NationStates Jolt Archive

On the subject of WW 2 many people believe they did indeed need help fighting the germans but in al cases they are prvon wrong by lack of evidence

The US provided major aid in WWII.

Wait, did the U.S. need aid or did U.S. need to give aid?

Or did the U.S. have the ability to fight WW2 all on their own?

Wait, did the U.S. need aid or did U.S. need to give aid?

Or did the U.S. have the ability to fight WW2 all on their own?

Yes

hehe

Do we mean aid as in joining the war or aid as in the sort of thing that occured with Lend-Lease?

Did the US need aid during WW-II, did Europe need aid, or did Russia need aid?
Your question is not very clear. :(

Did the US need aid during WW-II, did Europe need aid, or did Russia need aid?
Your question is not very clear. :(

I think he's asking, "Did Europe/USSR need US military aid to defeat Germany?" and his conclusion is, "No."

...Why will this poll close on December 12th? :confused:

I say in general, america is given to much credit for the downfall of nazi germany. Many people neglect the Soviet Unions perticapation in the war, The Soviet Union was the main reason germany lost the war. Not the normandy landing, but the susses of the soviet army on the eastern front. in 1944, the soviets were allready on the boarder of germany.

America did help, but there role is way over rated

...Why will this poll close on December 12th? :confused:

December 7th might have been a more fitting choice.

I say in general, america is given to much credit for the downfall of nazi germany. Many people neglect the Soviet Unions perticapation in the war, The Soviet Union was the main reason germany lost the war. Not the normandy landing, but the susses of the soviet army on the eastern front. in 1944, the soviets were allready on the boarder of germany.

America did help, but there role is way over rated

I agree. Germany's eastern front was the largest theater of the war and the siege of Stalingrad was the biggest battle. America played a relatively small role in the war and the losses America experienced during it were nothing compared to what the Soviet Union withstood.

I agree. Germany's eastern front was the largest theater of the war and the siege of Stalingrad was the biggest battle. America played a relatively small role in the war and the losses America experienced during it were nothing compared to what the Soviet Union withstood.

A lot of the USSR's losses had to do with terrible tactics rather than actual combat efficency. That being said, they threw enough people at Germany to wear it down for the US and UK to get a foothold in France and push inward.

The situation was the opposite in the Pacific; after all, the USSR didn't even declare war on Japan until the US/Australia/UK/China had fought them for the past five or so years.

I guess the USSR could have the European theatre without us, but a lot more people would have died, and the Iron Curtain would have extended all the way to France at the end of the war.

Not to mention the fact that America supplied Russia with an ass-load of P39s, tanks, and rifles.



hell, we practically carried everyone through about a year of that war.

Not to mention the fact that America supplied Russia with an ass-load of P38s, tanks, and rifles.



hell, we practically carried everyone through about a year of that war.

Yes, America should be proud of the fact that it gave weapons to Josef Stalin (the worst murderer the world has ever known), and helped carry him through the war. Way to go guys.

Yes, America should be proud of the fact that it gave weapons to Josef Stalin (the worst murderer the world has ever known), and helped carry him through the war. Way to go guys.

Because if we hadn't, Hitler could have quite possibly conquered all of Europe, and he was such a nice guy. Much more preferable than Stalin.

I guess the USSR could have the European theatre without us, but a lot more people would have died, and the Iron Curtain would have extended all the way to France at the end of the war.

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that, had America not helped the USSR, communism would have been stronger after the war? I would have thought that without American help the USSR would have been very weak after WWII and might have been incapable of fighting the cold war.

Because if we hadn't, Hitler could have quite possibly conquered all of Europe, and he was such a nice guy. Much more preferable than Stalin.

Hitler was preferable to Stalin.

Hitler was preferable to Stalin.

Ah, and why is that?

Hitler was preferable to Stalin.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


for the record, Mao Tse-Tung was the biggest bastard in history. he held the world record for mass genocide, he still may for all i know.

anyway, the most pressing issue at the time was the conquest of europe by the Facists. not the conquest of asia by the communists. Japan was imperialist, and so they got thrown into the pot with the rest of the Axis.

What the hell is this thread about anyway??!! I still haven't discovered that especially after reading the original question... totally confused now... :confused:

Ah, and why is that?

Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

for the record, Mao Tse-Tung was the biggest bastard in history. he held the world record for mass genocide, he still may for all i know.

Yes, you're right. I stand corrected. But Stalin was the worst murderer of his time.

anyway, the most pressing issue at the time was the conquest of europe by the Facists. not the conquest of asia by the communists. Japan was imperialist, and so they got thrown into the pot with the rest of the Axis.

Yes, but in the decades after the war, the most pressing issue was the cold war. Basically, America could have let Nazi Germany and Socialist Soviet Union fight each other, but instead it took each of them on individually.

On the subject of WW 2 many people believe they did indeed need help fighting the germans but in al cases they are prvon wrong by lack of evidence

I think no one can win this war alone.

US, Russia and UK wan becuse thay help each other.

A lot of the USSR's losses had to do with terrible tactics rather than actual combat efficency. That being said, they threw enough people at Germany to wear it down for the US and UK to get a foothold in France and push inward.

The situation was the opposite in the Pacific; after all, the USSR didn't even declare war on Japan until the US/Australia/UK/China had fought them for the past five or so years.

Oh how little you know. You don't even know what the strategy of the USSR was. The turned the trademark 3-pronged German attack against them. The Russians had lines that would fallback and reinforce the next line and repeat the process. Once it had gotten to Stalingrad the Soviet line was so thick and the German lines stretched so thin defeat was inevitable. :headbang:

Yes, America should be proud of the fact that it gave weapons to Josef Stalin (the worst murderer the world has ever known), and helped carry him through the war. Way to go guys.

You're an outright idiot.

And I meant that in the most offensive way possible.

I meant that in the most offensive way possible.

Then why do I find it amusing?

A lot of the USSR's losses had to do with terrible tactics rather than actual combat efficency. That being said, they threw enough people at Germany to wear it down for the US and UK to get a foothold in France and push inward.

The situation was the opposite in the Pacific; after all, the USSR didn't even declare war on Japan until the US/Australia/UK/China had fought them for the past five or so years.

Half true.

Soviet tactics were terrible, there doctrine was still that of ww1 (they had a hard time defeating finalnd because of that) however, from 1943 onwards, no, there tactics and equipment was just as good, if not better then that of the germans. EG , very few german tanks could destroy a t-34 , the only two i can think of were the tiger and panther (im sure theres more, thats i can think of now)

Another reason for high losses were, because germanys elite units were mostly, if not all in russia.

In western europe, 1944, in france, the german troops were mostly reserves, if the like of the grossdueschland was in france, they would of pushed the allies back into the sea, but, no, they were in russia fighting a (by then) equal enemy.

By 1945, when the russians invaded manchuria, there new tactics, and a severly weak japan, meant they advaced like a knife though warm butter!!!!!


Oh, and personaly, i dont think the world could of survived if britian had been invaded, let alone america helping.

If britian had gone, the germans would of slaughtered both america and the USSR.

I feel so proud, :tear:

An opening post that made no sense grammatically or practically and has still been spun out to 25 posts (26 now).

Well done Nser's, well done.

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that, had America not helped the USSR, communism would have been stronger after the war? I would have thought that without American help the USSR would have been very weak after WWII and might have been incapable of fighting the cold war.

I think if America had concentrated on the war in the Pacific, the lines during the cold war would have been shifted westwards... Germany most likely would have been entirely under Russian influence, France as well. Britain would have fought on, I would guess, as some sort of last capitalist stronghold in Europe.
On the other hand Russia might not have gotten involved in the Pacific at all, thus leaving China open to American influence... who knows?
Just speculations...

The American military and economic aid during and after WW2 was one of the greatest things ever for Europe. That's why I think FDR was such a great guy.

I guess the USSR could have the European theatre without us, but a lot more people would have died, and the Iron Curtain would have extended all the way to France at the end of the war.
Doubtful, actually even with US materiel support. What this fails to account for is that the mere presence of US troops, in Africa to start with, diverted Axis forces from the Eastern Front regardless of whether or not they were fighting US/Commonwealth troops. While Dieppe brought attention to the Western front and diverted some troops from the East, the presence of the US as an active participant in the war made an invasion of the West an actual possiblity instead of a stunt, thus the US merely by being in the war effectively took all the troops in OKH away from the Eastern Front. The forces deployed in Tunisia in response to Operation Torch were unavailible to respond at Stalingrad for an example, and the German forces availible on the Eastern Front were certainly affected by the loss of Italian troops and the requirement to maintain the Gothic Line after the US/Commonwealth/France invaded Italy. When one throws in the effects of the bombing campaign and the concomitant loss of air superiority over the Eastern Front through transfer of aircraft respond to it, the picture militarily on the Eastern Front looks even bleaker. Normandy might not have been necessary, but the threat posed by US had so great an effect on troop deployments that the war would have been very different had Hitler not declared war on the US.

The American military and economic aid during and after WW2 was one of the greatest things ever for Europe. That's why I think FDR was such a great guy.

Speaking for Germany, the aid after is what is remembered most. People are still grateful for that, and that was after all 60 years ago.

Speaking for Germany, the aid after is what is remembered most. People are still grateful for that, and that was after all 60 years ago.

If only the aid had been given willingly, instead of being stolen from US citizens by their government. But I guess nothing's ever perfect . . .

If only the aid had been given willingly, instead of being stolen from US citizens by their government. But I guess nothing's ever perfect . . .

I think if governments wouldn't now and again force their population to help others, we would see an awful lot more starvation than we do today.

Doubtful, actually even with US materiel support. What this fails to account for is that the mere presence of US troops, in Africa to start with, diverted Axis forces from the Eastern Front regardless of whether or not they were fighting US/Commonwealth troops. While Dieppe brought attention to the Western front and diverted some troops from the East, the presence of the US as an active participant in the war made an invasion of the West an actual possiblity instead of a stunt, thus the US merely by being in the war effectively took all the troops in OKH away from the Eastern Front. The forces deployed in Tunisia in response to Operation Torch were unavailible to respond at Stalingrad for an example, and the German forces availible on the Eastern Front were certainly affected by the loss of Italian troops and the requirement to maintain the Gothic Line after the US/Commonwealth/France invaded Italy. When one throws in the effects of the bombing campaign and the concomitant loss of air superiority over the Eastern Front through transfer of aircraft respond to it, the picture militarily on the Eastern Front looks even bleaker. Normandy might not have been necessary, but the threat posed by US had so great an effect on troop deployments that the war would have been very different had Hitler not declared war on the US.

Im not 100% sure what your saying here but, if there was no allied presence on mainland europe, (provided by D-Day) the soviets could of swept all the way to portugal. By June 1944, the germans had lost the war, i personaly belive the germans lost the war in 1943, when they lost Kursk.

After that, they were helpless against the russians, they were lucky to even slow the russians down, let alone stop them.

But, if the allies DIDNT invade in 1944 and take half of europe, the russians would of steamrolled right accros western europe. You could call d-day the first cold war action to deny western europe to the soviets.

A lot of the USSR's losses had to do with terrible tactics rather than actual combat efficency. terrible tactics? You cant win a war with terrible teactics. Ahh, were do you judge your openion on the eastern front? Enemy at the gates? :rolleyes:

The truth is that the soviets held off a army from there homeland, witch was un-defetable at the time, and then drove them back all the way too berlin. The majority of the casulties took place in the early part of the war, witch is understandble, givien that the soviet union was not ready to go to war when germany invaded the soviet union in june 22nd of 1941. It allso makes sence for the soviet union too have a casultie rate of 9 million(Soldiers) during the war, givien the fact thats where the main german army was on, and so did the german army suffer sever casulties on the eastern front.

The situation was the opposite in the Pacific; after all, the USSR didn't even declare war on Japan until the US/Australia/UK/China had fought them for the past five or so years.

Well, Japan did try to invade the soviet union in the 1930's in the far east. They failed, and becuase of that, japan had to station over 1 million troops in manchuria, just in case the soviet union would invade manchuria during any time of the war.Those +1million troops could of been diverted to the south pacific during any time of the war, but they had to be stationed in manchuria.


Not to mention the fact that America supplied Russia with an ass-load of P39s, tanks, and rifles.
The P-39 was a joke, under a skilled Pilot(witch the soviet union lacked during most of the war), it was a good airplane. But it had horrible stall charistics, and it was diffucult to handle with new piolts. Allso, The USAF did not favor the P-39 in the first place, so they just gave it over too the soviets. Tanks... Russia had plenty of them, they produced over 50,000 T-34's during the war, witch was better then any american tank at the time. I am not too sure america gave out rifles to the soviets... and the soviet union didnt realy need more rifles in the first place.

Yes, America should be proud of the fact that it gave weapons to Josef Stalin (the worst murderer the world has ever known), and helped carry him through the war. Way to go guys.

I don't care. Stalin at the time was an enemy of our enemy, and our survival was at stake. If anything, hold Roosevelt responsible for that. He was a communist sympathiser and was brown-nosing Stalin.

terrible tactics? You cant win a war with terrible teactics. Ahh, were do you judge your openion on the eastern front? Enemy at the gates? :rolleyes:

The truth is that the soviets held off a army from there homeland, witch was un-defetable at the time, and then drove them back all the way too berlin. The majority of the casulties took place in the early part of the war, witch is understandble, givien that the soviet union was not ready to go to war when germany invaded the soviet union in june 22nd of 1941. It allso makes sence for the soviet union too have a casultie rate of 9 million(Soldiers) during the war, givien the fact thats where the main german army was on, and so did the german army suffer sever casulties on the eastern front.



Your 100% correct, another reason for high soviet casulties was, either way you look at it, at the time, the german army was the best in the world, both tacticly, technoligcly, and in training.

ANY army facing the german army of ww2 for 4 years will of taken huge casulties.

In fact, most modern day tactics are stolen from the germans in ww2, by comparison, the allied tanks were worthless when compared to soviet and german tanks.

Why? because british and american tank doctrine didnt take into account tank v tank warfare. Therefore, as russia in east europe said, the soviets didnt need american tanks. Aircraft? the IL2 sturmovik is the most produced aircraft in history (it was a fighter-bomber) over 20,000 made, maybe a lot more. The russians could build all the equipment they needed. Like the americans there factorys wernt bombed. (not nearly as much as germanys or britians anyway)

here is how I see it

2 ways it could of happened

1) Japan attack’s Russia (instead of America) causing a two front war which would mean the factory's that were moved to the east would be captured/destroyed leading to Russia just running out of weapons with the defeat of Russia Japan can get oil and continue it's creation of a co-prosperity sphere

2) Japan avoids a war with Russia and America (this is more likely because Japan was scared of Russia) and gives in to America's demands

keep in mind one of the reasons the Germans got so far was because Stalin held his reserves behind Moscow (which swelled to huge numbers)

as the Russian's smash though Berlin still Hitler kill's himself but I doubt the war would of ended there! the Russians would most likely end up capturing most of mainland Europe (with us Brits making a small landing somewhere near the end of the war) as for the cold war (if there was one) there are a few factors that would of changed

1)Nazi technology and scientists would all be in Russian hands leading to a massive lead on the world in technology

2) the submarine loaded with radioactive material sent from Germany to Japan would of never been sent leading to America not pumping funds to the Manhattan project

3) after the war Russia would most likely attack the Japanese Empire America would most likely not intervene due to it being in isolationism

4) the British empire would collapse due to the strong communist pull from mainland Europe and America turning it's back on the world

which would lead to a mainly communist world were there is only Russian flags on the Moon

EDIT: forgot to mention Russia was in a massive re-armament program before Hitler invaded (one of the reason's why Hitler didn't invade Britain was because he didn't have the time little did he know time was already up)

Now if he hadn’t invaded the Russians would of attacked anyway just much later

terrible tactics? You cant win a war with terrible teactics. Ahh, were do you judge your openion on the eastern front? Enemy at the gates? :rolleyes:

The truth is that the soviets held off a army from there homeland, witch was un-defetable at the time, and then drove them back all the way too berlin. The majority of the casulties took place in the early part of the war, witch is understandble, givien that the soviet union was not ready to go to war when germany invaded the soviet union in june 22nd of 1941. It allso makes sence for the soviet union too have a casultie rate of 9 million(Soldiers) during the war, givien the fact thats where the main german army was on, and so did the german army suffer sever casulties on the eastern front.



Well, Japan did try to invade the soviet union in the 1930's in the far east. They failed, and becuase of that, japan had to station over 1 million troops in manchuria, just in case the soviet union would invade manchuria during any time of the war.Those +1million troops could of been diverted to the south pacific during any time of the war, but they had to be stationed in manchuria.



The P-39 was a joke, under a skilled Pilot(witch the soviet union lacked during most of the war), it was a good airplane. But it had horrible stall charistics, and it was diffucult to handle with new piolts. Allso, The USAF did not favor the P-39 in the first place, so they just gave it over too the soviets. Tanks... Russia had plenty of them, they produced over 50,000 T-34's during the war, witch was better then any american tank at the time. I am not too sure america gave out rifles to the soviets... and the soviet union didnt realy need more rifles in the first place.

FYI American war dead in WW2 were around 350k. Russian casualties were MANY MANY MANY times that and were in the MILLIONS. The USA was in the war since 1941, whereas the Russians hadn't been in it for that long. Common Russian tactics involved MASS infantry attacks....think thousands upon thousands....

Does anyone else find this thread incredibly confusing?

Does anyone else find this thread incredibly confusing?

nope

EDIT: so knowone can find anything wrong with what I posted :D

FYI American war dead in WW2 were around 350k. Russian casualties were MANY MANY MANY times that and were in the MILLIONS. The USA was in the war since 1941, whereas the Russians hadn't been in it for that long. Common Russian tactics involved MASS infantry attacks....think thousands upon thousands....

Russia was in the war 3 months longer then america.

Russia was invaded with 60-70% of germanys military capability.

Russia wanst prepared for the attack.

America wasnt invaded. Thats why its losses were much lower.

Including civilians, the soviets lost something in the region of 50 million, soldiers, something like 9 million.

Like ive said, russian tactics and equipment after 1943 were just as good, if not better then the germans, charging at machine guns WERNT common russian tactics. It happened yes but, it wasnt the normal bog standard tactic the russians used.

I wasnt used beyond the second half of 1943 (except when they sent mongolian conscripts or convicts, people they didnt care about, and that was mainly to clear mine fields)


The reasons for hig russian casulties:

1. the surpirise attack of the germans
2. The fact the german army was the best in the world.
3. the fact the war was IN RUSSIA,
4. the fact they faought the germans full on for 4 years, no other nation did that.
5. For large portians of the war, they were the only country activiely fighting ther germans (except sub capaigns like greece/africa)

Im not 100% sure what your saying here but, if there was no allied presence on mainland europe, (provided by D-Day) the soviets could of swept all the way to portugal.

Does the name 'Salerno' ring any bells? The Allies had a foothold on mainland Europe from September 1943 with their landings in Italy.

FYI American war dead in WW2 were around 350k. Russian casualties were MANY MANY MANY times that and were in the MILLIONS. The USA was in the war since 1941, whereas the Russians hadn't been in it for that long. Common Russian tactics involved MASS infantry attacks....think thousands upon thousands....
Hahaha, your so stupied :p

Wow... Your Stupiedity shocks me.

Ok, First off, The soviet union was in the war befor the united states. Cool it, there was no "mass" infantry attacks, you are watching to me of "enemy at the gates". The movie its self, falsely repersents what happen on the eastern front. Any soviet world war 2 vet on the eastern would denie that. You need to read a book, and stop watching movies :rolleyes:

The USA was in the war since 1941, whereas the Russians hadn't been in it for that long.

Eh? The USSR had been fighting since Septemeber 19th 1939 - 18 days after the war started. How does this not qualify as being in it 'for long'?

Eh? The USSR had been fighting since Septemeber 19th 1939 - 18 days after the war started. How does this not qualify as being in it 'for long'?
your 100% right, the other guy is just a idiot

Does the name 'Salerno' ring any bells? The Allies had a foothold on mainland Europe from September 1943 with their landings in Italy.

which were planned to attack Germany's soft underbelly which might I remind you failed miserably with Germans making impenetrable lines

your 100% right, the other guy is just a idiot

A word to the wise: calling people 'idiots' isn't generally liked round these parts, in fact in many cases it is perceived as flaming - which is against the rules, and secondly being misinformed is not the same thing as idiocy.

which were planned to attack Germany's soft underbelly which might I remind you failed miserably with Germans making impenetrable lines

Certainly - the Allied progress through Italy was literally at a snail's pace. However, I was just pointing out that Rougu was technically wrong in his claim that there were no Allied holdings on mainland Western Europe prior to D-Day.

Certainly - the Allied progress through Italy was literally at a snail's pace. However, I was just pointing out that Rougu was technically wrong in his claim that there were no Allied holdings on mainland Western Europe prior to D-Day.


ah how silly of me :(

so I guess were all agreed America wasn't needed (though I would rather not live under communism)

ah how silly of me :(

so I guess were all agreed America wasn't needed (though I would rather not live under communism)

In my opinion, America played an important role AFTER the war, in helping Europe back to its feet again, in supplying food and resources for a starving population and in stabilising the European West in the NATO, forming an opposition to the socialist countries under Russia's influence.
Of course, that wasn't an act of selflessness and altruism, but still...

ah how silly of me :(

so I guess were all agreed America wasn't needed (though I would rather not live under communism)

Regardless of whether the US's direct military intervention was required to defeat Nazi Germany or not, their economic aid of supplies and munitions were certainly a major factor, as was their close adherence to the Allied cause prior to Pearl Harbour (escorting convoys halfway across the Atlantic and the like).

As far as the Eastern theatre goes, I think it is fairly safe to say that if the US had sat out the war and Japan hadn't launch an attack upon it, then it is highly likely that the Coprosperity Sphere would have covered a great deal of the Pacific and the Subcontinent - eventually leading to conflict with the US as a result of the fact that such a great empire would have been an ongoing threat to the US.

To move away from counterhistoricals - with an attack having taken place on the US, the American role in the war was vital for rapid defeat of Japan: British Empire and Commonwealth forces were already overstretched to say the least and the USSR would have taken a long time to turn its attentions eastwards until it was directly threatened.

In my opinion, America played an important role AFTER the war, in helping Europe back to its feet again, in supplying food and resources for a starving population and in stabilising the European West in the NATO, forming an opposition to the socialist countries under Russia's influence.
Of course, that wasn't an act of selflessness and altruism, but still...

yes it was needed after the war but it could of been won anyway

snip

Japan attacked America (and the commonwealth ,Dutch east Indies) because it had only 12 months of oil (due to Japan being embargoed for its policy's )they knew the odds were they would lose but they were desperate

So basically Japan would be forced to change it’s imperialist policy’s and would just end up pulling out of China and never really attacking unprovoked again

all countries did there share in the fighting.

all countries did there share in the fighting.

that is generally excepted hence the name "world war" :rolleyes:

As a student of the eastern campaign(where 8 out of 10 German soldgers were killed in ww2) Hitlers dated no retreat policys( but it did save the German armies at the gates of moscow) hurt the German armies, if paulis would have been allowed to breakout( instead of having to relay on resupply from the lufftwaffe which was laughable at best) the Germans did not even have winter uniforms in the winter of 41-42 except for the waffen-ss(himmler made sure of that) if Germany had went to russia as liberators instead of conquarers(people forget the germans were welcomed at first, until the einsatsgruppen showed up) but one thing 99% of all historians agree on that man for man the Germans outfought the russians( just look at the numbers of soldgers killed on each side), the T-34/85 was argubly the best tank of the war, but you could also argue for the panzer mk4, the tiger and tiger 2 used to many resources for there value in combat,if Japan had attacked russia in early 42 after germany had declared war on Russia, before america got mobilzed( remember america used island hopping and we avoided most of the japensse army, which was in manchuria) stalin only released the far eastern armies only when his spy in toyko told him japan was no threat, allot of things could have happend, the Soviets used a moving war of attrition,but to me even if the United States had not enterd the war the day Hitler invaded the Soviet Union the war was lost.

HAHAHAHA!!!!! you got me! :headbang:

...Why will this poll close on December 12th? :confused:
*giggles*

The British Commonwealth did need supplies but Troops nah.

snip

please read the previous reply's before making your own :mad:

(ok I am sounding kind of uptight but this debate finished about 30+ minutes ago with me winning)

As a student of the eastern campaign(where 8 out of 10 German soldgers were killed in ww2) Hitlers dated no retreat policys( but it did save the German armies at the gates of moscow) hurt the German armies, if paulis would have been allowed to breakout( instead of having to relay on resupply from the lufftwaffe which was laughable at best) the Germans did not even have winter uniforms in the winter of 41-42 except for the waffen-ss(himmler made sure of that) if Germany had went to russia as liberators instead of conquarers(people forget the germans were welcomed at first, until the einsatsgruppen showed up) but one thing 99% of all historians agree on that man for man the Germans outfought the russians( just look at the numbers of soldgers killed on each side), the T-34/85 was argubly the best tank of the war, but you could also argue for the panzer mk4, the tiger and tiger 2 used to many resources for there value in combat,if Japan had attacked russia in early 42 after germany had declared war on Russia, before america got mobilzed( remember america used island hopping and we avoided most of the japensse army, which was in manchuria) stalin only released the far eastern armies only when his spy in toyko told him japan was no threat, allot of things could have happend, the Soviets used a moving war of attrition,but to me even if the United States had not enterd the war the day Hitler invaded the Soviet Union the war was lost.



not to mention the germans faught on alot of fronts in the war.Hittler was stupid to let the 6th army...but paulis was stupider for not leaving on his own like Rommel at El Alamain (SP?)


and that hittler tried to take the caucases for the oil,moscow,and Stalingrad at the same time making it hard to reinforce individual forces...if he took one at a time...who knows what would have happened.

not to mention the germans faught on alot of fronts in the war.Hittler was stupid to let the 6th army...but paulis was stupider for not leaving on his own like Rommel at El Alamain (SP?)


and that hittler tried to take the caucases for the oil,moscow,and Stalingrad at the same time making it hard to reinforce individual forces...if he took one at a time...who knows what would have happened. Yes Rommel did disobey Hittler but he was a stronger indivisual then paulis, you have to take uppring prussen obey even unto death attude, vs i do what i feel the best tactacal move is, Paulis know same as Rommel what was in his mens best interrests he just did,t act on it he trusted Hittler far more then Rommel,don,t try to look though other peoples eyes with out understanding there uppringing, thats what humans try to do.

Yes Rommel did disobey Hittler but he was a stronger indivisual then paulis, you have to take uppring prussen obey even unto death attude, vs i do what i feel the best tactacal move is, Paulis know same as Rommel what was in his mens best interrests he just did,t act on it he trusted Hittler far more then Rommel,don,t try to look though other peoples eyes with out understanding there uppringing, thats what humans try to do.
Rommel technicaly didnt disobey Hitler on the Non-Withdrawal order.
Of the information Hitler had of the situation He forbade a withdrawal of the upto date infromation he reiceved later he understood the necessity of withdrawal.

Did the USSR need the US to beat the Nazis during WWII?

Yes, it is indeed true that the Soviets would have lost the war without the intervention of the western allies. As we can see this from several bits of evidence.

First, we can see how the Western Allies drew divisions off from the Eastern front, during the North Africa and Italian Campaigns. Crack German divisions, such as the noted Hermann Goering Division fought against the US troops in Italy, and having the Germans suffering losses in both regions was a major blow.

Secondly, casualties are a poor indicator of the role a nation plays in winning a war. As General Patton said, "It's not your job to die for your country, it's your job to make your enemy die for his." Beyond that, if the Soviets had any concept of tactics outside of the "massive infantry assault" their casualty count would have been FAR lower.

Thirdly. Supply, that God of war. Napoleon said that an Army marches on it's belly, well, I'd tend to disagree. An army marches on all the supplies that it receives, and the US was the undisputed munitions champ of the war, producing around two thirds of global munitions during the time the war was on. American designs fueled the Russian tank corp, American gas fueled the Russian tanks. In fact, I believe it was Marshall Zhukov who said that the Soviet Union would have fallen in the winter of 1942 and 1943 without American supplies and aid.

Fourthly, the US may not have been fighting on the ground, but American and British planes were bombing Das Vaterland and it's precious war industries relentlessly, some contest the effectiveness that the bomb raids had on Germany, because they eventually moved most of their heavy industry underground, but the production delays that resulter from such a situation, the transport delays from the railroads bombed and many other factors played a key role in Germany's defeat.

In the west, after the Normandy invasion, American and British forces made remarkable progress after D-Day, reaching the German border by August. In the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans exhausted their last, best troops in a final effort to drive the western allies off of the continent (and then swing around and fight the russians, sort of Schlieffen plan-esque)with those same troops. Would they have succeeded against the Russians? Who knows?

On top of that, the US and Great Britain were waging a constant battle at sea against the German UBoats, to get supplies to Europe and support the war effort. Not to mention the impossible to forget Pacific Theater, which the Russians participated in only in the last week or so of the war.

No, the war almost certainly could not have been won without the US, the war could not have been won without Britain but for a miracle, and it is doubtful that the war could have been won without the USSR. To diminish the role that the US played is factually incorrect and silly, to diminish the role the UK played is factually incorrect and silly, to diminish the role of the USSR is factually incorrect and silly.

Beyond that, if the Soviets had any concept of tactics outside of the "massive infantry assault" their casualty count would have been FAR lower.

Again with this. Two things that need be pointed out - firstly, the USSR had two main resources, land and population, and traded both of these for slowing and then turning back the German advance and so massive casualties are not a failing on their part, just like the US used its prime resource (its economy) to contribute to the war effort, so did the USSR, secondly, this whole 'massive infantry assault' thing is a bit of a myth, although it is true that the USSR had a tendency to often use fairly simple 'straight down the middle' tactics, dismissing them as a one trick pony is mistaken - one could equally describe the US as solely employing 'massive infantry assault' tactics on the basis of its tendency to throw marines at deeply entrenched positions in the Pacific, and one would be equally in error.

Did the USSR need the US to beat the Nazis during WWII?

Yes, it is indeed true that the Soviets would have lost the war without the intervention of the western allies. As we can see this from several bits of evidence.

First, we can see how the Western Allies drew divisions off from the Eastern front, during the North Africa and Italian Campaigns. Crack German divisions, such as the noted Hermann Goering Division fought against the US troops in Italy, and having the Germans suffering losses in both regions was a major blow.

Secondly, casualties are a poor indicator of the role a nation plays in winning a war. As General Patton said, "It's not your job to die for your country, it's your job to make your enemy die for his." Beyond that, if the Soviets had any concept of tactics outside of the "massive infantry assault" their casualty count would have been FAR lower.

Thirdly. Supply, that God of war. Napoleon said that an Army marches on it's belly, well, I'd tend to disagree. An army marches on all the supplies that it receives, and the US was the undisputed munitions champ of the war, producing around two thirds of global munitions during the time the war was on. American designs fueled the Russian tank corp, American gas fueled the Russian tanks. In fact, I believe it was Marshall Zhukov who said that the Soviet Union would have fallen in the winter of 1942 and 1943 without American supplies and aid.

Fourthly, the US may not have been fighting on the ground, but American and British planes were bombing Das Vaterland and it's precious war industries relentlessly, some contest the effectiveness that the bomb raids had on Germany, because they eventually moved most of their heavy industry underground, but the production delays that resulter from such a situation, the transport delays from the railroads bombed and many other factors played a key role in Germany's defeat.

In the west, after the Normandy invasion, American and British forces made remarkable progress after D-Day, reaching the German border by August. In the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans exhausted their last, best troops in a final effort to drive the western allies off of the continent (and then swing around and fight the russians, sort of Schlieffen plan-esque)with those same troops. Would they have succeeded against the Russians? Who knows?

On top of that, the US and Great Britain were waging a constant battle at sea against the German UBoats, to get supplies to Europe and support the war effort. Not to mention the impossible to forget Pacific Theater, which the Russians participated in only in the last week or so of the war.

No, the war almost certainly could not have been won without the US, the war could not have been won without Britain but for a miracle, and it is doubtful that the war could have been won without the USSR. To diminish the role that the US played is factually incorrect and silly, to diminish the role the UK played is factually incorrect and silly, to diminish the role of the USSR is factually incorrect and silly.

I'm about to tear. I was rather disconcerted that after come into about 5 of these threads over the years, and providing the same argument as you (though I backed it up with sources, but since I switched comps, I don't have them anymore) I would have to do it all over again. It is very very good to see someone else out there has studied the situation.

If anything, the incompetence of the American High Command cost more lives than should have been lost.

If anything, the incompetence of the American High Command cost more lives than should have been lost.

Could you provide an example. Are you referring to America not joining the war in 1937 (the invasion of China) or 1939 (Poland). Or not seeing the Ardennes offensive coming. Examples?

If anything, the incompetence of the American High Command cost more lives than should have been lost.

It seems strange to me to single out the American high command during WWII as incompetent, compared to, for example, the French in 1940 or the Germans in the late war.

It seems strange to me to single out the American high command during WWII as incompetent, compared to, for example, the French in 1940 or the Germans in the late war.

With the exception of the Hammelburg raid, or pretty much anything else Patton did (which was something done by egocentric generals in all armies), I really can't think of anything that can't be rationalized.

It seems strange to me to single out the American high command during WWII as incompetent, compared to, for example, the French in 1940 or the Germans in the late war.

The whole "send the limeys and canucks and frenchies to the worst beaches and towns while we americans casually step off the boat" during the d-day landings?

The whole "send the limeys and canucks and frenchies to the worst beaches and towns while we americans casually step off the boat" during the d-day landings?

Oh yeah, Omaha beach was a cakewalk, but that's what you get for being late to the game.

The whole "send the limeys and canucks and frenchies to the worst beaches and towns while we americans casually step off the boat" during the d-day landings?

The US landed on the most heavily contested beach (Omaha) with the highest casualty rate of any beach. They also took Utah, which wasn't as easy as some make it out to be (one of the Brit beaches was far easier), but it was a pushover compared to Omaha. The Canadians had a somewhat hard time, and the British had mixed results, with one almost undefended beach, and another one that took a bit to crack, but once done it was done.

Further, the divisions that assaulted Caen were chosen by a British officer, Montgomery. Contrary to popular belief Eisenhower, once the invasions began, had no control over the campaign until September, it was Montgomerys operation (though Eisenhower could veto an operation).

Also I would like to note that the American forces took the brunt of the German Mortain counter-attack, scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign since Caen. And it was an American force that sealed off the southern portion of the Falaise Gap (The Canadians/French/Polish in the Canadian First Army sealed off the North).

Let's see, the Russians moved up towards Berlin in late '44. By mid '43, the US saved the Brits by kicking the German's asses out of North Africa and up into Italy. By early '44 we had kicked them up out of Italy for the most part. By mid '44 we were pushing them out of France, with some help from Britan and the Free French. Of course, we did 60% while the Brits did 30% and the Canadians and French did 10%. By late '44 the US and the US alone (essentially) had complete air superiority over the majority of Europe. We we had basically pushed the Germans out of Belgium and were kicking their asses in Holland (in part with the Brits). And by Janurary of 1945 we had reached the Rhine River, around the same time the Russians started closing in on Berlin. Of course, we had an extra 500 or 600 miles to go, but nevermind that. Oh, and let's not forget the hedgerows of Normandy. But we had warmer weather, though.

And finally, about a month or two after the Russians attacked, we arrived in Berlin, everything behind us liberated from German forces. France, Italy & Sicily, Belgium, Holland, Egypt, Libia, Tunisia, etc.

The US was the pivotal player for the allies. Without its aid, money, and troops, the Nazis would've had extra time to perfect their advanced weapons technology, and concentrate forces on the remaining allies.

Jet aircraft 15 years ahead of any other nation would be pummeling forces around the world, and they would've been German. Air superiority was crucial, and the Germans would've had jet fighters and bombers, as well as guided missiles and short range ballistic missiles..

Could the US have fought WWII on its own? Probably not, although if it held out long enough to still create the A-bomb, it could.

Let's see, the Russians moved up towards Berlin in late '44.

While facing the vast majority of the German Army, across devestated land all the way from the Volga River and the Caucasus, quite a feat for an Army that didn't start reversing the German tide until 1943.

By mid '43, the US saved the Brits by kicking the German's asses out of North Africa and up into Italy.

Montgomery had already kicked the Germans almost out of North Africa, the Torch landings just stopped him from retreating into Algeria. We didn't "save" the Brits, we worked with them, you know, the whole Allies thing.

By early '44 we had kicked them up out of Italy for the most part.

The Italian Campaign was a British Idea, the US wanted nothing to do with it, considering the Med to be a periphereal theater that would just suck resources away from the cross-Channel operation. Further, at times the majority of the Italian operation was conducted by Commonwealth and other Allied troops, not Americans. In fact, the American commander, Mark Clark, is considered one of the worst commanders for his actions in this theater. Further, we didn't really kick them out of Italy, they made us bang our heads against a very strong defense line in the North for over a year, while using a smaller number of divisions than us, and not even thier best troops.

By mid '44 we were pushing them out of France, with some help from Britan and the Free French.

The correct term would be Free forces and Commonwealth forces, but I digress. And we weren't pushing them out, they were evacuating.

Of course, we did 60% while the Brits did 30% and the Canadians and French did 10%.

Actually, until October, US and Commonwealth forces made up about an equal share of the Army of the Liberation, the US preponderance did not start until after Market-Garden.

By late '44 the US and the US alone (essentially) had complete air superiority over the majority of Europe.

Where do you get this from, again, the USAAF and RAF had about an equal role in the air campaign. The US had a slight preponderance in heavy bombers, but the Brits held thier own well until 1945.

We we had basically pushed the Germans out of Belgium and were kicking their asses in Holland (in part with the Brits).

Most US forces were actually pushing into Alsace and Lorraine towards the Rhine and Saar, the Belgian and especially the Dutch operations were almost exclusively Commonwealth operations.

And by Janurary of 1945 we had reached the Rhine River, around the same time the Russians started closing in on Berlin.

The Russians had been closing in on Berlin since Bagration in June of 1944, they just opted to secure the Balkans first.

Of course, we had an extra 500 or 600 miles to go, but nevermind that. Oh, and let's not forget the hedgerows of Normandy. But we had warmer weather, though.

Well, after we encircled Model in the Rhineland, there really wasn't any organized resistance in our way, it was much different from the Russian experience in places like Konigsberg or Breslau, much less Berlin. I'm not sure where hedgerows fit into this.

And finally, about a month or two after the Russians attacked, we arrived in Berlin, everything behind us liberated from German forces. France, Italy & Sicily, Belgium, Holland, Egypt, Libia, Tunisia, etc.

We arrived in Berlin after the war, and the Russians had no less an extensive list of liberations, including far more ground.

Let's see, the Russians moved up towards Berlin in late '44. By mid '43, the US saved the Brits by kicking the German's asses out of North Africa and up into Italy. By early '44 we had kicked them up out of Italy for the most part. By mid '44 we were pushing them out of France, with some help from Britan and the Free French. Of course, we did 60% while the Brits did 30% and the Canadians and French did 10%. By late '44 the US and the US alone (essentially) had complete air superiority over the majority of Europe. We we had basically pushed the Germans out of Belgium and were kicking their asses in Holland (in part with the Brits). And by Janurary of 1945 we had reached the Rhine River, around the same time the Russians started closing in on Berlin. Of course, we had an extra 500 or 600 miles to go, but nevermind that. Oh, and let's not forget the hedgerows of Normandy. But we had warmer weather, though.

And finally, about a month or two after the Russians attacked, we arrived in Berlin, everything behind us liberated from German forces. France, Italy & Sicily, Belgium, Holland, Egypt, Libia, Tunisia, etc.

36,163 IL-2's
34,547 Yak-1/Yak-3/Yak-7/Yak-9
22,201 LaGG-3/La-5/La-7
22,000 U-2/Po-2
11,427 Pe-2
5,256 Il-4
4,230 Hawker Typhoon/Tempest
3,644 I-16's
3,437 I-153
3,120 Mig-3's
2,466 Il-10

Dont discount the Russian airforce. US airforce was important, but considering how much was at sea, fighting japan, or at home, the influence isnt as big as it seems in europe, before normandy and especially before torch. The Soviets did their fair share in the air.

36,163 IL-2's
34,547 Yak-1/Yak-3/Yak-7/Yak-9
22,201 LaGG-3/La-5/La-7
22,000 U-2/Po-2
11,427 Pe-2
5,256 Il-4
4,230 Hawker Typhoon/Tempest
3,644 I-16's
3,437 I-153
3,120 Mig-3's
2,466 Il-10

Dont discount the Russian airforce. US airforce was important, but considering how much was at sea, fighting japan, or at home, the influence isnt as big as it seems in europe, before normandy and especially before torch. The Soviets did their fair share in the air.

Not to discount the Soviet contribution, but the Red Air Force was practically just moving artillery for the Army. It never achieved the abilities of the Western Air Forces to completely dominate the skies over enemy territory, not just the front but also the rear areas. The vast majority (9/10ths) of the Luftwaffe was destroyed over Germany (Source, The Second World War, by John Keegan) and France by the Western Air Forces. The US never employed that many machines in the Pacific as you may think, with a large portion being Navy or Marine aircraft. Not until 1945 are large USAAF formations being flown in the Pacific.

The Soviet figures you have shown, I assume are production runs for the craft, not actual figures for machine that could be operated at the height of the Red Air Force (Since the USAAF at it's height, operated 96,000 machines, and this was larger than the next two largest air forces combined, again from Keegan). Soviet pilot training was always significantly behind Western standards and led to squadronds being formed around one ace with the rest as cannon fodder.

-Double post-

I think if governments wouldn't now and again force their population to help others, we would see an awful lot more starvation than we do today.
I’d rather have starvation by some, than theft to all. What entitled the Germans more than the American families the money was taken from? Also, get your history right. Truman was president at the end of World War II.

Personally I think that the US helped alot but if they had bothered to join the war much earlier many lives would have been saved but they were too worried about themselves. But then the same could be said about Britians appeasement of Hitler before the war.

Stalin killed more people than Hitler.
but he was in power for longer.

I’d rather have starvation by some, than theft to all. What entitled the Germans more than the American families the money was taken from? Also, get your history right. Truman was president at the end of World War II.


Did I ever say he wasn't? :confused:

I'm not talking starvation of some, I'm talking millions. The population of mailand Europe was already massivley reduced in numbers, and all those that were left faced starvation.
The alternative scenario wasn't only morally doubtful, it was also a very real danger to world security and to the US in the Cold War:
In not helping Germany and most other countries to restart their economy, the US would before long face a situation that was just a bad (or even worse) as the situation after WWI which had directly led to WWII, namely a destroyed country, a ruined economy and feelings of revenge. Europe would have become a battle ground again a few years later.
It is very likely that the USSR would have taken advantage of the situation, extending its influence westward to the Atlantic and becoming an even greater threat to the US.

If you think all this would be preferable to forcing the American public to fund European restauration for 3 years, you have a rather narrow view of history, I think.

this may be a little off topic but it's got to do with the Americans in WWII. I reckon the Americans coming into WWII was great, not only in the European theatre but also in the Pacific theatre. without the aid of the Americans, "G'day mate" in Australia would've been replaced by "konichiwa" :)

The Australian troops, although being strong and courageous and such wouldn't of stood a chance against the Japanese.

Having said that, so I've heard the Japanese were split in the decision to invade Australia at all. The navy, being more aggressive, wanted to take Australia ASAP while the army which was more cautious was worried about supplies and the amount of men and material needed. But then again there was still the bombing in Darmwin and Broome in the North of Australia as well as the sinking of the HMAS Kuttabul in Sydney Harbour.

just my fifty-two cents

Let's see, the Russians moved up towards Berlin in late '44. By mid '43, the US saved the Brits by kicking the German's asses out of North Africa and up into Italy. By early '44 we had kicked them up out of Italy for the most part. By mid '44 we were pushing them out of France, with some help from Britan and the Free French. Of course, we did 60% while the Brits did 30% and the Canadians and French did 10%. By late '44 the US and the US alone (essentially) had complete air superiority over the majority of Europe. We we had basically pushed the Germans out of Belgium and were kicking their asses in Holland (in part with the Brits). And by Janurary of 1945 we had reached the Rhine River, around the same time the Russians started closing in on Berlin. Of course, we had an extra 500 or 600 miles to go, but nevermind that. Oh, and let's not forget the hedgerows of Normandy. But we had warmer weather, though.

And finally, about a month or two after the Russians attacked, we arrived in Berlin, everything behind us liberated from German forces. France, Italy & Sicily, Belgium, Holland, Egypt, Libia, Tunisia, etc.

Ahem, I'm gonna put this in simple enough words for you to understand. America SOUTH, Canadians and British NORTH. Commonwealth troops liberated Belgium and Canadians especially liberated Holland. Read your fucking history book. The Dutch send flowers to Canada every year for a reason. :headbang:

The USA neither needed or gave much aid during the war and it could have been won without them. The country which made by far the greatest contribution in the fight against fascism was the USSR and it lost 22 million of its own citizens.

The USA neither needed or gave much aid during the war and it could have been won without them. The country which made by far the greatest contribution in the fight against fascism was the USSR and it lost 22 million of its own citizens.

33 Billion in aid to the UK, and 11 billion to the Soviets, the entire re-equipping of several nations armed forces (France, Free Polish and Czech forces), while at the same time running the war against Japan, hardly minimal.

this may be a little off topic but it's got to do with the Americans in WWII. I reckon the Americans coming into WWII was great, not only in the European theatre but also in the Pacific theatre. without the aid of the Americans, "G'day mate" in Australia would've been replaced by "konichiwa" :)

The Australian troops, although being strong and courageous and such wouldn't of stood a chance against the Japanese.

Having said that, so I've heard the Japanese were split in the decision to invade Australia at all. The navy, being more aggressive, wanted to take Australia ASAP while the army which was more cautious was worried about supplies and the amount of men and material needed. But then again there was still the bombing in Darmwin and Broome in the North of Australia as well as the sinking of the HMAS Kuttabul in Sydney Harbour.

just my fifty-two cents

The bombing of Australia was about the furthest the Japanese were going to advance. They lacked wholesale the transportation capacity to move a large force to the Outback and defend it. Australia while most of its forces were committed in the Middle East, still had a small number of troops in Australia, plus the arrival of the US 1st Marine Division to defend it. The Japanese had no forces to commit to the operation, they had used up thier entire 11 divisions available in the Southern Offensive, and were heavily committed to entrenching themselves. Not to mention the huge breadth of Australia, I doubt any invading force could do it in a few weeks.

ok I'll repeat myself :mad:


here is how I see it

2 ways it could of happened

1) Japan attack’s Russia (instead of America) causing a two front war which would mean the factory's that were moved to the east would be captured/destroyed leading to Russia just running out of weapons with the defeat of Russia Japan can get oil and continue it's creation of a co-prosperity sphere

2) Japan avoids a war with Russia and America (this is more likely because Japan was scared of Russia) and gives in to America's demands

keep in mind one of the reasons the Germans got so far was because Stalin held his reserves behind Moscow (which swelled to huge numbers)

as the Russian's smash though Berlin still Hitler kill's himself but I doubt the war would of ended there! the Russians would most likely end up capturing most of mainland Europe (with us Brits making a small landing somewhere near the end of the war) as for the cold war (if there was one) there are a few factors that would of changed

1)Nazi technology and scientists would all be in Russian hands leading to a massive lead on the world in technology

2) the submarine loaded with radioactive material sent from Germany to Japan would of never been sent leading to America not pumping funds to the Manhattan project

3) after the war Russia would most likely attack the Japanese Empire America would most likely not intervene due to it being in isolationism

4) the British empire would collapse due to the strong communist pull from mainland Europe and America turning it's back on the world

which would lead to a mainly communist world were there is only Russian flags on the Moon

EDIT: forgot to mention Russia was in a massive re-armament program before Hitler invaded (one of the reason's why Hitler didn't invade Britain was because he didn't have the time little did he know time was already up)

Now if he hadn’t invaded the Russians would of attacked anyway just much later

on another note
Commonwealth forces wouldn't of had to fight Japan in the far east which would of given massive supplies to the Africa campaign

and another note
Russia had advanced (more advanced than the Germans actually :eek: ) jet aircraft but Stalin decided the war could be won sooner with sheer weight of numbers

EDIT: source: http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/text_only/tv_listings/full_details/World_history/programme_2715.php

I hate this. All three Allies played a HUGE part in the war, Russia, by distracting the Germans from Britian and for the final push on Berlin, The United States, for providing the needed materials and troops to land on Normandy, and Britain, for being a good staging base for the invasion of France. If any three of those countries did not exist... the war would have been lost.

waite? america was the one adding the British. why would they need aid? Soviets turned Onb Germany in the end with out American help and I think the British could of beat Germany in the end. so america did not really need to enter at all! they just should of handled Japan.

Britian by itself could NEVER muster the manpower needed to reland on the continent and therefore open a second front. Therefore, the Germans could afford to station very few divisions in Northern France and concetrate on the Soviet Union... of course, if Hitler had ignored the Soviets, and sent 2 omre Panzer divisions to Rommel, the war would have been lost anyways.

To understand what I am talking about please read, 'How Hitler Could Have Won World War 2)

I hate this. All three Allies played a HUGE part in the war, Russia, by distracting the Germans from Britian and for the final push on Berlin, The United States, for providing the needed materials and troops to land on Normandy, and Britain, for being a good staging base for the invasion of France. If any three of those countries did not exist... the war would have been lost.

1) Hitler had already given up on invading Britain before operation barborossa(sp?)

2) America sold us Brits supplies (were still paying for it) I would hardly call that fighting

3) no the war was won at Stalingrad (which to my best memory was before America was forced to help)

But I’m still glad America helped because communism sucks!

Okay... so according to your logic the Americans never fought in World War 2... and all the history books about Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge are wrong? Also, the Battle of Stalingrad began in 1942, as I recall America entered the war in 1941! Another thing, if Hitler hadnt meddled in the affairs of his generals during operation Barborossa, he could have WON! If he had sent 2 more panzer divisions to rommel instead of invading the Soviets, he could have WON! Even AFTER the Battle of Stalingrad, if Hitler had switched over to the defensive in Russia(a real defense, not that hold-every-ground-to-the-last-man crap) and if he had concentrated on his airforce and navy, he would have WON(or at least get a peace settlement on that last one)!

Britian by itself could NEVER muster the manpower needed to reland on the continent and therefore open a second front. Therefore, the Germans could afford to station very few divisions in Northern France and concetrate on the Soviet Union... of course, if Hitler had ignored the Soviets, and sent 2 omre Panzer divisions to Rommel, the war would have been lost anyways.

To understand what I am talking about please read, 'How Hitler Could Have Won World War 2)

1) this wasn't just Britain this was the British Empire (that's 25% of the world were talking about)

2) Hitler was obsessed with the western front

3) Rommel would be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers and supplies that could be sent from the east of the Empire (due to Japan not being a threat)

4) the book probly doesn’t consider Japan would of attacked America or given in to there demands (in the case were talking Japan would of not attacked)

5) the book wouldn't of included the secret Russian jets of the time (which were far ahead even though Stalin hated the air force)

1:The British Empire was under attack by the Japanese BEFORE 1941.
2:Hitler was more obssesed about the Eastern Front with the exceptions of the 1940 invasion of France and the Ardennes offensive. But in the former, Hitler had no where else to go, in the latter his planning was unrealistic.
3:Mooted by point 1, but Hitler had TWENTY Panzer divisions avaible before the Soviet Invasion. That would be more then enough to crush the British in Egypt and drive into the Middle East.
4:Hmm, I have not read the entire thread. But if thats the case you have gotten off topic.
5:I dont know of anything about any secret Russian jet, so I cannot answer that point. Ill google it and come back to you later.

Okay... so according to your logic the Americans never fought in World War 2... and all the history books about Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge are wrong? Also, the Battle of Stalingrad began in 1942, as I recall America entered the war in 1941! Another thing, if Hitler hadnt meddled in the affairs of his generals during operation Barborossa, he could have WON! If he had sent 2 more panzer divisions to rommel instead of invading the Soviets, he could have WON! Even AFTER the Battle of Stalingrad, if Hitler had switched over to the defensive in Russia(a real defense, not that hold-every-ground-to-the-last-man crap) and if he had concentrated on his airforce and navy, he would have WON(or at least get a peace settlement on that last one)!

WTF which thread have you been reading?

the thing is Hitler DID all these mad things were not debating wither or not it could of been won without a madman in charge

when Stalin allowed his massive reserves to attack (which is one the reasons why the Germans got so far) the war really was lost

1:The British Empire was under attack by the Japanese BEFORE 1941.
2:Hitler was more obssesed about the Eastern Front with the exceptions of the 1940 invasion of France and the Ardennes offensive. But in the former, Hitler had no where else to go, in the latter his planning was unrealistic.
3:Mooted by point 1, but Hitler had TWENTY Panzer divisions avaible before the Soviet Invasion. That would be more then enough to crush the British in Egypt and drive into the Middle East.
4:Hmm, I have not read the entire thread. But if thats the case you have gotten off topic.
5:I dont know of anything about any secret Russian jet, so I cannot answer that point. Ill google it and come back to you later.

1) no the British empire was attacked around the same time as peral harbour (your most likly thinking of Freanch indo-china)

2) ever heard of the atlantic wall?

3) but they were used to attack Russia (Hitler had a master plan Russia was going to be attacked)

1:Hmm, maybe I am? Maybe I am not? I admit I am not completely sure about the date. Ill get back to you on that.

2:He left Paulus and Rommel in charge of that. He never completely cared about it(hell, he slept through the landings).

3:Uhh... yeah... but Hitler DID NOT HAVE TO attack Russia. He also could have WON in Russia. He also could have NOT INVADED Russia. The African Campaign did begin in late 1940 after all.

1:Hmm, maybe I am? Maybe I am not? I admit I am not completely sure about the date. Ill get back to you on that.

2:He left Paulus and Rommel in charge of that. He never completely cared about it(hell, he slept through the landings).

3:Uhh... yeah... but Hitler DID NOT HAVE TO attack Russia. He also could have WON in Russia. He also could have NOT INVADED Russia. The African Campaign did begin in late 1940 after all.

2) he sent forces to Belgium (even after D-day) because we tricked him into thinking there was going to be 2 landing's and he sent much needed supplies to the western front thinking the allies would join him in fighting Russia

3) your point?

Not to discount the Soviet contribution, but the Red Air Force was practically just moving artillery for the Army. It never achieved the abilities of the Western Air Forces to completely dominate the skies over enemy territory, not just the front but also the rear areas. The vast majority (9/10ths) of the Luftwaffe was destroyed over Germany (Source, The Second World War, by John Keegan) and France by the Western Air Forces. The US never employed that many machines in the Pacific as you may think, with a large portion being Navy or Marine aircraft. Not until 1945 are large USAAF formations being flown in the Pacific.

The Soviet figures you have shown, I assume are production runs for the craft, not actual figures for machine that could be operated at the height of the Red Air Force (Since the USAAF at it's height, operated 96,000 machines, and this was larger than the next two largest air forces combined, again from Keegan). Soviet pilot training was always significantly behind Western standards and led to squadronds being formed around one ace with the rest as cannon fodder.

I wish I had the resource I had last night, it showed a lot of numbers which I would have liked to use here. But while what you say is true, the fact is that the Russians maintained air superiority post 1942 by itself in Russia and coming into central europe.

The American military and economic aid during and after WW2 was one of the greatest things ever for Europe. That's why I think FDR was such a great guy.

Well actually Canada gave more to the UK itself than the USA did. 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. The USA gave probably per-capita more over all, but not to the UK, Canada gave the most, not only in money and war material but also in training.

Throughout the war, Canada provided training facilities and instruction to airmen from all over the world 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".

We were also there in 1939, we didn't wait till 1941 to get involved. ;)

Hitler really screwed up Barbarossa. We're lucky he was such an egomaniac, because if he had let his generals continue what they were doing, England would have been gone.

And that brings me to my second point, if England went the war would have been over. If America had not entered, the war would have been over. Each of the 3 main allies, America, Britain, and the USSR were all necessary to victory. Trying to play down the contribution of other countries while glorifying your own is just being big-headed.

Give it a rest- your country did not save Western civilization.

I dont think any one group could have fought the war alone, except for maybe the Soviet Union, but they would have been destroyed in the process. Each group provided aid where needed. It was a group effort.

Well actually Canada gave more to the UK itself than the USA did. 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. The USA gave probably per-capita more over all, but not to the UK, Canada gave the most, not only in money and war material but also in training.

Throughout the war, Canada provided training facilities and instruction to airmen from all over the world 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".

We were also there in 1939, we didn't wait till 1941 to get involved. ;)

really? Wow! seriously, I did not know
Canada played such a big role in helping
Britain! I do know that they did do a hell of a job
on the beaches at Normandy, and that they were some outstanding
fighters! Cool, thanks!

Hitler really screwed up Barbarossa. We're lucky he was such an egomaniac, because if he had let his generals continue what they were doing, England would have been gone.

And that brings me to my second point, if England went the war would have been over. If America had not entered, the war would have been over. Each of the 3 main allies, America, Britain, and the USSR were all necessary to victory. Trying to play down the contribution of other countries while glorifying your own is just being big-headed.

Give it a rest- your country did not save Western civilization.

Hell, without the big three working together, we'd all be
goose stepping around with swastikas hanging from every wall
and street lamp and adoring the feuher! Have you guys heard
about about Hitler's plans for America after he would have conquerd
europe? Its scary as hell. They even had a space program under way
which would have allowed them to bomb the US from space from a
space plane. Not to mention the nuclear bomb race.