would've taken a long, long, long time. And if we never got involved, the Japanese would've definitly got more involved. They'd have put a stranglehold on China, and pretty much conquer it. They'd have also defeated the rather poorly equipped Russian armies near Manchuria, allowing Hitler more flexibility in taking Russia. Perhaps the war could have been won without us, but it'd take a long, long, long time.

Just an interesting fact 100,000 Russian women actively served in the soviet Military during WWII.

As far as I know into Russian history.

Mikhail Khordovsky

Anyone know who that is?

experience. Our troops were by far the superior than yours, just take commandos for example.
How were British troops far superior to American ones?

British commandos were FAR better trained than anything America had just as today the SAS are better trained and disciplined than anything amrica have. Its all in the numbers and money with Americans.

Its argueable that SAS is better than Delta Force, but thats besides the point. He said that British troops in general were superior to Americans, and pointed to commandoes as an *example*. Commandos are a very small portion of the entire fighting force.

Very true. Im just arguing that the SAS rule. Which they do.

Then consider the fact that we were able to give away supplies. It helped Russia especially win the war.

I guess you missed my post earlier in the thread, so I'll re-post it..

Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain's chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain.

You were saying?

You would be pushed off of Ireland by the Germans.
Spitfire! The best fighter of ww2 (maybe exceptin me262 and il2)
The British sunk the flagship of the Italian fleet with Bi-planes
The Germans had a large interest in Ireland. If Britain was German (the only way it would be given up) you would be bombed day and night with no radar or spitfires to help you.
Aircraft carriers may have been small, but the Americans only had a few very large aircraft carriers too, don't pretend that you only had huge ships. Anyway, our navy was better simply due to the fact that we have had 300+ years experienceat the ol' sailing lark
And finally, why would ireland join?
People from the British isles were considered equal to Hitlers aryans.
Ireland was not bombed as i recall, si why would the volunteer to be destroyed by the luftwaffe? Because, believe this or not, Luftwaffe pilots were flying since at least 1939, so were better than American fighters, then consider the overall quality of the me109 and fw 190 (though the 190 was later)

Then consider the fact that we were able to give away supplies. It helped Russia especially win the war.

I guess you missed my post earlier in the thread, so I'll re-post it..

Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain's chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain.

You were saying?
Canada did have a lend lease program that shouldn't be overlooked. However, the Canadians just didn't supply as much, and did not have the capacity to link every singal war theater without American help. Your statistic, btw, about 80% of trans Atlantic escorts were Canadian? That was because by the end of the war, there really wasn't a need for escort, and we could divert more naval resources to the Pacific as the U-boats weren't threatening our own shipping.

I am a slav myself. Russia did play a crucial point in the war. However America and British troops fought equally brave. Also Hitler killed 18 million russian citizens so that left 7 million troops that were killed. But due to stalins poor planing at the beging of the war and his purges that left a bunch of his troops dead. Also I hate to say this but we had other allies to. We had the french and greek rebels. We also had Marshal Tito fighting Ante Pavilck's forces (who was a pupet to the Nazi's) and Hitlers forces. So Hitler made to maney enemy's and at the end that led to his downfall. So it was not just one group or one country that took him down but it was a varity of nations that banded together to take down the greater evil.

Then consider the fact that we were able to give away supplies. It helped Russia especially win the war.

I guess you missed my post earlier in the thread, so I'll re-post it..

Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain's chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain.

You were saying?
Canada did have a lend lease program that shouldn't be overlooked. However, the Canadians just didn't supply as much, and did not have the capacity to link every singal war theater without American help. Your statistic, btw, about 80% of trans Atlantic escorts were Canadian? That was because by the end of the war, there really wasn't a need for escort, and we could divert more naval resources to the Pacific as the U-boats weren't threatening our own shipping.

Oh Please! No, we were just doing it for fun.. LOL.. be real!

Better-known are Canada's destroyers and corvettes, but small, fast attack boats were also important. Canada had motor torpedo boats (MTB's) and motor gun boats (MGB's) in the English Channel. They fought German E-boats (torpedo boats) and flak ships, disrupted enemy coastal convoys, cleared mines, and landed supplies for agents on German-occupied islands.

Canadian MTB's and MGB's also operated off Tunisia and Sicily in 1943, and along the Italian coast in 1944. Some of the best-known Canadian captains fought in the Adriatic and the Ionian and Aegean seas. The most famous captain, Tommy Fuller, became known as "THE PIRATE OF THE ADRIATIC".

The argument could be made that in the European theatre, having vastly more combat experience than the Americans, the British troops were of higher quality.

You would be pushed off of Ireland by the Germans.
Spitfire! The best fighter of ww2 (maybe exceptin me262 and il2)
The British sunk the flagship of the Italian fleet with Bi-planes
The Germans had a large interest in Ireland. If Britain was German (the only way it would be given up) you would be bombed day and night with no radar or spitfires to help you.
Aircraft carriers may have been small, but the Americans only had a few very large aircraft carriers too, don't pretend that you only had huge ships. Anyway, our navy was better simply due to the fact that we have had 300+ years experienceat the ol' sailing lark
And finally, why would ireland join?
People from the British isles were considered equal to Hitlers aryans.
Ireland was not bombed as i recall, si why would the volunteer to be destroyed by the luftwaffe? Because, believe this or not, Luftwaffe pilots were flying since at least 1939, so were better than American fighters, then consider the overall quality of the me109 and fw 190 (though the 190 was later)
I never said American ships were bigger. The thing was, however, was that they were in the Pacific. Don't pretend Britain singlehandedly won back the East, too.
And we also had radar. In fact, it was used in Pearl Harbor and detected the Japanese planes. The only reason why action wasn't taken was because the radar operator thought it was US bombers arriving from the mainland.
The Italian Navy was easy to defeat. In fact, everything Italian was easy to defeat. The only thing Italian that was hard to get was Italy, and that was because of the Germans. BTW, Americans did do most of the fighting in Italy, which did help divert troops from Russia.
As for Ireland. Why would it join? Well, it was always afraid of a British Invasion. So if worse came to worse, we could've invaded Ireland, demanded to use its southern and eastern ports, then invade England, and then France. It was possible.

I think the US could have defeated, or atleast stop the German advances all on thier own, the US' manufacturing capabilities was vastly superior to Germany's. And the US had a larger Naval fleet and Air Force (Army Air Corps, Naval Aviation, Marine Air Corps), we also had a higher population, and as the battle between Hitler and Stralin proved a higher population means everything in a war of attrition. The Soviet Union definitely helped but I dont think they saved Europe all on their own. In fact, the single most decisive factor leading to the downfall of Germany was Hitler's own incompetence that saved Europe. When German troops were advancing on Moscow Hitler orderd them to turn around and surround 300,000 Russian troops, the 3 week delay gave the Soviets enough time to set up defenses around Moscow and prevent the defeat of the Soviet Union.

Firstly, I salute the canadian war effort. I was unaware how significant it was until now. Secondly, Purley, how can you attempt to minimise all other countries involvement except your own?
You are one of the only people i have ever met to say the U.S should be given more credit for the war. When it was mentioned that canada provided 80% of air cover over the atlantic, which is an incredible statistic for a country that was 10 or 20 years independant, you say that it was uneeded anyway, as the fighting was over the pacific. Do you think that the canadians would not have gotten involved in the pacific if they could?
Remember. The canadians would probably never been invaded by either Japan or Germany, so it was a selfless action on their behalf.
Don't belittle them.

Then consider the fact that we were able to give away supplies. It helped Russia especially win the war.

I guess you missed my post earlier in the thread, so I'll re-post it..

Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain's chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain.

You were saying?
Canada did have a lend lease program that shouldn't be overlooked. However, the Canadians just didn't supply as much, and did not have the capacity to link every singal war theater without American help. Your statistic, btw, about 80% of trans Atlantic escorts were Canadian? That was because by the end of the war, there really wasn't a need for escort, and we could divert more naval resources to the Pacific as the U-boats weren't threatening our own shipping.

Oh Please! No, we were just doing it for fun.. LOL.. be real!

Better-known are Canada's destroyers and corvettes, but small, fast attack boats were also important. Canada had motor torpedo boats (MTB's) and motor gun boats (MGB's) in the English Channel. They fought German E-boats (torpedo boats) and flak ships, disrupted enemy coastal convoys, cleared mines, and landed supplies for agents on German-occupied islands.

Canadian MTB's and MGB's also operated off Tunisia and Sicily in 1943, and along the Italian coast in 1944. Some of the best-known Canadian captains fought in the Adriatic and the Ionian and Aegean seas. The most famous captain, Tommy Fuller, became known as "THE PIRATE OF THE ADRIATIC".
The dates you given are after 1943, when the German Navy in the Atlantic was finished. We went on fighting the other war. You remember, that other war no one likes talking about, because the British, Canadians, etc, didn't have as big of a role.

it was the russian cold that destroyed germany - it would have been a different story if germany hadn't invaded russia

Another salute should be given to the Maltese, who, with little aid, defended against the Luftwaffe with bi-planes. Them, and the Canadians are the unsong heroes of the second world war. Don't act so victimised Purly, its not impressing anybody.

Firstly, I salute the canadian war effort. I was unaware how significant it was until now. Secondly, Purley, how can you attempt to minimise all other countries involvement except your own?
You are one of the only people i have ever met to say the U.S should be given more credit for the war. When it was mentioned that canada provided 80% of air cover over the atlantic, which is an incredible statistic for a country that was 10 or 20 years independant, you say that it was uneeded anyway, as the fighting was over the pacific. Do you think that the canadians would not have gotten involved in the pacific if they could?
Remember. The canadians would probably never been invaded by either Japan or Germany, so it was a selfless action on their behalf.
Don't belittle them.
I'm not saying we need more credit. I'm saying Britain needs less credit. The US and Russia need the most credit (and I feel China was also pretty important). The British helped, and was mostly an ancillary role, which the war effort did need. However, it was mostly ancillary.
As for the Canadians providing escorts, again, this was after the U-boats withdrew. They probably had the same number of ships afloat throughout the war. But once the Battle of the Atlantic was won, most of the ships went to the Pacific. And I find it uneccessary for the Canadians to provide so much aircover. Do you know how incredibally close to the US U-boats got? One penetrated into New York harbor. We needed air cover.

You would be pushed off of Ireland by the Germans.
Spitfire! The best fighter of ww2 (maybe exceptin me262 and il2)
The British sunk the flagship of the Italian fleet with Bi-planes
The Germans had a large interest in Ireland. If Britain was German (the only way it would be given up) you would be bombed day and night with no radar or spitfires to help you.
Aircraft carriers may have been small, but the Americans only had a few very large aircraft carriers too, don't pretend that you only had huge ships. Anyway, our navy was better simply due to the fact that we have had 300+ years experienceat the ol' sailing lark
And finally, why would ireland join?
People from the British isles were considered equal to Hitlers aryans.
Ireland was not bombed as i recall, si why would the volunteer to be destroyed by the luftwaffe? Because, believe this or not, Luftwaffe pilots were flying since at least 1939, so were better than American fighters, then consider the overall quality of the me109 and fw 190 (though the 190 was later)
I never said American ships were bigger. The thing was, however, was that they were in the Pacific. Don't pretend Britain singlehandedly won back the East, too.
And we also had radar. In fact, it was used in Pearl Harbor and detected the Japanese planes. The only reason why action wasn't taken was because the radar operator thought it was US bombers arriving from the mainland.
The Italian Navy was easy to defeat. In fact, everything Italian was easy to defeat. The only thing Italian that was hard to get was Italy, and that was because of the Germans. BTW, Americans did do most of the fighting in Italy, which did help divert troops from Russia.
As for Ireland. Why would it join? Well, it was always afraid of a British Invasion. So if worse came to worse, we could've invaded Ireland, demanded to use its southern and eastern ports, then invade England, and then France. It was possible.

Let's just be honest about it here.. America was a great fighting force.. I don't think any one can argue that. They went from not much at all to a world power by the end of the war. Once they finally were forced into actually helping that is in 1941. The rest of us were in it from 1939.. that's two full years before America decided to show up because they HAD to. It's not like America was doing Europe any favours. They had been attacked and Germany declared war on them, they had no choice. I bet the rest of us might of ended the same way the Americans did had we not been fighting two whole years longer then them. It's easy to show up half way through a war.. while both sides have been beaten down.. then get a fresh army and get an up-swing.. win and take credit for it all.

America didn't win WWII. In fact.. they didn't fight nearly as much as the rest of us. Two years is a long time when you're at war!

You would be pushed off of Ireland by the Germans.
Spitfire! The best fighter of ww2 (maybe exceptin me262 and il2)
The British sunk the flagship of the Italian fleet with Bi-planes
The Germans had a large interest in Ireland. If Britain was German (the only way it would be given up) you would be bombed day and night with no radar or spitfires to help you.
Aircraft carriers may have been small, but the Americans only had a few very large aircraft carriers too, don't pretend that you only had huge ships. Anyway, our navy was better simply due to the fact that we have had 300+ years experienceat the ol' sailing lark
And finally, why would ireland join?
People from the British isles were considered equal to Hitlers aryans.
Ireland was not bombed as i recall, si why would the volunteer to be destroyed by the luftwaffe? Because, believe this or not, Luftwaffe pilots were flying since at least 1939, so were better than American fighters, then consider the overall quality of the me109 and fw 190 (though the 190 was later)
I never said American ships were bigger. The thing was, however, was that they were in the Pacific. Don't pretend Britain singlehandedly won back the East, too.
And we also had radar. In fact, it was used in Pearl Harbor and detected the Japanese planes. The only reason why action wasn't taken was because the radar operator thought it was US bombers arriving from the mainland.
The Italian Navy was easy to defeat. In fact, everything Italian was easy to defeat. The only thing Italian that was hard to get was Italy, and that was because of the Germans. BTW, Americans did do most of the fighting in Italy, which did help divert troops from Russia.
As for Ireland. Why would it join? Well, it was always afraid of a British Invasion. So if worse came to worse, we could've invaded Ireland, demanded to use its southern and eastern ports, then invade England, and then France. It was possible.

Let's just be honest about it here.. America was a great fighting force.. I don't think any one can argue that. They went from not much at all to a world power by the end of the war. Once they finally were forced into actually helping that is in 1941. The rest of us were in it from 1939.. that's a two full years before America decided to show up because they HAD to. It's not like America was doing Europe any favours. They had been attacked and Germany declared war on them, they had no choice. I bet the rest of us might of ended the same way the Americans did had we not been fighting two whole years longer then them. It's easy to show up half way through a war.. while both sides have been beaten down.. then get a fresh army and get an up-swing.. win and take credit for it all.

America didn't win WWII. In fact.. they didn't fight nearly as much as the rest of us. Two years is a long time when you're at war!
A lot of people get into wars later. The French only got a fighting force they pledged for America during the last few battles of the American Revolution, yet it was helpful. It took much longer than two years.
We also didn't win the war by ourselves. My original post was to demonstrate that our Lend Lease program, combined with our ability to connect each war theater to eachother, was a very big part in winning the war. Perhaps we didn't win the European war militarily, but let's face it, without our supplies, where the hell would Russia be?
It also happened in China. It was an American general who oversaw the construction of the Burma road, through rain, disease, and enemy attacks. Until then, the 14th air force was the primary way of getting supplies into China, by flying "over the hump" , the Himilayas. 140 pilots died due to bad weather and the extreme cold.
That had to happen in Russia as well. Quite a few supplies came in through Iran, as I said. But some US cargo ships needed to go to Murmansk, especially dangerous because the U-boat fleet gave that area top priority. Now we can go back and forth about who contributed what to those incoming ships. The point is, though, that the US had those ships in there.

Actually,
russia was the one that won the european war
and America was the one that won the Pacific war.

Country Military Strength KIA/MIA WIA POW Civilian Casualties
Canada 1,100,000 39,300 53,200 9,000(no numbers for civilians lost)
France 4,000,000 122,000 335,000 1,456,500 470,000
Germany 17,900,000 3,250,000 4,606,000 7,856,600 2,350,000
Poland 1,490,000 70,800 146,700 787,000 5,300,000
UK 5,896,000 305,800 277,100 172,600 146,800
USA 16,354,000 405,400 670,800 139,700(no numbers for civilians lost)
USSR 30,000,000 11,000,000 6,000,000 6,700,000(no numbers for WIA)


Now this debate is rather pointless. The US provided many of the Destroyers the Brits used in WWII under lend lease. Those destroyers didnt materialize overnight. The defense of the Atlantic was a joint thing as well, US PBY Planes helped to scower the North Atlantic for U-boats just as much as Canadian ships helped to defend convoys going overseas(they had to. The USN was pretty much fighting a life or death battle with the IJN until mid-43 early 43) The only US Carrier which fought in the Atlantic was the CV-6 the USS Ranger which as record show is the only carrier which provided and CAS(close air support) during the entirety of the war in the Atlantic.

Russia, was poorly equiped, and would have ended up fighting a war on two fronts. I'm pretty sure the Japanese knew they could kick the Russians asses like they did in 1906. The only thing that really stopped them was the fact the Japanese knew they would have to deal with the US first in order to continue getting shipments of raw matierals(shipments havent been cut off sometime before Pearl Harbor in response to the Jap-China war).US Forces fought most of the battles with help from ANZAC every now and then, however the Pacific was a decidedly American theater. This isnt meant to devalue what ANZAC forces did, however in a majority of the Pacific Islands, and Naval Battles ANZAC played a secondary role.

Shermans are not bad tanks. They arent even tanks. They are infantry supports weapons. They were just lumped into the same class as tanks by many overlooking what US Army doctrine was at the time. The M4 Sherman tank had a 75mm gun, not designed to take on other tanks but designed to support infantry in the field. In contrast the US fielded really good tank destroyers in the war, and those TDs should be considered the real US Tanks in the war. The M18 Hellcat and the M36 Tank Destroyers were far superior than the Sherman in terms of Anti-Tank abilities as compared to the Sherman.

Now the thing with the RN having 44 carriers at the end of the war...yeah...about 6-7 of those were Fleet Carriers...and even then none of them held a candle to the USN Essex Class, which by the end of the war numbered 22 in all. And thats only class of fleet carrier, if you total up all the Fleet Carriers you have nearly 30 and this is still not including US Jeep Carriers(which most of the RN consisted of). So when you say the RN had 44 carriers at the end of the war, if you combined them all together, they'd only be a fraction of what the USN Fielded. If that.

Canada went in willingly? Yeah right...sure, this is like Puerto Rico telling the US to go to hell whenever the US goes to war. Britian was still an Empire, and Canada was and still is part of the British Empire(no one calls it an empire cause it isnt PC. That and the fact, that many nations choose to call themselves Commonwealths,even though none of them acknowledge the power of the Monarchy anymore.) We were forced into it, yes, but only because when we tried to join the world stage after WWI, we were treated rather poorly by the French at the Versallis conference. Everyone knows we have the French to blame for WWII. Wilsons Fourteen Points may have been idealistic, but it would have probably kept the peace a hell of a lot better than the harsh conditons which were imposed by France willingly, and semi-reluctantly by the British.

The British PM at the time when asked about the conference said "For most of the time I was sitting between Jesus(Wilson who was devoutly religious) and Napolean(take a guess). The French were devestated by WWI...boohoo..the Germans were worse off and managed to build the most effective, well trained army of the war..(The Canadian mantra of being welltrained is BS. Commandos do not make up the majority of ones forces, and if you want to say they do, then fine, I'll put up those Commandos against a HIGHLY overlooked military unit, the Marine Raiders of WWII.)

You would be pushed off of Ireland by the Germans.
Spitfire! The best fighter of ww2 (maybe exceptin me262 and il2)
The British sunk the flagship of the Italian fleet with Bi-planes
The Germans had a large interest in Ireland. If Britain was German (the only way it would be given up) you would be bombed day and night with no radar or spitfires to help you.
Aircraft carriers may have been small, but the Americans only had a few very large aircraft carriers too, don't pretend that you only had huge ships. Anyway, our navy was better simply due to the fact that we have had 300+ years experienceat the ol' sailing lark
And finally, why would ireland join?
People from the British isles were considered equal to Hitlers aryans.
Ireland was not bombed as i recall, si why would the volunteer to be destroyed by the luftwaffe? Because, believe this or not, Luftwaffe pilots were flying since at least 1939, so were better than American fighters, then consider the overall quality of the me109 and fw 190 (though the 190 was later)
I never said American ships were bigger. The thing was, however, was that they were in the Pacific. Don't pretend Britain singlehandedly won back the East, too.
And we also had radar. In fact, it was used in Pearl Harbor and detected the Japanese planes. The only reason why action wasn't taken was because the radar operator thought it was US bombers arriving from the mainland.
The Italian Navy was easy to defeat. In fact, everything Italian was easy to defeat. The only thing Italian that was hard to get was Italy, and that was because of the Germans. BTW, Americans did do most of the fighting in Italy, which did help divert troops from Russia.
As for Ireland. Why would it join? Well, it was always afraid of a British Invasion. So if worse came to worse, we could've invaded Ireland, demanded to use its southern and eastern ports, then invade England, and then France. It was possible.

Let's just be honest about it here.. America was a great fighting force.. I don't think any one can argue that. They went from not much at all to a world power by the end of the war. Once they finally were forced into actually helping that is in 1941. The rest of us were in it from 1939.. that's a two full years before America decided to show up because they HAD to. It's not like America was doing Europe any favours. They had been attacked and Germany declared war on them, they had no choice. I bet the rest of us might of ended the same way the Americans did had we not been fighting two whole years longer then them. It's easy to show up half way through a war.. while both sides have been beaten down.. then get a fresh army and get an up-swing.. win and take credit for it all.

America didn't win WWII. In fact.. they didn't fight nearly as much as the rest of us. Two years is a long time when you're at war!
A lot of people get into wars later. The French only got a fighting force they pledged for America during the last few battles of the American Revolution, yet it was helpful. It took much longer than two years.
We also didn't win the war by ourselves. My original post was to demonstrate that our Lend Lease program, combined with our ability to connect each war theater to eachother, was a very big part in winning the war. Perhaps we didn't win the European war militarily, but let's face it, without our supplies, where the hell would Russia be?
It also happened in China. It was an American general who oversaw the construction of the Burma road, through rain, disease, and enemy attacks. Until then, the 14th air force was the primary way of getting supplies into China, by flying "over the hump" , the Himilayas. 140 pilots died due to bad weather and the extreme cold.
That had to happen in Russia as well. Quite a few supplies came in through Iran, as I said. But some US cargo ships needed to go to Murmansk, especially dangerous because the U-boat fleet gave that area top priority. Now we can go back and forth about who contributed what to those incoming ships. The point is, though, that the US had those ships in there.

Well gee, by your rational I guess I could claim that without Canada it would of taken a lot longer to win the war.. given we did basically the exact same things you did on a smaller scale.. but still a large amount and long before you did any thing at all. However, I'm not so arrogant as to think that. You see I know history quite well. I know that it was a united effort. That every country large and small that sent their men and women off to die are equally deserving of the title of "victor" I don't believe in saying things like "If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German".. because I wouldn't be so arrogant nor would it be true. Yes, we all admit America played a role in WWII.. so did every single nation practically on earth with the exception of a few. So, we all won. We all put in and we all walked away with massive loss for each of our countries. To say any thing else truly disrespects the men and women of countries we fail to mention who fought and died just as much as any American, Canadian, Brit, Russian.. WWII was a horribly thing .. it happened..

Lest We Forget! Never again, we swore.. and look at what America is trying to do to the world today. Perhaps this discussion should be a reminder of where we all have been.. and where we should never go again!

I'm out.

Peace!

Country Military Strength KIA/MIA WIA POW Civilian Casualties
Canada 1,100,000 39,300 53,200 9,000(no numbers for civilians lost)
France 4,000,000 122,000 335,000 1,456,500 470,000
Germany 17,900,000 3,250,000 4,606,000 7,856,600 2,350,000
Poland 1,490,000 70,800 146,700 787,000 5,300,000
UK 5,896,000 305,800 277,100 172,600 146,800
USA 16,354,000 405,400 670,800 139,700(no numbers for civilians lost)
USSR 30,000,000 11,000,000 6,000,000 6,700,000(no numbers for WIA)


Now this debate is rather pointless. The US provided many of the Destroyers the Brits used in WWII under lend lease. Those destroyers didnt materialize overnight. The defense of the Atlantic was a joint thing as well, US PBY Planes helped to scower the North Atlantic for U-boats just as much as Canadian ships helped to defend convoys going overseas(they had to. The USN was pretty much fighting a life or death battle with the IJN until mid-43 early 43) The only US Carrier which fought in the Atlantic was the CV-6 the USS Ranger which as record show is the only carrier which provided and CAS(close air support) during the entirety of the war in the Atlantic.

Russia, was poorly equiped, and would have ended up fighting a war on two fronts. I'm pretty sure the Japanese knew they could kick the Russians asses like they did in 1906. The only thing that really stopped them was the fact the Japanese knew they would have to deal with the US first in order to continue getting shipments of raw matierals(shipments havent been cut off sometime before Pearl Harbor in response to the Jap-China war).US Forces fought most of the battles with help from ANZAC every now and then, however the Pacific was a decidedly American theater. This isnt meant to devalue what ANZAC forces did, however in a majority of the Pacific Islands, and Naval Battles ANZAC played a secondary role.

Shermans are not bad tanks. They arent even tanks. They are infantry supports weapons. They were just lumped into the same class as tanks by many overlooking what US Army doctrine was at the time. The M4 Sherman tank had a 75mm gun, not designed to take on other tanks but designed to support infantry in the field. In contrast the US fielded really good tank destroyers in the war, and those TDs should be considered the real US Tanks in the war. The M18 Hellcat and the M36 Tank Destroyers were far superior than the Sherman in terms of Anti-Tank abilities as compared to the Sherman.

Now the thing with the RN having 44 carriers at the end of the war...yeah...about 6-7 of those were Fleet Carriers...and even then none of them held a candle to the USN Essex Class, which by the end of the war numbered 22 in all. And thats only class of fleet carrier, if you total up all the Fleet Carriers you have nearly 30 and this is still not including US Jeep Carriers(which most of the RN consisted of). So when you say the RN had 44 carriers at the end of the war, if you combined them all together, they'd only be a fraction of what the USN Fielded. If that.

Canada went in willingly? Yeah right...sure, this is like Puerto Rico telling the US to go to hell whenever the US goes to war. Britian was still an Empire, and Canada was and still is part of the British Empire(no one calls it an empire cause it isnt PC. That and the fact, that many nations choose to call themselves Commonwealths,even though none of them acknowledge the power of the Monarchy anymore.) We were forced into it, yes, but only because when we tried to join the world stage after WWI, we were treated rather poorly by the French at the Versallis conference. Everyone knows we have the French to blame for WWII. Wilsons Fourteen Points may have been idealistic, but it would have probably kept the peace a hell of a lot better than the harsh conditons which were imposed by France willingly, and semi-reluctantly by the British.

The British PM at the time when asked about the conference said "For most of the time I was sitting between Jesus(Wilson who was devoutly religious) and Napolean(take a guess). The French were devestated by WWI...boohoo..the Germans were worse off and managed to build the most effective, well trained army of the war..(The Canadian mantra of being welltrained is BS. Commandos do not make up the majority of ones forces, and if you want to say they do, then fine, I'll put up those Commandos against a HIGHLY overlooked military unit, the Marine Raiders of WWII.)
This augments my point, that the Americans were suppliers to the Russians.

even the m36 was crap compared to a jagdtiger, king tiger, jagdpanther elefant tiger so don't try to tell me that any western and australian allied armoured unit could stand up to a german one in a straight off fight.

even the m36 was crap compared to a jagdtiger, king tiger, jagdpanther elefant tiger so don't try to tell me that any western and australian allied armoured unit could stand up to a german one in a straight off fight.

The M36 scored the first recorded kill on aJadgtiger,on the Western front, outside of Rimling. So sod off, and get your facts straight.

A slight twist in history alert.
If either Russia or Britain was prepared for the war, we would have mopped the floor with Germany.
Decadence is to blame for such a bloody war.
That, and the French, lol
But i do remember a quote for de Gaulle that said if churchill gave de gaulle the landing craft, he would beat the Nazi army with the free french. :lol:

Why are you laughing at the Free French? They were some of the best soldiers in the world at the time, and they fought the Germans knowing that if they were caught, they'd be executed. They took Monte Cassino when both the Americans and the Brits failed, and they stormed one of the so-called "British beaches" at Normandy. They were the first into Paris, they liberated Alsace, and in one battle in Syria, they beat the British. Baddass.

A slight twist in history alert.
If either Russia or Britain was prepared for the war, we would have mopped the floor with Germany.
Decadence is to blame for such a bloody war.
That, and the French, lol
But i do remember a quote for de Gaulle that said if churchill gave de gaulle the landing craft, he would beat the Nazi army with the free french. :lol:

Why are you laughing at the Free French? They were some of the best soldiers in the world at the time, and they fought the Germans knowing that if they were caught, they'd be executed. They took Monte Cassino when both the Americans and the Brits failed, and they stormed one of the so-called "British beaches" at Normandy. They were the first into Paris, they liberated Alsace, and in one battle in Syria, they beat the British. Badass.

A slight twist in history alert.
If either Russia or Britain was prepared for the war, we would have mopped the floor with Germany.
Decadence is to blame for such a bloody war.
That, and the French, lol
But i do remember a quote for de Gaulle that said if churchill gave de gaulle the landing craft, he would beat the Nazi army with the free french. :lol:

Why are you laughing at the Free French? They were some of the best soldiers in the world at the time, and they fought the Germans knowing that if they were caught, they'd be executed. They took Monte Cassino when both the Americans and the Brits failed, and they stormed one of the so-called "British beaches" at Normandy. They were the first into Paris, they liberated Alsace, and in one battle in Syria, they beat the British. Baddass.

The were first into Paris because they were allowed by Allied command. Much like the US allowed the Kuwaitis to be the first to enter Kuwait City in the first Gulf War. And much like allied command didnt protest the Russians being first into Berlin. It was a symbolic gesture to shut de Gaulle up. Because NO ONE on the allied side liked de Gaulle much to stand him for to long. So to shut him up, they allowed him to be first into Paris.

A slight twist in history alert.
If either Russia or Britain was prepared for the war, we would have mopped the floor with Germany.
Decadence is to blame for such a bloody war.
That, and the French, lol
But i do remember a quote for de Gaulle that said if churchill gave de gaulle the landing craft, he would beat the Nazi army with the free french. :lol:

Why are you laughing at the Free French? They were some of the best soldiers in the world at the time, and they fought the Germans knowing that if they were caught, they'd be executed. They took Monte Cassino when both the Americans and the Brits failed, and they stormed one of the so-called "British beaches" at Normandy. They were the first into Paris, they liberated Alsace, and in one battle in Syria, they beat the British. Baddass.

The were first into Paris because they were allowed by Allied command. Much like the US allowed the Kuwaitis to be the first to enter Kuwait City in the first Gulf War. And much like allied command didnt protest the Russians being first into Berlin. It was a symbolic gesture to shut de Gaulle up. Because NO ONE on the allied side liked de Gaulle much to stand him for to long. So to shut him up, they allowed him to be first into Paris.

De Gaulle flew in from Paris a week later. Leclerc was the first into Paris. Leclerc had one arm and one eye, and he was so infamous while he was a resistance leader that the Germans arrested every man with one arm and one eye in France. Also, I find it interesting that even though the Allies hated De Gaulle, they had no choice but to cooperate with him because he was competent and popular among the French troops (who they also needed.) No matter what way you look at it, the French kicked some ass in World War Two (after 1940.)

I am too tired for this and the server just ate my previous post. I wish to kill things with mighty swords.

Anywho.

The Battle of Britain is the principle cause of the fact that the RAF and later the USAAF were practically allowed unrestricted bombing of Germany. It also meant that the Luftwaffe involved in the Blitzkrieg of Russia was wonderfully undertrained due to the rate of German casualties, although the Germans managed to bring the Luftwaffe back to almost full strength. Lastly, it meant that Britain could remain an independent state, and allowed future operations: I would have loved to see Operation Overlord work without 80% of its ships or Britain to use as base.

The Luftwaffe *did*, in fact, start out by bombing RAF airbases. This wasn't actually doing as much as seems to be commonly believed; Germany had to rather a large extent underestimated Britain's ability to build new planes - aswell as the fact that a downed British (or Canadian, or New Zealand, or Aussie, or Polish... :D ) pilot could get back to the skies after a couple of hours. Which is why Germany switched to bombing cities in an effort to break morale and destroy British industry and break the backbone of their war effort. The thing most people don't seem to realise is how close they came to succeeding at breaking morale during the Blitz - there's something about being bombed whilst your government ignores you that tends to grate on people. Furthermore, if bombing of airbases got critical, the RAF could simply pull bases beyond the range of German fighters - and from there attack the unescorted bombers.

Operation Compass decapitated the Italian Army.

The Battles of El Alamein broke German dominance in Africa.

Operation Sealion would have been very funny, had it been carried out.

America's main contribution to World War 2 was getting Japan involved.

i was not laughing at the free French. The message was mis-interpreted (i thought it might be) it was a joke when i said the french were responsible.
It was simply me jokily putting the blame on a random faction.

I hate communists.

Anyone who says Russia did not really win the war in Europe is history-retarded. :)

I hate communists.

We hate you too.

We should have let Germany take over the world.

A slight twist in history alert.
If either Russia or Britain was prepared for the war, we would have mopped the floor with Germany.
Decadence is to blame for such a bloody war.
That, and the French, lol
But i do remember a quote for de Gaulle that said if churchill gave de gaulle the landing craft, he would beat the Nazi army with the free french. :lol:

Why are you laughing at the Free French? They were some of the best soldiers in the world at the time, and they fought the Germans knowing that if they were caught, they'd be executed. They took Monte Cassino when both the Americans and the Brits failed, and they stormed one of the so-called "British beaches" at Normandy. They were the first into Paris, they liberated Alsace, and in one battle in Syria, they beat the British. Baddass.
I thought it was the Poles that took Monte Cassino.

Anyone who says Russia did not really win the war in Europe is history-retarded. :)
Oh it helped win, in a very big way. But what I'm trying to say is that the Russians weren't able to supply themselves. And when Stalin asked for a second front, he got one in Italy, and it did help divert troops from Russia.

Germany lost over 70% of their armies in Russia. Also Germans were stopped by Russians on their own long before land-lease.

By the time Americans landed on D-Day, Russians were well on their way to Berlin.

Without Americans, Russians would have taken not only Berlin but all of Germany not much later than they did in our time line.

Russia without a doubt was instrumental in saving Europe from Nazis.

However America is instrumental is saving Europe from Russia. :D

Lets not forget, Hitler in his infinite wisdom, through more troops and equipment at the allies than the Russians after D-day, his philosophy was that it was 500 miles from Berlin to the Atlantic, and 1500 miles to Moscow, he wanted to last as long as possible so he through more troops at the allies since they had one/third the distance to cover. Also, the Soviets had almost all plains all the wa to Berlin, the allies had to get through the damned hedgerows in France, the Ardennes, and then cross the Rhine, something which hadn't been done since Napolean. The allies had more obstacles to overcome then the Soviets, plus don't forget, the battle of the bulge took place on the British-American front, not the Soviet Front, that is the biggest reason why the Soviet Union won the race to Berlin, oh, and the allied leaders had to slow their advance because the Canadian and American lines were moving around an army of almost 100,000 troops and they were worried that if they closed the gap to quickly they would start firing on eachother. The cost them almost 2 weeks.

I think Patton had the right idea, instead of stopping at the Elbe we should have kept going right through Germany and into Russia, he remembered that before the war the Soviet Union was numero uno on americas most hated list and that they would cause trouble again later.

Lets not forget, Hitler in his infinite wisdom, threw more troops and equipment at the allies than the Russians after D-day, his philosophy was that it was 500 miles from Berlin to the Atlantic, and 1500 miles to Moscow, he wanted to last as long as possible so he threw more troops at the allies since they had one/third the distance to cover. Also, the Soviets had almost all plains all the wa to Berlin, the allies had to get through the damned hedgerows in France, the Ardennes, and then cross the Rhine, something which hadn't been done since Napolean. The allies had more obstacles to overcome then the Soviets, plus don't forget, the battle of the bulge took place on the British-American front, not the Soviet Front, that is the biggest reason why the Soviet Union won the race to Berlin, oh, and the allied leaders had to slow their advance because the Canadian and American lines were moving around an army of almost 100,000 troops and they were worried that if they closed the gap to quickly they would start firing on eachother. The cost them almost 2 weeks.

I think Patton had the right idea, instead of stopping at the Elbe we should have kept going right through Germany and into Russia, he remembered that before the war the Soviet Union was numero uno on americas most hated list and that they would cause trouble again later.

Germany lost over 70% of their armies in Russia. Also Germans were stopped by Russians on their own long before land-lease.

When Lend-Lease was extended to the USSR the Red Army hadn't even begun to suffer their horrendous losses in the great encirclement battles like Smolensk, the Russians had come no where near stopping the Germans. You heavily under-estimate the Lend-Lease program, I suggest you read up on it, the Allies were able to completely overwhelm the Axis simply by the huge economic power of the United States. For instance, the Red Army had excellent felt winter boots, while the Germans had uncomfortable, nad nailed, leather ones which were completely inadequate for winter warfare, do you know where those boots came from? (13 million pairs to be exact), if you guessed the United States, give yourself a star.

Or what about the trucks that kept the Red Army moving, the majority were supplied by the United States to the USSR, and even with those trucks the Red Army managed to outrun it's supplies, can oyu imagine if those trucks had never been delivered?

By the time Americans landed on D-Day, Russians were well on their way to Berlin.

No, Operation Bagration didn't start until just after D-Day, there was still a chance for a possible reversal on the Eastern Front or perhaps at least a stall before Army Group Centre was wiped out by Bagration.

Without Americans, Russians would have taken not only Berlin but all of Germany not much later than they did in our time line.

And without the Russians, the West would've taken all of Germany, re-installed the legitimate government of Poland, and kept the Iron Curtain out of Eastern Europe, at a heavier cost in lives and a lot longer, but what does this prove?

Russia without a doubt was instrumental in saving Europe from Nazis.

However America is instrumental is saving Europe from Russia. :D

Wholly agree with you here on both points, except that I believe the West played just as big a role in saving Europe as the Soviets did.

Even though Russia and britain did alot of the fighting in Europe the won mainly becuase America was forced in by the japanese. The supplied russia and britain with new weaponry and more reinforcements. Had America not steped in we could probebly be looking at a nazi Europe and a Large japanese controlled asia. Our fight i beleive wasnt truely with the germans but their ally the japanese. In the end world war II would not have been won with out the help of russia britain and america not to forget the french resistance and the Arrogance of the germans and japanese for if that was not the combination things could have been alot differnt..did you know the japanses had developed jets back then? Its just they didnt get a chnace to use them cuase we Beat them up down left and right (no offense to current japan or its citezens) :)

When the Germans were stopped before the gates of Moscow, Russians did not have those millions of winter boots. It was still early in the war. Encirclements of Soviet troops in Ukraine happened before the Germans were stopped at Moscow yet they were still stopped.

Allies did try to provide supplies to Stalin around Scandinavia yet they suffered heavy losses at sea and Stalin even thought that the Allies were intentionally not helping him out enough to weaken him.

Outcome of America staying neutral would have been the same. Rommel just didnt have enough troops in Africa and as he overran British defenses he suffered greatly. Even American bombing didnt do too great a damage because Germany was not on war footing until late.

Soviet production and their numerical superiority would have been sufficient. America did help cut down on Soviet losses but was definitely not a deciding factor.

Russians killed far far greater number of German men and destroyed more german tanks than Americans. Without them Americans would never win against Germans in battle yet without Americans german fate was just as sealed.

When the Germans were stopped before the gates of Moscow, Russians did not have those millions of winter boots. It was still early in the war. Encirclements of Soviet troops in Ukraine happened before the Germans were stopped at Moscow yet they were still stopped.

True, though a large amount of shipping was still helping the Soviets at this point, albeit not to the deciding factor it came to be later.

Allies did try to provide supplies to Stalin around Scandinavia yet they suffered heavy losses at sea and Stalin even thought that the Allies were intentionally not helping him out enough to weaken him.

The Murmansk/Archangel route was not the only route, about as much as went into Murmansk came into Persia, and to a lesser extent Vladivostok

Outcome of America staying neutral would have been the same. Rommel just didnt have enough troops in Africa and as he overran British defenses he suffered greatly. Even American bombing didnt do too great a damage because Germany was not on war footing until late.

Rommel couldn't get any more troops either, and the West's Strategic Bombing was indeed not a deciding factor in stopping German production, it was much more effective in supporting operations (Such as the nuetralization of the French railway system in May '44).

Soviet production and their numerical superiority would have been sufficient. America did help cut down on Soviet losses but was definitely not a deciding factor.

Soviet production was not sufficient, in it's motor industry it could either produce tanks or trucks, the US solved that problem for them. The majority of their amounts fuel for heavy vehicles and almost all of their aviation fuel came from the West. Along with large amounts of rubber, tin, aluminum, and other war materials. The only thing shipped from the West that can be considered useless to the Soviets was actual weapons of war, such as the Western tanks, which were used in small amounts, but only when Russian Armor was not in sufficient numbers. And though the West did send some excellent fighters, the Soviets preferred their own fighters, which were not quite up to their Western counterparts.

Russians killed far far greater number of German men and destroyed more german tanks than Americans. Without them Americans would never win against Germans in battle yet without Americans german fate was just as sealed.

America would not beat the Germans in a battle? By any stretch of the imagination America fought with it's hands tied behind it's back and still came out strong, it hadn't even begun to dip harshly into it's manpower reserves as such nations as Britain or Russia had. Nearly 80% of the Whermacht was destroyed on the Eastern front, and some of the best divisions in the Whermacht met their end against the Soviets, but almost 85% of the Luftwaffe was destroyed by the West, is that any less. As was demonstrated in this war Air Power can be a deciding factor to a numerically inferior force (Which the Whermacht was against the Red Army), had all of these fighters been deployed against the East, how well would the Red Army have stood up.

Its just they didnt get a chnace to use them cuase we Beat them up down left and right (no offense to current japan or its citezens) :)
None taken, though that is inacurrate. We were winning largely initially. However the Battle of Midway (I think thats right?) was the first of very big losses against the americans that lead to Japan's defeat. And you underestimate the Chinese. They were the Russia of the Pacific front.

Its just they didnt get a chnace to use them cuase we Beat them up down left and right (no offense to current japan or its citezens) :)
None taken, though that is inacurrate. We were winning largely initially. However the Battle of Midway (I think thats right?) was the first of very big losses against the americans that lead to Japan's defeat. And you underestimate the Chinese. They were the Russia of the Pacific front.

The Chinese were really not quite as instrumental as Russia was to defeating Germany, to defeating Japan. After they retreated from the river valleys they really didn't do much, both the Communists and Nationalists simply consolidated their positions, and held back their best troops for the inevitable Civil War.

The Chinese simply sat back and defended against the numerous Japanese 'rice offensives' which were never major. China did not start to really fight back until it was forced to by the Ichi-Go and U-Go offensives which directly threatened the remaining heartland of China, and that was with massive amounts of Western equipment and a large British counteroffensive in Burma.

If Russia was neutral America would not win a conventional war against Germany. If all the German men who died on the eastern front were thrown at any American offense at fortress Europe, Americans would be driven into the sea.

It is true that America had superior manpower and industrial capacity compared to Germany. However bringing this fighting capacity to attack Europe without Russians doing 80% of the killing work is suicide.

How many millions of casualties would a democracy take to not only win against fanatical Japan but against Germany which is busy consolidating European resources and perhaps taking over the middle east (Russia being neutral in this scenario)

America could not have physically won ww2 before the invention of nuclear weaponry with Russia out of the picture even with the help of British base and air power. It's more probable that we'd see an American revolution or civil war break out first due to the death toll.

If it wasn't for the soviets, the Allies would have easily been pushed back into the sea after d-day and would not any chance in getting back europe.

This is very simple to back up becuase the Allied forced only faced less than 1/3 of the german military during their advance. The other 2/3 where off fighting the soviets.

If it wasn't for the Soviets the allies would NOT have won the war.

I agree the Soviets did play a huge role. They provided something critical to the war effort: men. I'm just saying that it'd be very hard for Russia to win without outside supplies, or occasional military help in the form of new fronts (Italy opened mostly for this reason). It diverted quite a few German divisions from the Russian front, and was enough to keep Stalin happy.
We also would have a hard time winning in the Pacific if it weren't for Russia. America had to fight the INJ, its marines and air forces, but only a few times (like in Burma or the Philipines) did we have to fight the Imperial Army head on. The Japanese kept the bulk of it in China. It's undoubted that American supplies helped in China (remember "the Hump"?), but for the most part, the Japanese were able to preserve their army, and move it to Manchuria. They were in spitting distance of Japan, and they could've easily defended the islands in case of our attack. Even after the atomic bombs, they still had confidence that their troops would protect them.
That confidence was broken by the Russians. In a few days, they destroyed the Japanese army, and liberated Manchuria and (sadly) Northern Korea. It had nearly as big of an impact as the bombs did. The Russians were important. But I'm just saying that they couldn't win without us, like we couldn't win without them.

Purly. do you say sadly to having north Korea taken off Japan as
you would rather Japan had control of it rather than big kim?
or would you rather the Americans had taken it off of Japan as opposed to Russia?

Purly. do you say sadly to having north Korea taken off Japan as
you would rather Japan had control of it rather than big kim?
or would you rather the Americans had taken it off of Japan as opposed to Russia?
From 20/20 hindsight, it would've been better for North Korea to be liberated by the US. However, that's pretty much based on what we know today.

I agree with you there. Countries liberated by Russia generally turned into communist hell-holes, North Korea is no different.
What do you think would have happened if Japan had surrendered whilst holding N.K?
Would they be allowed to keep it?

What I find interesting is, what would have happened if Japan did not surrender after hiroshima sna nagasaki?
America did not have any more nukes after that.
I believe thats why they were both dropped quickly, as if they were using the bombs quickly it would seem as if they had more.
Would Japan fight so fiercly after that that America would be able to make no more progress, or that after the Russians taken continental Asia off of Japan would they flood the islands with men?

What I find interesting is, what would have happened if Japan did not surrender after hiroshima sna nagasaki?
America did not have any more nukes after that.
I believe thats why they were both dropped quickly, as if they were using the bombs quickly it would seem as if they had more.
Would Japan fight so fiercly after that that America would be able to make no more progress, or that after the Russians taken continental Asia off of Japan would they flood the islands with men?

Actually. Japan was willing to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however Truman decided to drop the bombs any way. I guess they seen Japan as good a place as any where to test the effects. Sadly, those effects are still being felt today in Japan.

I believe it was 7 or 8 times Japan tried to surrender?
But the Americans refused as it was deemed to be unconditional.
(I don't see this as a very good excuse, but what can we do?)

Just goes to show that a little cooperation and respect for your allies goes a long way. :)

You certainly got that right! As russia couldn't do without the US and the US couldn't do without te Russians. :)

What I find interesting is, what would have happened if Japan did not surrender after hiroshima sna nagasaki?
America did not have any more nukes after that.
I believe thats why they were both dropped quickly, as if they were using the bombs quickly it would seem as if they had more.
Would Japan fight so fiercly after that that America would be able to make no more progress, or that after the Russians taken continental Asia off of Japan would they flood the islands with men?

Actually. Japan was willing to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however Truman decided to drop the bombs any way. I guess they seen Japan as good a place as any where to test the effects. Sadly, those effects are still being felt today in Japan.
That's a misconception. The emperor wanted to surrender, but in the end, he was forced to bow to the hardliners. Many in the government wanted to fight even after the bombs were dropped.

What I find interesting is, what would have happened if Japan did not surrender after hiroshima sna nagasaki?
America did not have any more nukes after that.
I believe thats why they were both dropped quickly, as if they were using the bombs quickly it would seem as if they had more.
Would Japan fight so fiercly after that that America would be able to make no more progress, or that after the Russians taken continental Asia off of Japan would they flood the islands with men?
The Japanese knew that it was ultimatly hopeless to fight. Sure, casualty estimates for an invasion were a million for US troops, but several more million Japanese would die. Plus, the Japanese economy would completely collapse, and instant poverty and starvation would sweep the entire country.
And when the Russians were finished with the Imperial Army, I bet they would try to take Japan. Japan was a powerful country, and its people had a strong work ethic. Whichever country grabbed Japan would benefit immensily. Since the US grabbed it, they benefitted. And the Japanese benefitted, too.

7 pages is a long read, so I'll just deal with the initial question,

No one country bailed out Europe, each played an important part in liberating it (although Stalin could've taken mainland Europe by himself, just at a greater cost to Russia)

However, it was primarily the US that defeated the Japanese in the Pacific with little to no help from British or Russian forces. Britian had its hands full with Italy and Germany, and Russia simply didn't have the naval forces (besides sending their Siberian units to defend Moscow during the '41 winter).

Like he said, 7 pages is impossible, so...

The main force driving the European victory in WWII was the US. Britain and Russia provided key in holding their own, but the US involvement provided key as a morale booster in Eastern Europe and as much-needed technological and tactical superiority in the war. The Russians, without a doubt, ensured the victory in Eastern Europe though.

I agree the Soviets did play a huge role. They provided something critical to the war effort: men. I'm just saying that it'd be very hard for Russia to win without outside supplies, or occasional military help in the form of new fronts (Italy opened mostly for this reason). It diverted quite a few German divisions from the Russian front, and was enough to keep Stalin happy.
We also would have a hard time winning in the Pacific if it weren't for Russia. America had to fight the INJ, its marines and air forces, but only a few times (like in Burma or the Philipines) did we have to fight the Imperial Army head on. The Japanese kept the bulk of it in China. It's undoubted that American supplies helped in China (remember "the Hump"?), but for the most part, the Japanese were able to preserve their army, and move it to Manchuria. They were in spitting distance of Japan, and they could've easily defended the islands in case of our attack. Even after the atomic bombs, they still had confidence that their troops would protect them.
That confidence was broken by the Russians. In a few days, they destroyed the Japanese army, and liberated Manchuria and (sadly) Northern Korea. It had nearly as big of an impact as the bombs did. The Russians were important. But I'm just saying that they couldn't win without us, like we couldn't win without them.

Yes, the bulk of the Imperial Army was in China, but it's presence has nothing to do with the Soviet Union, it was there keeping the areas of China they had under their control. And you highly overrate the Soviet Manchurian offensive, the Army that was left in Manchuria had no way of possibly helping the mainland, the US had a near complete stranglehold on the islands, US Subs, the most overlooked of any sub force (With an impressive kill to loss ratio of 23:1, the highest of any power) infested the seas around Japan, even trying to move those numbers of troops back to the Home Islands was impossible without huge loss of life (Not to mention the lack of transports, most of the Japanese merchant fleet was already at the bottom).

With or without the Soviet offensive, Japan could not count on the Imperial Army units that were on Continental Asia after 1944, it was much like the Italian invasion of France, the enemy was already clearly going to lose and it's impact was near to none (With the difference being the Armee des Alpes humiliated the Italians). And the Allied armies had faced the Imperial Army many times before, Tarawa, Guadalcanal, the fight for New Guinea, the Solomons, Iwo Jima, the list goes on, the US Military fought the Japanese about as hard as the Chinese did.

What I find interesting is, what would have happened if Japan did not surrender after hiroshima sna nagasaki?
America did not have any more nukes after that.
I believe thats why they were both dropped quickly, as if they were using the bombs quickly it would seem as if they had more.
Would Japan fight so fiercly after that that America would be able to make no more progress, or that after the Russians taken continental Asia off of Japan would they flood the islands with men?

Actually. Japan was willing to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however Truman decided to drop the bombs any way. I guess they seen Japan as good a place as any where to test the effects. Sadly, those effects are still being felt today in Japan.
That's a misconception. The emperor wanted to surrender, but in the end, he was forced to bow to the hardliners. Many in the government wanted to fight even after the bombs were dropped.

That information is incorrect. In fact, what it really was about is that they wanted to surrender and keep their emperor.. the US wanted unconditional surrender. So, they dropped the bombs.. in the end.. Japan got to keep their emperor as a figure head any way he just had to denounce his divinity.. so, the bombs were dropped for nothing. A test I guess. A show of might... the bigger dick foreign policy started that day!

What I find interesting is, what would have happened if Japan did not surrender after hiroshima sna nagasaki?
America did not have any more nukes after that.
I believe thats why they were both dropped quickly, as if they were using the bombs quickly it would seem as if they had more.
Would Japan fight so fiercly after that that America would be able to make no more progress, or that after the Russians taken continental Asia off of Japan would they flood the islands with men?

Actually. Japan was willing to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however Truman decided to drop the bombs any way. I guess they seen Japan as good a place as any where to test the effects. Sadly, those effects are still being felt today in Japan.
That's a misconception. The emperor wanted to surrender, but in the end, he was forced to bow to the hardliners. Many in the government wanted to fight even after the bombs were dropped.

That information is incorrect. In fact, what it really was about is that they wanted to surrender and keep their emperor.. the US wanted unconditional surrender. So, they dropped the bombs.. in the end.. Japan got to keep their emperor as a figure head any way he just had to denounce his divinity.. so, the bombs were dropped for nothing. A test I guess. A show of might... the bigger dick foreign policy started that day!

Put yourself in this position, your the head of state of one of the most powerful countries the world has ever seen. You've led your country through the single most destructive event in human history, and it's not even over yet. Your generals and admirals all tell you the Japanese must be dealt with by a duel to the death on their home islands, just as the Nazi's did in the recent Battle for Berlin (which cost the Soviets 300,000 soldiers, and it was only a city).

You've seen through the past 4 years the untamed and suicidal dedication of your oppenent, suicide charges into deadly crossfire not even matched in the horrors of the First World War's trenches, and they still do it without complaint. They get in their aircraft, take off, and aim themselves straight at the biggest peice of metal they can find just to slow the enemy down. You read the reports, thousands of Japanese civilians throwing themselves and their children off cliffs just to avoid the Americans, what peice of this evidence points to a possible surrender?

It wasn't just that they wanted to keep their Emperor, the Emperor hadn't really been in control of Japan since the '30s anyway, they rightly believed themselves to be the bigboys of the Pacific and had the right to control it and keep out the Imperial West. They also have a long and illustrious history of never having been conquered by a power outside their own islands.

You are handed a report entitled "Operation Downfall" which calls for an invasion that makes Overlord (Normandy) look like a lake crossing, 27 Divisions involved in landing operations (Compared to 5 for Overlord), a massive fleet unparalled in history. The terrain is also mountainous, and judging from the experience of Iwo Jima, that doesn't bode well. Your also handed the casualty expectations, and are utterly stunned to see over 1,000,000 casualties expected, 250,000 in Operation Olympic alone (About 20,000 more casualties then the US suffered in the entire war) and that's only the invasion of the southern island. And as all operations before have shown, the Japanese take a lot more casualties then you do, and most of them are fatalities (while most of yours are wounds), and usually every single Japanese soldier has to be killed, and now your facing an entire nation of them.

But wait, your told you also have a new weapon, a device that can level a city with one hit. You've been pursuing an aggressive firebombing campaign for the past 4 years, incinerating Japanese and German cities by the hundreds, and being told how it was bringing the enemy to it's knees (Something they believed for quite some time afterwords), and here only one weapon, of such power as you have seen unleashed before only in few places, such as Tokyo and Dresden. If the conventional bombings could so hurt the enemy, imagine what this weapon could do, a few of these and the enemy will have to surrender, they will know it is hopeless, even the most die hard.

So are you going to tell the public, or better yet look into the eye's of a father, a mother, a lover, or a son or daughter, and tell them you could've saved their loved one's life with one bomb run, but you couldn't becuase you thought if you invaded and asked nice enough they would surrender that way?

EDIT: I incorrectly labeled the invasion of Kyushu (The southernmost island) as the Operation Coronet phase of Operation Downfall, it was in fact the Operation Olympic phase, Coronet was the invasion of Honshu, this has been corrected in the text.

.....

.....

Hey, hindsight is 20/20.. I agree he had to make a judgement call. I suppose we can't really blame him for he didn't have any idea that the fall-out would still be being felt 60 years later. The truth of the matter is though, the bombs never had to be dropped. We know that now. I will give on point that perhaps he felt he should at the time. It was an error.

Also, America was not the most powerful nation at that time. They emerge so after the cold war. They did emerge a super power after WWII, mostly because of how they had built up their army during the war , but more so because of the A-bomb. Until then they were isolationists and not considered the world power.. the UK was.

.....

Hey, hindsight is 20/20.. I agree he had to make a judgement call. I suppose we can't really blame him for he didn't have any idea that the fall-out would still be being felt 60 years later. The truth of the matter is though, the bombs never had to be dropped. We know that now. I will give on point that perhaps he felt he should at the time. It was an error.

Also, America was not the most powerful nation at that time. They emerge so after the cold war. They did emerge a super power after WWII, mostly because of how they had built up their army during the war , but more so because of the A-bomb. Until then they were isolationists and not considered the world power.. the UK was.

America was by far the most powerful nation on Earth in 1945, it's GDP equaled that of the rest of the world's combined and stayed so well into the 1950's. The US Navy was the largest in the world, the US Army was by far the most mechanized of any other force, and the USAAF was the most advanced and fielded the largest amount of top of the line aircraft. And after World War II the majority of all this was disbanded, the US Army did not become a large standing one until after Korea not World War II. And in the timeframe we are talking (1945), the US is considered the major player along with the USSR, Britain itself even recognizes it has exhausted it's interests and abilities in fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the Empire had been waning before this and the war put the final nail in the coffin. Your describing the situation of 1939, which furthermore the UK was not the major world power, it was one of two, France being the other.

.....

Hey, hindsight is 20/20.. I agree he had to make a judgement call. I suppose we can't really blame him for he didn't have any idea that the fall-out would still be being felt 60 years later. The truth of the matter is though, the bombs never had to be dropped. We know that now. I will give on point that perhaps he felt he should at the time. It was an error.

Also, America was not the most powerful nation at that time. They emerge so after the cold war. They did emerge a super power after WWII, mostly because of how they had built up their army during the war , but more so because of the A-bomb. Until then they were isolationists and not considered the world power.. the UK was.

Dropping the bomb was nessecary. The Japanese didnt want to unconditionally surrender, and that is what was being asked of them. The whole the Japanese were willing to surrender crap, is revisionist. The Emperor may have wanted to but he wasnt in control of the government, he was only a figurehead. A figure head controlled by the military. Now if the bomb hadnt been developed what do you think Truman would have done?

The Japanese had recently developed and began to mass produce a new type of jet powered aircraft called the Yokosuka MXY-7 "Ohka". A suicide weapon with a top speed of 575 miles per hour, and a warhead of 2,649lbs of explosives. A total of 852 of them were built in the final MONTHs of the war. Not years, months. And this is with the bombing going on. The Ohka would have circumvent traditional Navy Anti Air,and would have cost the USN dearly(already feeling the effect of having lost 5,000+ personel at the recent battle for Okinawa.)

Now if the bombs hadnt existed, Operation Downfall would have went ahead as scheduled and the landings would have started November 1st 1945. Paratrooper Divisions (101st,17th, and 82nd) were going to be used exactly how they were using in Normandy.(Band of Brothers, the final episode shows them training for deployment to the Pacific to join in on Op. Downfall). Those three divisions would have faced up to 9 IJA Divisions totalling around 250,000 troops. The Japanese while not being informed of Operation Olympic, were well prepared for it.

14 Divisions would have landed on the southern Japanese islands, and would have been under attack by nearly 2-3k japanese planes which had been transformed from their roles as training and pre-war aircraft crap to suicide planes. Their job would have been to smash into troop ships and landing craft. This would have cost thousands upon thousands of lives. And this is even before the troops landed on the beaches. Now fast forward this and say that Olympic successful in the south. The Russians have already invaded the northern Island and now the main island is all that is left. You wanna know what would happened to Japan then?

Look at Korea. North Japan, South Japan. It would have been split, and would have probably turned into another battleground for the Cold War. The bomb being dropped wasnt a mistake, it was the right thing to do. I doubt Truman much sleep over his choice.

Aircraft carriers may have been small, but the Americans only had a few very large aircraft carriers too, don't pretend that you only had huge ships. Anyway, our navy was better simply due to the fact that we have had 300+ years experienceat the ol' sailing lark
And finally, why would ireland join?

I'd just like to point out I was wrong earlier in terms of my naval numbers...the US didnt have 30 fleet carriers by the end of the war...they had 46 Fleet Carriers(2 Yorktown class,1 Wasp Class,1 Lexington class,39 Essex class,3 Midway class)and about 80-90 Jeep Carriers(Numerous Casabalanca class,4 Sangamon class and 22 Commencement Bay class). Also, the Carriers the RN used for the most part, where the Long Island class/HMS Archer class, Charger class/HMS Avenger and Bogue class/HMS Attacker class. They were all built stateside, and leased to the RN during the war.

The British had 13 Fleet Carriers(1 Furious,2 Courageous class,1 Ark Royal,3 Illustrious class,1 Indomintable,2 Implacable class, 3 Eagle class) and numerous Light and Carrier Escorts...all in all, none of it total up to the total amount fielded by the USN..you were saying?

Stalin knew the Germans were coming

Then why did he not listen to Sorgi (wrong spelling probably) for all those years? Now don't get me wrong - I'm actually a fan of SOME of Stalin's methods (and I've gotten into a lot of trouble for that), but I don't think Stalin actually thought that the Germans were coming before they were already across the border. If he had, the Germans would've been slaughtered by an alerted Soviet army and air force as soon as they began their attack.

Aircraft carriers may have been small, but the Americans only had a few very large aircraft carriers too, don't pretend that you only had huge ships. Anyway, our navy was better simply due to the fact that we have had 300+ years experienceat the ol' sailing lark
And finally, why would ireland join?

I'd just like to point out I was wrong earlier in terms of my naval numbers...the US didnt have 30 fleet carriers by the end of the war...they had 41 Fleet Carriers, and about 15-20 Jeep Carriers.(39 Essex class Short hull and Long hull and 3 Midway class) All of those were big ships...you were saying?

Yes he is correct, the US fielded a force of Fleet Carriers far larger then any other force, and not only that but most US Carriers carried more aircraft then their foreign equivalents (averaging around 100 for the Essex, compared to about 50-60 for the Ark Royal), the only area you can really say the Royal Navy outdid the US Navy was in deck armor, the US Navy continued to use wooden flight decks whilst the RN was using armored ones, which is why they stood up to kamikaze attacks so much better. However given that the USN was going for a big carrying capacity over huge distances (Two oceans) while the RN was having to utilize it's carriers in confined spaces where they were vulnerable to other ships (The Med., North Sea) it was a fair tradeoff.

I corrected my post...numbers were off...WAY OFF.

.....

Hey, hindsight is 20/20.. I agree he had to make a judgement call. I suppose we can't really blame him for he didn't have any idea that the fall-out would still be being felt 60 years later. The truth of the matter is though, the bombs never had to be dropped. We know that now. I will give on point that perhaps he felt he should at the time. It was an error.

Also, America was not the most powerful nation at that time. They emerge so after the cold war. They did emerge a super power after WWII, mostly because of how they had built up their army during the war , but more so because of the A-bomb. Until then they were isolationists and not considered the world power.. the UK was.

America was by far the most powerful nation on Earth in 1945, it's GDP equaled that of the rest of the world's combined and stayed so well into the 1950's. The US Navy was the largest in the world, the US Army was by far the most mechanized of any other force, and the USAAF was the most advanced and fielded the largest amount of top of the line aircraft. And after World War II the majority of all this was disbanded, the US Army did not become a large standing one until after Korea not World War II. And in the timeframe we are talking (1945), the US is considered the major player along with the USSR, Britain itself even recognizes it has exhausted it's interests and abilities in fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the Empire had been waning before this and the war put the final nail in the coffin. Your describing the situation of 1939, which furthermore the UK was not the major world power, it was one of two, France being the other.

I did say they emrged as a super power after WWII.. so did the U.S.S.R. It wasn't until after the cold war that the USA was the only remaining super power.. what you're saying here is just a red hearring..

Out of curiosity what Yorktown class are you listing as survived the war? AFAIK all were lost but the Big E.

Here is the breakdown of Yorktown class CV's
USS Yorktown - Sunk at Midway
USS Wasp (Can be considered a Yorktown CV, even though it was slightly different) - Torpedoed and sank
USS Hornet - Sunk off Santa Cruz
USS Enterprise - Survived World War II

The USS Lexingtion, USS Saratoga, and USS Ranger were all decidedly not Yorktown class CV's.

I forgot the Wasp and Hornet went down. I figured they survived. Okay the Big E is the only one of the class to make it out of the war. The one Lexington class I did name was the Saratoga. I also forgot all about the Ranger. And heck I mentioned it earlier as having served in the Atlantic whoops :oops:

The nuclear attack on Japan saved millions of Japanese lives and thousands of American lives.

The sting of nuclear fire was the best thing to have happened to that country under the conditions they were in.

The alternative to nuclear attack was a conventional invasion. Imagine Vietnam times 100. We would have slaughtered millions of men women and children and left hundreds of thousands more wounded. We would have collapsed their society and possible put the north of the country under brutal communist rule. Their Emperor their God in hiding, their women and children throwing themselves at our soldiers with sharpened bamboo sticks and grenades. Village after village burned to the ground, suicidal fighting in the ruins of Tokyo. And thousands of our citizens would be dead for nothing as well in a prolonged costly brutal campaign.

Criticising the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is ridiculous since it was the most humane thing to do. (Unless of course we signed a mutual defense pact and peace treaty with the Emperor instead of unconditional surrender and went on to protect Japan against Russians :D )

The nuclear attack on Japan saved millions of Japanese lives and thousands of American lives.

The sting of nuclear fire was the best thing to have happened to that country under the conditions they were in.

The alternative to nuclear attack was a conventional invasion. Imagine Vietnam times 100. We would have slaughtered millions of men women and children and left hundreds of thousands more wounded. We would have collapsed their society and possible put the north of the country under brutal communist rule. Their Emperor their God in hiding, their women and children throwing themselves at our soldiers with sharpened bamboo sticks and grenades. Village after village burned to the ground, suicidal fighting in the ruins of Tokyo. And thousands of our citizens would be dead for nothing as well in a prolonged costly brutal campaign.

Criticising the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is ridiculous since it was the most humane thing to do. (Unless of course we signed a mutual defense pact and peace treaty with the Emperor instead of unconditional surrender and went on to protect Japan against Russians :D )

I'm sure all the disfigured and dying of cancer children in those cities today completely agree with all of your assertions.. :roll:

The nuclear attack on Japan saved millions of Japanese lives and thousands of American lives.

The sting of nuclear fire was the best thing to have happened to that country under the conditions they were in.

The alternative to nuclear attack was a conventional invasion. Imagine Vietnam times 100. We would have slaughtered millions of men women and children and left hundreds of thousands more wounded. We would have collapsed their society and possible put the north of the country under brutal communist rule. Their Emperor their God in hiding, their women and children throwing themselves at our soldiers with sharpened bamboo sticks and grenades. Village after village burned to the ground, suicidal fighting in the ruins of Tokyo. And thousands of our citizens would be dead for nothing as well in a prolonged costly brutal campaign.

Criticising the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is ridiculous since it was the most humane thing to do. (Unless of course we signed a mutual defense pact and peace treaty with the Emperor instead of unconditional surrender and went on to protect Japan against Russians :D )

So waging wars on civilians IS acceptable when it's militarily/politically expedient?

Wait, doesn't this justify everything Hussein did against Iran and his people?

No one can deny that the Russians had a very big role to play. I mean, they fought back at the brunt of the German army, all the way to Berlin. But as many like to say on here, I don't believe that it was the Russians themselves that helped to win WWII.
While I was in Hawai'i, I visited Pearl Harbor. Pretty moving, btw. There, I bought a little book on WWII. From reading what was in that book, it convinced me that if Russia were fighting WWII with no American intervention, it'd be either an eventual loss, or an extremely long stalemate.
Let's look at the facts it provides. The person who made Russia so weak was one of the most popular figures in Russian histroy [sarcasm], Stalin. He purged the army throughout the thirties for threats to his dictatorship. However, most of those "threats" were some damn good generals. Fighting that war with Finland only stressed the Red Army even more.
His modernization program, while one of the better thing he did, was a little misguided. To give you an idea of what was lost, 40% of the population, 40% of electrical generation capacity, 63% of steel production, and 70% of iron refining was lost by the end of 1941, when the Germans first drove into Russia. Only about 10% of the total industry was saved by shipping it to the Urals.
What made matters worse was that General Winter didn't help the Russians much. Unlike with Napoleon, whose army went into full retreat, the Germans still had most of their 250 divisions to about 80% capacity. Even with Hitler's idiotic orders to the army, they still would've survived due to sheer fighting strenght.
Of course, that began to change with Lend-Lease. By 1942, the tide began to turn for the Russians, and every year since then, despite not having most of their own production, they were able to make enough tanks and planes with raw materials provided by Lend-Lease. It was only helped as the U-boat fleet in the Atlantic was being destroyed, leading to a complete withdrawl by the Germans in 1943. Even before then, most supplies didn't have to come in through the dangerous Murmansk route. Quite a few were unloaded in Iran, then sent by train up to Russia. And you know who helped in the process? The ever detested Shah Reza Pahlavi.
Then there's the fact that Stalin wanted a second front. North Africa was, for the most part, an Italian venture, augmented by Rommel's troops that had little impact on the overall army of Germany. However, with the invasion of Italy and the fall of Musolini's fascist government, Hitler needed to send in some troops to Italy. Among them, 24 divisions fighting in Russia. And once D-Day occured, the Germans obviously had to divert a lot more resources. It's also interesting to note that 1944-45 was the year Russia made its biggest advances against Germany.

Again, I'm not saying that Russia didn't make a huge contribution to the war. It'd be foolish to think that America (and a somewhat comatose British army) could take on Germany alone. However, I just wanted to point out that the Russians could've never drove back the Germans without a little help from the outside.
I think the defeat of the 6th army at Stalingrad was the turning point for Russia. The Germans simply didn't have the manpower to replace the losses of 300,000 men. If von Manstein had have his way the 6th army would have been withdrawn to build up a defence line against the advancing Red Army. And try to inflict so much casualties on them that they eventually would have to sue for peace due to pure exaustine. But the moron (Hitler) wouldn't let him do it. (behind his back Nazi officials close to Hitler called von Manstein Marshall retreat)
As for D-Day, in preparation for the invasion the Western allies asked the Soviets to step up their military operations to divert German attention from the West.

I'm sure all the disfigured and dying of cancer children in those cities today completely agree with all of your assertions.. :roll:

I'm pretty sure the millions of Japanese who were born, but would never have been had there been an invasion are rather glad. The hundreds dying of cancer and disgurement, while a tragedy, dont exactly make me shed tears over us dropping the bomb.


So waging wars on civilians IS acceptable when it's militarily/politically expedient?
Wait, doesn't this justify everything Hussein did against Iran and his people?

Apples and Oranges. Comparing all of WWII to the Iran-Iraq war is an unfair judgement designed to bring something totally not even relevant to the topic at hand into the conversation. Hussein was a brutal dictator who was fighting for a piece of land which contained oil. I dont think you can call Truman or Roosevelt that. Stalin sure.

Also your complete lack for caring for human life astounds me. This choice wasnt only militarily-politically expedient, it was also the most humane course of action. I'm sure Truman didnt give a ratsass about the Japanese deaths(and its true no figures for Operation Downfall included Japanese losses, only American) but he did care about American lives. Which in turn affected the millions of Japanese who would have died.

Apples and Oranges. Comparing all of WWII to the Iran-Iraq war is an unfair judgement designed to bring something totally not even relevant to the topic at hand into the conversation. Hussein was a brutal dictator who was fighting for a piece of land which contained oil. I dont think you can call Truman or Roosevelt that. Stalin sure.


err... actually Iran/Iraq was is kind of similar to WWII similar length, similar brutality. You can make all the platitiudes you want, but either targetting civilians for military puposes is objectionable, or it's not. Introducing hypotheticals into the equations is ludicrous: anyone could easily do the same. Like what if the US hadn't supplied the weapons and intelligence Hussein used to attack the Kurds (with tacit approval I might add)?

Also your complete lack for caring for human life astounds me. This choice wasnt only militarily-politically expedient, it was also the most humane course of action.

Possibly. We'll never know, now will we? What I will say is that had they bombed a military base, I suspect the Japanese would have surrendered anyways. THe bottom line is that you can't attack civilians on one hand and then codemn attacks on civilians on the other.

I'm sure Truman didnt give a ratsass about the Japanese deaths(and its true no figures for Operation Downfall included Japanese losses, only American) but he did care about American lives. Which in turn affected the millions of Japanese who would have died.

And I'm sure countless Iraqi soldiers would have died had Hussein attacked the Kurds conventionally. By your logic, hussein was doing them a favor.

err... actually Iran/Iraq was is kind of similar to WWII similar length, similar brutality. You can make all the platitiudes you want, but either targetting civilians for military puposes is objectionable, or it's not. Introducing hypotheticals into the equations is ludicrous: anyone could easily do the same. Like what if the US hadn't supplied the weapons and intelligence Hussein used to attack the Kurds (with tacit approval I might add)?

And yet completely different in terms of political reasons, and urgency of the fight. Saddam didnt want an unconditional surrender from Iran, and Iran didnt want that from Iraq. It may have been just as brutal in terms of warfare, however in that case the deliberate targeting of civilians was wrong. In WWII, it was an unfortunate fact of life. Such is the case in a total global war.Ten thousand civilians died in the first week of Normandy alone, where we suppose to just stop all military operations because they were there? And how about the bombing of factories inside of Germany that were located in civilian areas? The Iran-Iraq war politically was fought for completely different reasons...it wasnt a total war, it was a regional conflict, for which two ill-equipped forces fought for nearly 8 years to a stalemate...if anything compare it to WWI. The battlelines never really shifted off the border.

The hypothetical is concerned to what if the US hadnt dropped the bomb. In this case you HAVE to insert the hypothetical, because if you dont, you get what actually happened and this isnt what the conversation is about. However the conversation also isnt about comparing the deaths of civilians in WWII to targeting civilians in the Iran-Iraq war and saying what Saddam did was justified.

Possibly. We'll never know, now will we? What I will say is that had they bombed a military base, I suspect the Japanese would have surrendered anyways. THe bottom line is that you can't attack civilians on one hand and then codemn attacks on civilians on the other.

We'll never know? Take an educated guess and stop being closed minded. Japanese fanatasicm would have probably turned those soldiers into matyrs for the cause of defending Japan...and would have probably been used a propoganda tool. Not to mention what would that have accomplished? It would have assuredly shown the Japanese we had an even bigger bomb than what we had been hitting them with. But do you in your right mind, think they would have thought it could level a city? At this time Tokyo had already been firebombed into ruins. I'm pretty sure losing a military base would have made them shrug and continue.

And I'm sure countless Iraqi soldiers would have died had Hussein attacked the Kurds conventionally. By your logic, hussein was doing them a favor.

Again you want to draw a correlation between a difficult choice, and one made by a ruthless dictator who wiped out thousands for the hell of it. Its a strawman arguement. Trumans choice to drop the bomb came to end a war that killed millions, and was unlike anything seen before, even WWI didnt compare to this. As oppose to Hussien, who gassed people to keep control over a region that was trying to rebel.

For christs sakes stop drawing correlation where one doesnt exist. Your arguement is flawed.

As explained above, a few hundred thousand dead and a few thousand wounded due to nuke blast and dying from radiation are less than millions dead and hundreds of thousands wounded.

Unless of course you think having 1 radiated child is much worse than 10 dead children and 10 more without legs and parents.

The sheer numbers of alternatives make the nukes humane.

As for attacking civilian targets, yes if attacking civilian targets will help achieve your goal militarily then it's perfectly ok. Sometimes killing thousands of civilians is counterproductive sometimes it's not.

Civilians are legitimate target. That applies to American civilians. And yes Saddam did save the lives of his soldiers by not exterminating Kurds conventionally. However Saddam doesnt make a good analogy since his gassing of the kurds didnt save more kurds in the process.

Civilians are legitimate target. That applies to American civilians. And yes Saddam did save the lives of his soldiers by not exterminating Kurds conventionally. However Saddam doesnt make a good analogy since his gassing of the kurds didnt save more kurds in the process.

How do you know? I suspect the kurds would have been much worse off if Hussein had gone after them conventionally.

I don't think HIroshima was wrong either, particularly, I just think it's hypocritical to use WMD against civilians as a strike against Iraq but not against the US.

I was going to post something along the lines of the German withdrawl of suppiles and manpower from the Eastern front in anticpation of the Battle of the Bulge, but what's the point? Jesus, could this thread get any more off topic?

I did say they emrged as a super power after WWII.. so did the U.S.S.R. It wasn't until after the cold war that the USA was the only remaining super power.. what you're saying here is just a red hearring..

When the US emerged as a superpower is a matter of opinion, I think it was after the Spanish American war, the US forced Spain to hand over most of their remaining colonies in the Carribean and also Guam and the Phillipines. This is also when the US navy became, once again this is my opinion, the strongest naval force on the high seas.

At least this is only your opinion.
After the Spanish-American war, the U.S.A was most certainly not a great power (the term of the time), as neither was spain. in a one on one war, America would not be able to beat France, Russia, and most certainly not the British Empire. Look what happened in 1812.
As for the suggestion that after the Spanish-American war, the U.S.A was the greatest naval power in the world. (I'm sorry, thats rich) The British Empires maritime philosophy was that the Royal Navy must be larger than the next 2 largest combined. Since France was number 2 and, we, naturally, we number 1, that leaves number 3 down (I just found out 3 was Russia).
Also, how many dreadnoughts did U.S forces have at the beginning of ww1?(stats had changed. Britain, still 1, Germany 2 U.S.A 3)
We had 64 battleships and 121 cruisers.
America had how many? I can't find statistics, but Britain still had more than Germany and U.S.A combined.

At least this is only your opinion.
After the Spanish-American war, the U.S.A was most certainly not a great power (the term of the time), as neither was spain. in a one on one war, America would not be able to beat France, Russia, and most certainly not the British Empire. Look what happened in 1812.
As for the suggestion that after the Spanish-American war, the U.S.A was the greatest naval power in the world. (I'm sorry, thats rich) The British Empires maritime philosophy was that the Royal Navy must be larger than the next 2 largest combined. Since France was number 2 and, we, naturally, we number 1, that leaves number 3 down (I just found out 3 was Russia).
Also, how many dreadnoughts did U.S forces have at the beginning of ww1?(stats had changed. Britain, still 1, Germany 2 U.S.A 3)
We had 64 battleships and 121 cruisers.
America had how many? I can't find statistics, but Britain still had more than Germany and U.S.A combined.

At least this is only your opinion.
After the Spanish-American war, the U.S.A was most certainly not a great power (the term of the time), as neither was spain. in a one on one war, America would not be able to beat France, Russia, and most certainly not the British Empire. Look what happened in 1812.
As for the suggestion that after the Spanish-American war, the U.S.A was the greatest naval power in the world. (I'm sorry, thats rich) The British Empires maritime philosophy was that the Royal Navy must be larger than the next 2 largest combined. Since France was number 2 and, we, naturally, we number 1, that leaves number 3 down (I just found out 3 was Russia).
Also, how many dreadnoughts did U.S forces have at the beginning of ww1?(stats had changed. Britain, still 1, Germany 2 U.S.A 3)
We had 64 battleships and 121 cruisers.
America had how many? I can't find statistics, but Britain still had more than Germany and U.S.A combined.
The US was not the greatest power after the Spanish-American war, and by no means nearly as great as the UK. However, it was a pretty formidable force. Before the Spanish American war, we barely had a navy. Now we had not a powerful one, but a decent one. We were undoubtedly the strongest power in the Americas. How else would we manage to build the Panama Canal? And by 1900, we had a decent sized little empire, and rivaled those of other countries in the Carribean, and certainly the Pacific.
Economically, we weren't a factor to be taken lightly.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_reagan_wp_021004.htm
In fact, I've heard some economists that think that economically, we were the most powerful nation, too. Many countries had a lot of industry, and a lot of agriculture, but few had both. We did. And even if our army wasn't strong at the time, given the economic conditions and the slightly more militaristic nature of Americans, an army could be raised very quickly, and in WWI, the Allies and Central Powers knew this. And by the time the war ended, our military grew expotentially.

The American Empire was rather large after the Spanish-American war, considering Alaska wasn't considered part of the USA Proper back then, and much of the American West wasn't really either. In that sense the US had a rather large empire.

The only reason the US Wouldn't be able to beat say, France or Russia, is the distance between them and the USA. Its huge. Maybe today with modern equipment, but back then it would have been near impossible. However, given that Japan could beat Russia, the country that was pumping out the most coal, steel, growing the fastest, ect. could have easily beaten them if it wasn't for the huge distance.

The American Empire was rather large after the Spanish-American war, considering Alaska wasn't considered part of the USA Proper back then, and much of the American West wasn't really either. In that sense the US had a rather large empire.

The only reason the US Wouldn't be able to beat say, France or Russia, is the distance between them and the USA. Its huge. Maybe today with modern equipment, but back then it would have been near impossible. However, given that Japan could beat Russia, the country that was pumping out the most coal, steel, growing the fastest, ect. could have easily beaten them if it wasn't for the huge distance.
However, if, during that time period, France and Russia were to do something like sink our merchant ships, an extremely large navy or army could go up (but not before some damage could be done). Given a couple of years at the most, and we'd take all of France. Russia would be easier, considering the state of the Russian military at the time.
Also, I wanted to point out that some say our navy was crap. For the most part, in peacetime it was. However, the early days of WWI was when the USS Arizona was first commissioned. It was extremely powerful, and could provide critical gun support to wipe out the Germans. However, it couldn't be sent, because it was oil powered. Most ships in Europe were coal powered. I just wanted to point out that even if our military wasn't the greatest, it was decent enough to maintain an empire, if not fight a war against a large imperial power.

It's a matter of logistics. Just as America would not be able to beat German empire by itself, America would not be able to defeat France and most definitely not Russia in 1930s.

Attacking a major well entrenched industrial power on a continent across a vast ocean thousands of miles away is suicide. Even France would be able to Push US into the sea if America tried to take over in say 1938. And you cannot surround and starve countries like Russia, Germany, and France like we did with Japan. We'd only succeed if we were geographically next door or the attention of the enemy was diverted fighting somebody else.

As for that comment about it being hypocritical to attack Iraq for humanitarian reasons, I agree. We should never have went into Iraq.

[In fact, I've heard some economists that think that economically, we were the most powerful nation, too. Many countries had a lot of industry, and a lot of agriculture, but few had both. We did.
The US is the only country in the history of the World that never had to fight a war over food. That is a true fact, many nations have gone to war just because they needed food. Even during the dust bowl the US had an excess of crops. No other country, not even China or the Ukraine, can match that. (Manchuria has very rich farmland and the Ukraine has vast plains much like the Midwest)

Most historians will agree that the US became a Superpower after the Spanish-American war. Sure, the US had beat a european nation in wars before but all those were defensive wars, now the US proved that they could bring the war to the enemy. That is a huge advanteage in warfare.

Attacking a major well entrenched industrial power on a continent across a vast ocean thousands of miles away is suicide.

Hence why the US rule the world. Two oceans on either side, both dominated by our Navy, yeah to attack the US would be suicide, just ask Saddam and his sons.




As for that comment about it being hypocritical to attack Iraq for humanitarian reasons, I agree. We should never have went into Iraq.
I am completely in support the war in Iraq. I have a guilty concious, when I see human rights violations anywhere I want to help anyway I can. Many people my age are short sighted, they can never look past the here and now. I also think we should have done what Patton said at the end of WWII, he said we should send our troops across the Elbe and invade the USSR. He remembered that before WWII more people in America and Britain saw Russia as their number one enemy and Germany as number two. He knew that we would have problems with them in the future, whether or not he knew that we were working on the A-bomb is unknown, or atleast to me anyway, but we probably could have whipped the Soviets using the A-bomb. And our Air Force, the Soviet Union had almost no Air Force what so ever, all their strength was in their tanks, artillery, and numbers. Hitler was a fool, for which the world should be thankful, had he waited 6 months to start WWII he probably could have won the war. Or had he not invaded the Soviet Union and waited to starve the UK inot submission, all in all Stalin and Hitler were both paranoid fools, Stalin just had the stronger allies.

no, we did, all they did was kill Jews.

As for Russia bailing out Europe....yes...but only with the US's help.
Stalin was willing to sacrifice many, many many of his own people to prove a point.
The US was simply better equipped, and frankly..had the better military commanders..and throwing thier lives away wasnt needed.

If not for the U.S, and Russia..we'd all be speaking German right now.

West Pacific, it is absolute nonsense that the US wouls be a SUPERpower after Spanish-American war. The Great White Fleet certainly was something, but anybody can dominate a bunch of South American Juntas. We've (The Western Empires, that is) been doing it for centuries, and when we stop, Brazil will pick up where we left off. Britain was the naval Superpower, and Germany the up-and-coming Great(er?) Power.

Also, the US has never attacked a fully industrialized country all by itself, at least not since the end of WWII and as has been said, it would be a horrible idea if we did. We do not rule the WORLD--China and Russia have definitely been influenced by us, but not controlled. And they own a lot of land and people, between the two of them.

Don't oversimplify history. Rarely was anything specifically BECAUSE of this or that...the absence of one may have led to the unforseen and unmanifested rise of another. Although it probably wasn't "to save Europe"...oh, no. We fought to make sure we didn't have a European superpower united against US. Purely self-serving, I'm sure.

The Spanish-American war is generally agreed upon to be a marking point for the beginning of America's ascension to world power. And the marking point for the last hurrah of Spain as a world power.