NationStates Jolt Archive

So, a few years ago I was discussing WWII with a Frenchman, who vehemently argued that France was most helped by the USSR during WWII. Now, My understanding is that France was liberated by a combined force from Great Britain, Australia and the USA. Was this guy nuts? Was it historical revisionism? Am I missing something?

So, a few years ago I was discussing WWII with a Frenchman, who vehemently argued that France was most helped by the USSR during WWII. Now, My understanding is that France was liberated by a combined force from Great Britain, Australia and the USA. Was this guy nuts? Was it historical revisionism? Am I missing something?

The fact that 90% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front. So without the Russians, France would never have been liberated.

Now, My understanding is that France was liberated by a combined force from Great Britain, Australia and the USA. Was this guy nuts? Was it historical revisionism? Am I missing something?

Are you missing something? Yup, the Canadians, and to a lesser extent the Poles, Czechs, New Zealanders and a couple of other forces.

The Russian did indeed do more for the liberty of France than the western allies.

However, without them that "liberation" wouldn't propably been too great event... No one want's to get liberated by the Stalinist Russia :rolleyes:

Australians? I have never heard about Australian troops in Europe after the withdrawal from Crete in '41. Some might have been in Italy, dunno. But I doubt there were any in France.

Poles and Canadians were the main forces, after USA and UK.

The Russian did indeed do more for the liberty of France than the western allies.

However, without them that "liberation" wouldn't propably been too great event... No one want's to get liberated by the Stalinist Russia :rolleyes:
Aye. It's like getting a health inspection from a fellow prisoner in jail...

The fact that 90% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front. So without the Russians, France would never have been liberated.

Okay, but was that not due to poor strategy on Hitler's part more than Soviet prowress? A lot of the German army was destroyed by the Russian winters when inadequate supplies and logistics left them hanging. Could it not then be argued that Germany itself did a lot to liberate France?

it's no revisionism in France.
Gouvernement makes history by law.

Yes many Russian invaded France for Liberation. And some US tourists passed through fast enough to be ignored.
De Gaulle swiped the last US in 1958 when he finished paying war debts.

From this time France is still a great Friend of Russia.
(by the way... where is America???)


The ex-Ambassador of the Holy Heretics
by the Kingdom of Froggy Heaven

Aye. It's like getting a health inspection from a fellow prisoner in jail...

I dunno... Some people might enjoy that.

Australians? I have never heard about Australian troops in Europe after the withdrawal from Crete in '41. Some might have been in Italy, dunno. But I doubt there were any in France.

Poles and Canadians were the main forces, after USA and UK.

Thank you, I meant Canada. I guess I had Australia on the brain after reading over that WWI thread ;)

Yes many Russian invaded France for Liberation. And some US tourists passed through fast enough to be ignored.


Can you elaborate on this, please?

It's a great fact that the french hate Americans and Brit's all the same. They hate America because they became seem to think that america took their power away and hate us Brit because we were a 'Rival' to them when the truth is we controlled 1/4 of the earths surface. Most of them are just to arrogant to have a conversation with!

...

It's a great fact that the french hate Americans and Brit's all the same. They hate America because they became seem to think that america took their power away and hate us Brit because we were a 'Rival' to them when the truth is we controlled 1/4 of the earths surface. Most of them are just to arrogant to have a conversation with!

I do seem to recall there being a memorial cemetary in Normandy with Canadian, British and American flags. Where is the one with the Soviet/Russian flag?

...

???

Are you missing something? Yup, the Canadians, and to a lesser extent the Poles, Czechs, New Zealanders and a couple of other forces.

including more than a few spanish exiles

It's a great fact that the french hate Americans and Brit's all the same. They hate America because they became seem to think that america took their power away and hate us Brit because we were a 'Rival' to them when the truth is we controlled 1/4 of the earths surface. Most of them are just to arrogant to have a conversation with!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.cobbe/potkettle.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.cobbe/potkettle.jpg

???

???

*beats you senseless with a paper bag*

???
Oh dear...

I dunno... Some people might enjoy that.
Not if it's nonconsensual.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.cobbe/potkettle.jpg
See, this is what makes the internet great. Stuff like this.

Australians? I have never heard about Australian troops in Europe after the withdrawal from Crete in '41. Some might have been in Italy, dunno. But I doubt there were any in France.

I have a feeling that there were a few: wikipedia (pinch of salt and all that) does state 'The majority of the Allied forces was composed of United States, United Kingdom, and Canadian units. The remainder were from other Commonwealth nations, Australia and New Zealand, and from the occupied countries of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, and Poland' when talking about those making the landings on D-Day.

Can't seem to find much else right now.

I do seem to recall there being a memorial cemetary in Normandy with Canadian, British and American flags. Where is the one with the Soviet/Russian flag?
The Russians didn't actually liberate France in the sense that their army never got onto French soil. What the Russians did do was cause the deaths of80-90% of the German casualties, and keep a large part of the German Army fighting in the east.

Who had more to do with is speculation, the argument is that if Russia had surrendered it would have freed up troops for the Western Front and France might not have been liberated and Britain might have been conquered and the USA might not have been able to make a significant contribution.

Team Effort:)

So, a few years ago I was discussing WWII with a Frenchman, who vehemently argued that France was most helped by the USSR during WWII. Now, My understanding is that France was liberated by a combined force from Great Britain, Australia and the USA. Was this guy nuts? Was it historical revisionism? Am I missing something?

If that be the case, then we didn't liberate them from the Germans, we liberated them from the Soviets.

No one. And I mean NO ONE wanted to be "saved" by the Russians. Just ask the Pollocks and East Germans. If the Allied powers hadn't worked on the Western Front then Stalin may very well have defeated Hitler alone and Germany, France, Italy, etc, may have found themselves part of the USSR. Hell, maybe even Britain! Europe may not have been carved up at Yalta, Stalin may have had it all, and the Cold War would have been very, very different.

No, being saved by the Soviets is not a claim one should be thrilled with making. The idea of alternate histories is always intriguing though. :)

Are you missing something? Yup, the Canadians, and to a lesser extent the Poles, Czechs, New Zealanders and a couple of other forces.

You're forgetting the Forces Françaises Libres, and the soldiers from non-white colonies of Allied nations. (Which was also the case in World War One. How many people know that a handful of Niueans fought in the trenches of France?)

You're forgotting the Forces Françaises Libres, and the soldiers from non-white colonies of Allied nations. (Which was also the case in World War One. How many people know that a handful of Niueans fought in the trenches of France?)
At a random guess I'd say a handful of Niueans know:rolleyes:

Kinda like how Americans would rather forget that the French saved their ass from the British, twice. People tend to go into denial about things which make them look stupid.

Kinda like how Americans would rather forget that the French saved their ass from the British, twice. People tend to go into denial about things which make them look stupid.
We repaid that debt with the actions in both World Wars. As far as I'm personally concerned, we're even.

But then, that's looking at it from a compromise "let's both just be friends" point of view, and we can't have that!

Okay, but was that not due to poor strategy on Hitler's part more than Soviet prowress? A lot of the German army was destroyed by the Russian winters when inadequate supplies and logistics left them hanging. Could it not then be argued that Germany itself did a lot to liberate France?

Nah, it was more the fact that there were a *lot* of Russians in Russia, and suddenly they were all in tanks and airplanes...

Kinda like how Americans would rather forget that the French saved their ass from the British, twice. People tend to go into denial about things which make them look stupid.

Also dont forget French gave us the Statue of Liberty.

Yeah, all the people the starter of this tread described did help free France (although I am not so sure about Australia helping), but Russia indirectly helped liberate France.

We repaid that debt with the actions in both World Wars. As far as I'm personally concerned, we're even.

But then, that's looking at it from a compromise "let's both just be friends" point of view, and we can't have that!

We saved France during WW1? Never knew that, I thought they had held the germans off quite well for most of the war.. :confused:

I have a feeling that there were a few: wikipedia (pinch of salt and all that) does state 'The majority of the Allied forces was composed of United States, United Kingdom, and Canadian units. The remainder were from other Commonwealth nations, Australia and New Zealand, and from the occupied countries of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, and Poland' when talking about those making the landings on D-Day.

Can't seem to find much else right now.

I wouldn't trust wikipedia too much in this this question... listings like this are one of the things it's not really too reliable. (Then there's of course the possibility that I'm just plain wrong...)

Another thing, the Poles. Mentioned last. After Norwegians (one company), Belgians, Netherlanders (a battalion each, meaby?) Greece (a company again) and Checkoslovakia - a regiment.
Poles did more than all these together. They had some quarter million men in arms fighting along the Western allies, plus the half-a-million in the East. As the Brits in here may know, UK officially ignored the Polish veterans after the war. They were bad for the relations with Russia and the new, communist puppet-Poland, and weren't let into memorial parades or economically supported, not even the invalised ones. Yet they were committed more troops than the Free France ever, and not much less than the much-praised Canadians. The Polish Armoured division and mountain troops were considered as elite formations, and their airbornes did miracles in the Market Garden.

This is completely irrelevant for this conversation, but I just felt like telling... The Poles in the WW2 are usually remembered for only their quick defeat in 1939, but the rest is pretty much forgotten. That's wrong.

Also, Yugoslavians. Those 300,000+ Axis soldiers that were tied into the Balkans, especially Yugoland, could have been put to use in the Atlantic Wall... and therefore they, also, were a remarkable help in liberating France.

We saved France during WW1? Never knew that, I thought they had held the germans off quite well for most of the war.. :confused:

Indeed. The French and British Empires were already winning, even though the value of the economical support over the ocean did help it quite a lot. I'd still say they would have done it alone, too.

We repaid that debt with the actions in both World Wars. As far as I'm personally concerned, we're even.

But then, that's looking at it from a compromise "let's both just be friends" point of view, and we can't have that!

Eh? WW1? Some have argued that our entry is what led to the last great push.

It could be said, the us screwed France at Dien Bien Phu.

Who owes what is always an asinine argument. Especially when the generations who did the fighting are gone.

It is also asinine to think that a countries gratitude is expected to last forever. We really don't acknowledge the French over the Revolution so why do they have to acknowledge the US over WWII?

The French do acknowledge the veterans. I have even heard one tell a story about being in Paris and getting crap about being an American. Then they saw his D-Day veteran cap and changed their attitude.

France doesn't have to thank the grandchildren of these men. Why should they?

In the same token, the French shouldn't be so dismissive of the contributions of the men and women of the war.

So the answer is quite simple. Stop the "you owe me/us" attitude and the amount of people dissing the US involvement will greatly diminish.

Then again as time goes by and the people who fought it die off, the myth factor sets in. This increases the "what-if" debates.

Did the US win the war? No. Did the have a significant contribution? Yes. Especially in the Pacific. It's one thing to deal with the Naval forces of Japan and it's another to fight them on the islands. I had a couple great-uncles who were there and they will tell you things were a tad easier with the help of the Aussies and the Brits. One was even fished out by a coastal watcher. Nothing but praise for the man.

Did we always know we would win in the Pacific? Not at first.

The same can be said for the USSR. Until Stalingrad, the people doubted the Red Army and even Stalin was a little scared at times.

Did the Soviets win WWII? It's not a simple clear cut answer as it would require a fight only between Germany and the USSR to answer that one.

Did they have significant impact? Only a fool would say no.

Rather then go on with all this nationalist crap; we should remember it was a world war and it was the allies that won.

Why waste all this time arguing over who did more and spend it learning about it?

Maybe we can avoid another one.

Indeed. The French and British Empires were already winning, even though the value of the economical support over the ocean did help it quite a lot. I'd still say they would have done it alone, too.

Ahh but you have to remember, when the Russians pulled out that released many soldiers for the front. Could France and GB have fought off the last push?

Actually the French in WWII had a great plan for victory, but the Allies went and messed it all up. The French had already succeeded in drawing the Germans into the middle of France, where they had them surrounded. It would only have been a matter of time before the Germans would have become over confident and lazy, eating French food, and drinking French wine. In no time at all the German's willingness to wage war would be just like a Frenchman's. But, alas, the world will never know if that great plan would have worked. :fluffle:

I wouldn't trust wikipedia too much in this this question... listings like this are one of the things it's not really too reliable.

Indeed, that's why I mentioned the pinch of salt, however, I turned up this through a usenet search:

The various claims are about Australians participating in D-Day, these
were mainly aircrew with some men attached to the RN and British
Army. There were no Australian ground units involved.

There were some 500 RAN personnel seconded to the RN, many of
whom participated in the invasion. There were 10 nominally Australian
squadrons present with somewhere between 29 and 100% Australian
aircrew plus another around 1,500 aircrew with RAF squadrons.

The 10 squadrons were 4 heavy bomber, 1 light bomber, 1 day fighter,
1 night fighter, 1 anti shipping and 2 anti submarine. It looks like all
flew missions in support of the invasion on 6 June.

There were 14,000 RAAF personnel in the UK as of 1 July 1944,
12,400 being aircrew, but many of these were replacements awaiting
assignment.

In summary no organised ground units, just men on attachment to
other allied ground units. No ships, just men on attached to RN
ships and units. Most of the men classified as participants were
Air Force.

We saved France during WW1? Never knew that, I thought they had held the germans off quite well for most of the war.. :confused:

The French didn't hold off the Germans. They attacked the Germans, and the Germans barely held them off the French. (They didn't in the end.)

Stop painting France as a country that was "helpless" and that the war wasn't going to won without America. France was going to win. It was on the offensive, and the German Army couldn't sustain much more.

So, a few years ago I was discussing WWII with a Frenchman, who vehemently argued that France was most helped by the USSR during WWII. Now, My understanding is that France was liberated by a combined force from Great Britain, Australia and the USA. Was this guy nuts? Was it historical revisionism? Am I missing something?


Actually it was Britain , America and CANADA

The French didn't hold off the Germans. They attacked the Germans, and the Germans barely held them off the French. (They didn't in the end.)

Stop painting France as a country that was "helpless" and that the war wasn't going to won without America. France was going to win. It was on the offensive, and the German Army couldn't sustain much more.

Actually no they weren't. In 1917, in two battles (Arras and Ypres) the Brits and French had 450000 casualties.

Things only started to change in 1918 when a coordinated command was finally in place. Even then when the Russians pulled out, 150000 experienced combat troops were freed. This put 190 German divisions to 170 Allied.

Ludendorff struck and inflicted 150000 British casualties and 75000 French.

He made another attack and basically lost.

He did a third and was about 5 miles from Paris.

He tried a fourth but by this time the Americans were in the line so he lost to the combined defense of the Brits, French and the Americans.

After that they started to win and that was around June or July.....

Actually no they weren't. In 1917, in two battles (Arras and Ypres) the Brits and French had 450000 casualties.

Things only started to change in 1918 when a coordinated command was finally in place. Even then when the Russians pulled out, 150000 experienced combat troops were freed. This put 190 German divisions to 170 Allied.

Ludendorff struck and inflicted 150000 British casualties and 75000 French.

He made another attack and basically lost.

He did a third and was about 5 miles from Paris.

He tried a fourth but by this time the Americans were in the line so he lost to the combined defense of the Brits, French and the Americans.

After that they started to win and that was around June or July.....

Of course he lost. The French and British outnumbered the Germans in every single major battle in WWI. France and Britain were going to win. It doesn't matter how many British and French casulaties he inflicted. Britain and France could take the losses and than some.

The French didn't hold off the Germans. They attacked the Germans, and the Germans barely held them off the French. (They didn't in the end.)
And the fact that most of WWI was waged in Northern France factors into this, how? I suppose at around the same point you realize that, without the British holding up the north end of their front line, the French would have been outflanked and brought to their knees.
Stop painting France as a country that was "helpless" and that the war wasn't going to won without America. France was going to win. It was on the offensive, and the German Army couldn't sustain much more.
And without the US providing financial backing, the French and British would have been suffering the same internal collapse that Germany did. No one was prepared for WWI, and it is only because of extensive outside help that the Allies managed to survive in Europe long enough to outlast the Central powers.

Of course he lost. The French and British outnumbered the Germans in every single major battle in WWI. France and Britain were going to win. It doesn't matter how many British and French casualties he inflicted. Britain and France could take the losses and than some.

Yes, they were absorbing casualties.

France mobilized 7.5 million. Of which 1,385,000 were killed and 4,266,000 were wounded. 75% casualties
Great Britain mobilized 5.4 million. Of which 703,000 were killed and 1,663,00 were wounded. 44% casualties.

Germany mobilized 11 million. Of which 1,718,00 were killed and 4,234,000 were wounded. 54% australites.

They weren't doing so easy as you think.

Okay, but was that not due to poor strategy on Hitler's part more than Soviet prowress?
Does it matter?
And if it does, yes, in 1941 in Moscow that was probably the case. But as the war went on, the Soviets learned a lot, and in the end were regularly killing more enemies than they lost themselves. I don't know the details, but it seems like their tactics and strategies were quite sound.

A lot of the German army was destroyed by the Russian winters when inadequate supplies and logistics left them hanging.
Just here, I'd just like to remark that the Russian Winter itself never destroyed an army. It merely weakened them, so that the Russians could more easily defeat them.
Same with the German Army in WWII: The winter meant that logistics and mobility could not be kept up, but although many froze to death in some places, it was the Soviet attacks during the winters that did it.

The French didn't hold off the Germans. They attacked the Germans, and the Germans barely held them off the French. (They didn't in the end.)

Stop painting France as a country that was "helpless" and that the war wasn't going to won without America. France was going to win. It was on the offensive, and the German Army couldn't sustain much more.

If the remark about painting France as helpless was directed at me, I was saying the opposite. I know the French were basicly doing fine, I didn't mean the post as it appeared.

Okay, but was that not due to poor strategy on Hitler's part more than Soviet prowress? A lot of the German army was destroyed by the Russian winters when inadequate supplies and logistics left them hanging. Could it not then be argued that Germany itself did a lot to liberate France?

With a few notable exceptions, the Soviets did not show any particularly great prowess on the battlefield. But they did show an ability to absorb an extraordinarily great deal of punishment and keep fighting.

With a few notable exceptions, the Soviets did not show any particularly great prowess on the battlefield. But they did show an ability to absorb an extraordinarily great deal of punishment and keep fighting.

Well the destruction of Army Group center suggests otherwise......

Well the destruction of Army Group center suggests otherwise......

That's why he said "Few Notable Exceptions".

That's why he said "Few Notable Exceptions".

Ok and who do you think marched on Berlin afterwards?

That's why he said "Few Notable Exceptions".
There are thousands of examples of both strategic and tactical prowess in the Soviet Army. It just took them a while after Stalin wiped out their leadership.

Operation Bagration is just the biggest example.

The Russian did indeed do more for the liberty of France than the western allies.

However, without them that "liberation" wouldn't propably been too great event... No one want's to get liberated by the Stalinist Russia :rolleyes:


Stalinist Russia does not liberate, it crushes opposition and occupys.

Stalinist Russia does not liberate, it crushes opposition and occupys.

That's why "liberate" was in quotations.

The ways I see it, and even Stalin admitted it, we did everything. By the end of the war we supplied 11 billion dollars in armaments to the Soviets alone. They would have been steamrolled by the Germans if we weren't there. It all goes full circle. In the long run, yes, because we saved the Soviets asses, we in turn got our asses saved because the Germans ended up with something like 4 times as many troops in the east as on the west. America is the reason that war wasn't lost, and not the Union. Stalin himself said that without our aid, they would have lost the war to the German Military Machine.

The ways I see it, and even Stalin admitted it, we did everything.
That doesn't sound like something Stalin would admit...

I think people are giving credit to the Russians far to much. Yes they did fight valiantly. Although remember the arms that the US and UK shipped ole Stalin for his struggle. Also the US kept the Japanese from declaring war on Russia. If Japan were to have invaded the East of Russia when the Germans invaded the West of Russia. It would have been game over man! Anyway it was an overall team effort. I would give the credit to the Allies for liberating France, not Russia. Nice Frenchman revisionism though.

Also the US kept the Japanese from declaring war on Russia. If Japan were to have invaded the East of Russia when the Germans invaded the West of Russia. It would have been game over man!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Border_War_%281939%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

I think people are giving credit to the Russians far to much. Yes they did fight valiantly. Although remember the arms that the US and UK shipped ole Stalin for his struggle. Also the US kept the Japanese from declaring war on Russia. If Japan were to have invaded the East of Russia when the Germans invaded the West of Russia. It would have been game over man! Anyway it was an overall team effort. I would give the credit to the Allies for liberating France, not Russia. Nice Frenchman revisionism though.

I don't think the Soviets are ever given enough credit- 20 million men lost. That's a bitter struggle for survival.

And the Japanese would never have attacked Russia- they always viewed them as 'neutral'- someone to broker a peace deal with the US later on. They never saw the soviets as enemies.

Okay, but was that not due to poor strategy on Hitler's part more than Soviet prowress? A lot of the German army was destroyed by the Russian winters when inadequate supplies and logistics left them hanging. Could it not then be argued that Germany itself did a lot to liberate France?

I think "Overwhelming numbers of unstoppable Russians out to avenge the invasion of the motherland" did more to stop Hitler than both the Russian winter AND the western allies. The whole Russian winter thing is a mistake, predicated upon it being important whether Moscow fell or not. If Moscow had fallen, the Russians would have retreated behind the Urals. Put simply, your question is correct, in the sense Hitler liberated France not by stupid tactics (although they were stupid), but stupid overall strategy (messing with Russia in the first place).

However, it was a stupid overall strategy written into the very soul of Nazi-ism (lebensraum and all that jazz), so inevitable.

I don't think the Soviets are ever given enough credit- 20 million men lost. That's a bitter struggle for survival.

And the Japanese would never have attacked Russia- they always viewed them as 'neutral'- someone to broker a peace deal with the US later on. They never saw the soviets as enemies.

Well if the Japanese didn't plan to attack the US. Surely they could have gained strategic supplies from the Russian far east. I also don't think they viewed the US as enemies. We just happened to be in the way of there plans. However the enemies that the Japanese did percieve were the Chinese and to alot lesser extent the Koreans. However the Koreans were used as second rate troops. Chinese well we know what happened to them under Japanese occupation.

20 milllion men lost was really the cause of the Russian government. The policies of Russian military engagement truly inflamed the casualty rate of the average Russian soldier. When I think cannon fodder I think of the treatment of the Russian soldier in WWII.

The greater number of dead does not mean a greater struggle than another nation. The US/UK and allies played a smarter campaign against the Axis.

Well if the Japanese didn't plan to attack the US. Surely they could have gained strategic supplies from the Russian far east. I also don't think they viewed the US as enemies. We just happened to be in the way of there plans.
The Japanese learned from getting their arse kicked royally in 1939. They were never going to attack the Soviets, big land offensives just weren't their thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Border_War_%281939%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm


Yes I am aware of this engagment. But I think you would have to use a combined attack by a large Japanese force assembled as the Germans had done in Barbarossa would have defeated the Russians. This is all hypothetical. But I think a tactic the Germans used on the Soviet Westren front would have done the same effects on a hypothetical Soviet Eastren front vs the Japanese. Remember the Soviets didn't truly counterattack until the Siberian forces were brought forward. With the Siberian army bogged down vs Japan. Thing may have swung hard against the Soviets.

The Japanese learned from getting their arse kicked royally in 1939. They were never going to attack the Soviets, big land offensives just weren't their thing.

Wrong. The Sino-Japanese War was a massive war. It involved more than 4 million Japanese troops, and 5 million Chinese troops.

The Japanese learned from getting their arse kicked royally in 1939. They were never going to attack the Soviets, big land offensives just weren't their thing.


Again we are talking hypothetical battles here. If the Germans would have given a page from there Barbarossa playbook. The Japanese in my mind could have executed a front vs the Soviets with great effectiveness.

20 milllion men lost was really the cause of the Russian government. The policies of Russian military engagement truly inflamed the casualty rate of the average Russian soldier. When I think cannon fodder I think of the treatment of the Russian soldier in WWII.


So do I. But it doesn't lessen the impact of that loss. If I was a Russian soldier, my experience of fighting the German army would have been a lot more bitter, tooth-and-nail, and a basic struggle to survive compared to those facing the Germans from the West.

Don't forget- Britain was 'respected'. The Russians were 'subhuman'. Those are the conditions you fight with, and fight against.

So, a few years ago I was discussing WWII with a Frenchman, who vehemently argued that France was most helped by the USSR during WWII. Now, My understanding is that France was liberated by a combined force from Great Britain, Australia and the USA. Was this guy nuts? Was it historical revisionism? Am I missing something?

Considering the Soviets were the ones constantly fighting the Germans while the Allies didn't make a serious appearance in Europe until D-Day I'd say that is a good arguement. Without the Soviets pounding the Nazis in the east the Allies would have never gotten a toe in Europe. Thank them for winning at Stalingrad. Just as important as D-Day.

Wrong. The Sino-Japanese War was a massive war. It involved more than 4 million Japanese troops, and 5 million Chinese troops.
What has that got to do with the Soviets? :confused:

What has that got to do with the Soviets? :confused:


Again the Chinese did come out victorious due to the pressure from the US and allies. Truly if any war was a team effort. WWII takes the crown.

What has that got to do with the Soviets? :confused:

I think he was trying to point out a large Asian engagement with a large Japanese force.

I think he was trying to point out a large Asian engagement with a large Japanese force.

Oh right. Didn't exactly work out for them though.

Oh here on the Japanese/Soviet relationship:

Early in the morning of August 9th Manchuria was invaded by the Soviet Union. The Soviets had notified Japan's Ambassador to Moscow on the night of the eighth that the Soviet Union would be at war with Japan as of August 9th (Butow, pg. 153-154, 164(n)). This was a blow to the Japanese government's peace-seeking efforts. The Russians had been the only major nation with which Japan still had a neutrality pact, and, as such, had been Japan's main hope of negotiating a peace with something better than unconditional surrender terms (Butow, pg. 87). To that end, the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today.
http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

Wrong. The Sino-Japanese War was a massive war. It involved more than 4 million Japanese troops, and 5 million Chinese troops.
And not one of them was up to standard with the Soviet Forces of the time. Look at the border war of 1939. The Japanese army was not up for fighting tanks and the like in a proper battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Border_War_%281939%29

Oh here on the Japanese/Soviet relationship:

Yes of course we all should at least know this fact of history. But my main point is a defeat of the Soviets and how it could have been done. I am talking hypothetical for the most part. Of course things were different and history is history.

And not one of them was up to standard with the Soviet Forces of the time. Look at the border war of 1939. The Japanese army was not up for fighting tanks and the like in a proper battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Border_War_%281939%29

I really don't think a Soviet advantage in armor would have stopped them. The Germans were sweeping them aside in Barbarossa. All that would have been needed was a Japanese invasion as the same scale of Barbarossa. They could have been bogged down. Basically the Japanese only needed to keep the Soviet Siberian Army occupied. Of course German forces coming from the Eastren side of the Siberian Soviet army would have pummeled em.

Yes of course we all should at least know this fact of history. But my main point is a defeat of the Soviets and how it could have been done. I am talking hypothetical for the most part. Of course things were different and history is history.

Hypothetical... ok.
Even still, Japan attacking Soviet Union would really have garnered them nothing- they would have had to have travelled quite a distance to hit places of real strategic importance to damage the Soviet war machine, espeically given the tying up of so many Japanese Army Groups in China.

All that would have been needed was a Japanese invasion as the same scale of Barbarossa.
But the Japanese didn't have the means to do that. And there was no way that they could have got them, unless they'd waited and gathered their strengths for years.

But the Japanese didn't have the means to do that. And there was no way that they could have got them, unless they'd waited and gathered their strengths for years.


Well I actually don't think they would have need a force the same size as the German front in Westren Russia. Basically a 1-2 million man army to tie up the Russian reinforcements that turned the tide against the Germans later on. Without Stalin reinforcing the whipped Russian Westren army. I think the Germans would have been in Moscow and wiping out the industrial complex on the other side of the Urals that Stalin had built.

Basically a 1-2 million man army to tie up the Russian reinforcements that turned the tide against the Germans later on.
Well, I suppose, if they could have found an extra army like that somewhere and then decided against using it in China.
My point was just about your claim that the US somehow prevented the Japanese from attacking the USSR, when they had their own reasons and experiences for that.

Well, I suppose, if they could have found an extra army like that somewhere and then decided against using it in China.
My point was just about your claim that the US somehow prevented the Japanese from attacking the USSR, when they had their own reasons and experiences for that.

My claim is the pressure of the US in the Pacific kept the Japanese from entering the war against Russia at the time of the German offensive. However we can only speculate.

My claim is the pressure of the US in the Pacific kept the Japanese from entering the war in against Russia at the time of the German offensive. However we can only speculate.

But why would the Japanese have attacked Russia? Their ambitions were Pacific based, south and to the east. Just as Hitler *had* to attack Russia, it was in his makeup, part of his plan from day 1, it made no sense for the Japanese to get involved in any great degree...what was in it for them? Port Arthur and Siberia? Nah.

A more interesting question is:-

What if Hitler had declared war on Japan when they bombed Pearl Harbour?

But why would the Japanese have attacked Russia? Their ambitions were Pacific based, south and to the east. Just as Hitler *had* to attack Russia, it was in his makeup, part of his plan from day 1, it made no sense for the Japanese to get involved in any great degree...what was in it for them? Port Arthur and Siberia? Nah.

A more interesting question is:-

What if Hitler had declared war on Japan when they bombed Pearl Harbour?


Siberia was rich in natural resources. Japanese needed them badly. Also Siberia was well within the Japanese self proclaimed Asian sphere of influence.

Your question is an interesting one. But do not know how that would have benefited Hitler.

Siberia was rich in natural resources. Japanese needed them badly. Also Siberia was well within the Japanese self proclaimed Asian sphere of influence.

Your question is an interesting one. But do not know how that would have benefited Hitler.

Well, it would have meant a fracturing of the allies at no cost to himself (Germany and Japan didn't share many borders after all...) - Roosevelt could hardly have justified Lend Lease to the UK/Russia, let alone the declaration of war with Germany. The "World War" would have fractured into several wars...and you could have had the Americans ending up allied to Germany (not a great leap, strong German population in the US) fighting the Russians.

Any way it panned out, would have meant curtains for the UK.

Well, it would have meant a fracturing of the allies at no cost to himself (Germany and Japan didn't share many borders after all...) - Roosevelt could hardly have justified Lend Lease to the UK/Russia, let alone the declaration of war with Germany. The "World War" would have fractured into several wars...and you could have had the Americans ending up allied to Germany (not a great leap, strong German population in the US) fighting the Russians.

Any way it panned out, would have meant curtains for the UK.


Well that is an interesting hypothetical. But honestly I do not see any type of circumstance that the US and UK would not have been fighting together. I have lived in the UK also. Can say I do not know of way the bond of the two nations could erode to the factor of not helping each other out.

So, a few years ago I was discussing WWII with a Frenchman, who vehemently argued that France was most helped by the USSR during WWII. Now, My understanding is that France was liberated by a combined force from Great Britain, Australia and the USA. Was this guy nuts? Was it historical revisionism? Am I missing something?

you forgot poland

Well that is an interesting hypothetical. But honestly I do not see any type of circumstance that the US and UK would not have been fighting together. I have lived in the UK also. Can say I do not know of way the bond of the two nations could erode to the factor of not helping each other out.

Thats ignoring the reality on the ground at the time (based, in a large part, on the fellow feeling that has developed *since* WWII). Not only did you have the German-American Bund, but you had anti-semitic rabble rousers such as Father Coughlin and Henry Ford, and isolationists such as Lindbergh, actively campaigning that the US not be dragged into another European war where good American boys die by the British. Think of the racial demographics of the US - yes, large chunks of "Anglo-Saxons", but also Italians (Mussolini anyone?), Germans and - never forget - Irish who were still slightly pissed at the British Empire. Add in all those European emigres who had fled Europe to avoid Stalin...

Yeah, it could have well happened that they didn't help each other out, at the very least. Lend-Lease wasn't exactly a favour you know - Congress made the cost so prohibitive i *believe* the UK has only just finished paying off it's debts to the USA incurred by WWII.

Nah, it was more the fact that there were a *lot* of Russians in Russia, and suddenly they were all in tanks and airplanes...

Not so much that they were all in tanks and planes, but more that there were a whole lot of people of various ethnicities in the USSR. For every German killed on the eastern front fifteen soviets died. It was simply too large and too populous for the germans to handle, no matter how much the soviets sucked.

Without the soviets the western allies would have been unable to liberate France. Without the western allies the Soviets would have almost certainly been conquered. Even if the soviets had beaten the Germans and gained France without allied help, it would have been a conquest not a liberation.