Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of people have failed to mention the Artic convoys that provided the USSR with 4,000,000 tons of supplies. As well as tanks and aircraft, these included less sensational but still vital items like trucks,tractors,telephone wire, railway engines and even boots.
Agreed. Cut off Russia in 1945 and it would've really hurt that country.
Tho some posters truly believe the Russians would've just walked all across Europe in 1945 even with the US hitting them and hard. It would've been real ugly for Stalin and his boys IF the US really wanted to put that commie in his place.
Russia lost a LOT of people, especially dudes of fighting age AND had a LOT of damage to its factories. The US lost like 1 person in 20 compared to Russia AND our factories were undamaged in 1945.
Tho some posters truly believe the Russians would've just walked all across Europe in 1945 even with the US hitting them and hard. It would've been real ugly for Stalin and his boys IF the US really wanted to put that commie in his place.
Russia lost a LOT of people, especially dudes of fighting age AND had a LOT of damage to its factories. The US lost like 1 person in 20 compared to Russia AND our factories were undamaged in 1945.
Again? Churchill - a man with no lack of fighting spirit and one who despised communism - had his military advisers look at the facts on the ground and the recommendation was a resounding "Do not try this".
The US and Britain were too helpful and vigilant. You should've let Hitler and Stalin destroy each other and THEN liberated Europe. Now you only exchanged the slave masters for half of Europe.
And say that the destruction would've cost the lives of 70 million Russians and not a single building remaining standing west of the Urals. The Cold War would've been over in 5 minutes.
one problem with this scenario of yours, britain and france both had treaties to defend poland should they country be invaded. and since the german invasion of poland happened about 2.5 years before the invasion of the soviet union, the brits and the french were involved before they could let the germans and russians fight it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
The reason Germany had no air cover at Normandy was because most of the once potent Luftwaffe had been destroyed on the Eastern Front, its best pilots killed, and aviation fuel scarce. Germany’s advanced ME262 jet fighter that should have swept the skies was grounded because of fuel shortages.
actually much of the luftwaffe was destroyed on the western front, especially after the P51 was introduced to the european theater.
as for the ME262, while it was a very good first gen jet fighter, the US had a MUCH better one that could have gone into service if needed, and that was the P80 shooting star. it was ready to go into squadron service in 1944, but because it wasnt necessary, we chose to continue development on the aircraft and save it for later.
I don't disagree that American involvement shortened the war.
I was posting on an American political board from 2000-2003, the only foreigner posting around the time the Iraqi war started. Posters were aged 40 plus. Remember "freedom fries" and Francophobia?
There was lots of trashing of the French by many posters who were in favor of the Iraqi war. Yes, those posters claimed America won WWII and gave that as a reason why they were bashing France for not getting involved in the Iraqi war. Nasty comments.
Of course those same posters also seemed convinced that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that there was proof Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
The Russians never liberated France...in fact, the USSR didn't liberate anything in WW2.
We did. And please, the Brits and Canadians wouldn't have tried anything without the Big Green at their side.
Which they were not allowed to have... but, for war profiteers.
IBM did business with der Nazis, as did Prescot Bush, W's grandpa.
not true, germany broke the treaty of versailles, but the case can be made that britain and france also broke the treaty by allowing hitler to do what he did in the 30s.
Perhaps if Stalin had tried to help Poland defend themselves against the Nazis in 1939 instead of attacking the Poles from behind then the Soviet people would not have payed such a huge price in 1941-1945. Instead, the Soviets looked the other way while the Nazis overran most of Europe.
Perhaps if Stalin had tried to help Poland defend themselves against the Nazis in 1939 instead of attacking the Poles from behind then the Soviet people would not have payed such a huge price in 1941-1945. Instead, the Soviets looked the other way while the Nazis overran most of Europe.
Tough to say who was worse: the Nazis or the commies. Word was probably Stalin but his crimes were mostly covered up but, the whole world knew about Hitler after 1945.
Again? Churchill - a man with no lack of fighting spirit and one who despised communism - had his military advisers look at the facts on the ground and the recommendation was a resounding "Do not try this".
I have read many, many books about Churchill. You are absolutely right. However, the notion of attacking the Soviet Union did not reach any formal discussion with the other allies.
I disagree, however, in that the US and its allies would have been able to defeat the USSR, as it was on its knees. Such an effort would have been very costly and all nations were tired of war at that time. Cutting off material from the other allies and starting a second front in the east (we had the marine corps and the army forces in the Pacific) would have defeated the USSR ultimately. The forces of the USSR were deployed in nearly total strenght to the west and could have been steamrolled from the east. Further, we had one operational nuke and could have had many others that could have been used before the Soviets had a functional nuke. Fast forward 45 years and the USSR collapsed without bloodshed. Would it have been "worth it"? I would offer- no.
However, at that time, it was not clear that the Soviets would become the menace that developed, therefore attacking the USSR may have actually been met with consternation among the citizens of the western nations. Why attack an "ally" who has not attacked us?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
