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.
Great idea, nothing like stabbing one of your allies in the back for no apparent reason, and starting World War III in the process.
It is a fact that the Soviets played a far bigger role in the European theater than the Americans. 80% of German casualties took place on the eastern front.
Americans have a hugely inflated sense of their role in Europe in WWII, probably due to Hollywood and our miserable public K-12 educational system.
WHAT WW 3? Russia ALMOST got took out by Germany and the US was a MUCH bigger country in 1945 with NO damage to its cities. IMHO bomb Moscow into the Stone Age even crazy Stalin would've surrendered.
Russias contribution to the war effort was by far the lions share all round. The allies did in fact contribute greatly also in different ways but in the end it's the Red Army that won the day.
I think Russia could have won the war alone ultimately but the price would have been terrible and it would have taken a lot longer.
I fully get the huge price paid and the major role the Russians played in the allied victory, but you cannot downplay the role America played in winning ww2.
In the first place, had America not entered the war, Germany would have cleaned up, then moved all their forces to Russia and annihilated them. They had already gotten access to oil in Africa and the ME. America kicked them out there. Had that not happened, Germany would have had all the natural resources to win.
Had Russia lost early or maintained neutrality with Germany, it remains to be seen what would have happened because America had both the natural resources and the population to outlast Germany.
we did in fact, get to the Abomb before Germany, and would have used it against them if necessary.
Further at the end of the day, as much as winning the war was vital, WINNING THE PEACE was even more critical. America did that with the Marshal Plan. Europe is first world because we paid to make it so.
Agreed.
Word was the Atom Bomb was supposed to be used on Berlin but, Hitler gave up too soon.
Too; like you said, the US had NO damage to its cities and factories during WW 2 and, I read somewhere the US wasn't even fully mobilized at all.
I fully get the huge price paid and the major role the Russians played in the allied victory, but you cannot downplay the role America played in winning ww2.
In the first place, had America not entered the war, Germany would have cleaned up, then moved all their forces to Russia and annihilated them. They had already gotten access to oil in Africa and the ME. America kicked them out there. Had that not happened, Germany would have had all the natural resources to win.
Had Russia lost early or maintained neutrality with Germany, it remains to be seen what would have happened because America had both the natural resources and the population to outlast Germany.
we did in fact, get to the Abomb before Germany, and would have used it against them if necessary.
Further at the end of the day, as much as winning the war was vital, WINNING THE PEACE was even more critical. America did that with the Marshal Plan. Europe is first world because we paid to make it so.
Right, they were losing to Russia without the U.S. in the war, but the U.S. not entering the war would have still changed that fact. It had nothing to do with oil or resources. The Germans simply did not have the manpower to win at that point. It's not different than the issue Hannibal faced. He could beat the Romans time and time again but they could field large armies consistently while his army began to dwindle in size.
Russia would've fallen in 1 year or less IF the US went after them in 1945, especially after Japan was crippled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
Agreed.
Word was the Atom Bomb was supposed to be used on Berlin but, Hitler gave up too soon.
Too; like you said, the US had NO damage to its cities and factories during WW 2 and, I read somewhere the US wasn't even fully mobilized at all.
russia would NOT have fallen in one year if the US went after them. dont forget that the russians had more men under arms than the US did, even with britain and france on our side.
second the T-34 was the equal of the tiger tank, and far superior to the US M4 sherman tank, and the T-34 was made in much greater numbers than ANY of the german tanks. the T-34 would have made mincemeat out of the allied tank forces. in fact the only things we had going for us was the air and sea forces, and the manufacturing capability.
one more thing, we bluffed japan after dropping the second bomb, we had no more in the inventory for use if japan had decided to continue the war, and it would have been several months before we had another nuclear weapon available for use against another belligerent. by that time the russians would have rolled over europe and forced the US off european soil.
as for the US not being fully mobilized, we had 16 million men under arms, and we had our manufacturing plants running pretty much full tilt to provide the weapons and supplies needed to prosecute the war. and dont forget that we still needed people to work the non defense industries as well.
russia would NOT have fallen in one year if the US went after them. dont forget that the russians had more men under arms than the US did, even with britain and france on our side.
second the T-34 was the equal of the tiger tank, and far superior to the US M4 sherman tank, and the T-34 was made in much greater numbers than ANY of the german tanks. the T-34 would have made mincemeat out of the allied tank forces. in fact the only things we had going for us was the air and sea forces, and the manufacturing capability.
one more thing, we bluffed japan after dropping the second bomb, we had no more in the inventory for use if japan had decided to continue the war, and it would have been several months before we had another nuclear weapon available for use against another belligerent. by that time the russians would have rolled over europe and forced the US off european soil.
as for the US not being fully mobilized, we had 16 million men under arms, and we had our manufacturing plants running pretty much full tilt to provide the weapons and supplies needed to prosecute the war. and dont forget that we still needed people to work the non defense industries as well.
Maybe you're right but; Russia was pretty well torn up if talking Moscow going towards Europe. Too; IF the US did go after Stalin in 1945; the 1st things cut off from him would've been "Lend Lease" stuff like trucks, guns, food and many other things. I may be wrong but; Russia had no real way to shoot our bombers out of the sky; especially IF our people kept hitting their oil supplies which would've grounded their tanks and trucks along with airplanes.
Right, they were losing to Russia without the U.S. in the war, but the U.S. not entering the war would have still changed that fact. It had nothing to do with oil or resources. The Germans simply did not have the manpower to win at that point. It's not different than the issue Hannibal faced. He could beat the Romans time and time again but they could field large armies consistently while his army began to dwindle in size.
Wrong-
Germany was kicking Russia's ass until the fall of Stalingrad, which was January, 1943. The advance on Moscow stalled in the winter of '41-'42. There was essentially a stalemate in lines in 1942 among army group north and center, while attention shifted to the south. Paulus entered Stalingrad in the summer of '42 through Operation Blue and Papa Hoth had advanced to threaten the oil fields of the caucuses. Hitler refused the evacutation of Stalingrad, but ordered Hoth to attempt to relieve Stalingrad. This attempt failed, causing the surrender of Paulus and the entire 6th army, which caused the German retreat to the Don. The Volga would never be threatened again.
At this point in 1942, Stalin had sent notice to the Germans that he was willing to sacrifice the Ukraine and some occupied Russian territory in exchange for a truce (violating the agreement with the west). The Germans, thinking the Soviets were on the verge of collapse, refused.
The US entered the war in Dec 1941. At that time, and up until Jan 1943, the Germans had the upper hand in the east. Still, even with the fall of Stalingrad, the fate of Germany was not ultimately sealed until the Battle of Kursk in 1943.
Maybe you're right but; Russia was pretty well torn up if talking Moscow going towards Europe. Too; IF the US did go after Stalin in 1945; the 1st things cut off from him would've been "Lend Lease" stuff like trucks, guns, food and many other things. I may be wrong but; Russia had no real way to shoot our bombers out of the sky; especially IF our people kept hitting their oil supplies which would've grounded their tanks and trucks along with airplanes.
Soviet AAA was very good - Moscow didn't suffer lots of bombing. They had good AAA, lots of searchlights, & push come to shove, they'd crash aircraft into bombers. (Stats are the USSR lost nearly half their aircraft - 43,100 out of 88,300 - to non-combat causes - poor training, poorly trained pilots, crashes on the ground, bad maintenance, rushing types into production/deployment without adequate training, etc. - see The storm of war, a new history of the Second World War - Andrew Roberts, c2011.) In the same volume, there was also a UK estimate of the manpower & etc. to fight to liberate E. Europe of the USSR. The numbers were so far off the scale that the estimate was quietly shelved.
Churchill & UK were vastly more interested in the political outcome of WWII than the US was - we (the US) simply wanted to smash Germany (& Italy) & Japan, & get back to normal. UK wanted to preserve the Commonwealth, & so were much more concerned about the status quo ante - but UK & Commonwealth (& France) were even more concerned about preserving their army & navy (the French navy was sunk @ port by the Allies) - neither one of the European powers had fully recovered from the bloodbath of WWI. In the end, UK couldn't effectively oppose the USSR's usurpation of E. Europe; the Allies - especially the US - weren't interested in starting yet another war.
Soviet logistics were interesting - like Japan, they mostly transported men & weapons & ammo. The Soviet forces that closed on Germany mostly lived off the land, & deliberately destroyed everything they couldn't pack up & transport (industrial) or eat or wear or otherwise use up. The war in the East was brutal, & Germany paid an awful price for imperial overreach - again. But this time, unlike WWI, the Germans provoked absolutely bestial treatment from the Soviets.
russia would NOT have fallen in one year if the US went after them. dont forget that the russians had more men under arms than the US did, even with britain and france on our side.
second the T-34 was the equal of the tiger tank, and far superior to the US M4 sherman tank, and the T-34 was made in much greater numbers than ANY of the german tanks. the T-34 would have made mincemeat out of the allied tank forces. in fact the only things we had going for us was the air and sea forces, and the manufacturing capability.
one more thing, we bluffed japan after dropping the second bomb, we had no more in the inventory for use if japan had decided to continue the war, and it would have been several months before we had another nuclear weapon available for use against another belligerent. by that time the russians would have rolled over europe and forced the US off european soil.
as for the US not being fully mobilized, we had 16 million men under arms, and we had our manufacturing plants running pretty much full tilt to provide the weapons and supplies needed to prosecute the war. and dont forget that we still needed people to work the non defense industries as well.
How would the Soviets have continued without US aid? They would have been on their own and they were spent. Yes, they had men but they weren't well equipped. The land between Germany and Moscow had pretty much been destroyed twice. We would have eventually had more nukes we could have used too.
Instead, FDR turned over eastern Europe to the Soviets. Within a few years we were fighting a proxy war with the Soviets in Russia. During the time between the wars, the Soviets were allowed to steal our nuke secrets because Democrat administrations (with the exception of Kennedy) never really considered the USSR to be all that bad. So because of American indifference or sympathy to international Communism, we ended up with Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia and Cuba. Not to mention all of the trouble they started in Africa and periodically in Europe.
Would attacking the Soviets have been a fool-proof plan? No, but by 1945 the West knew how monstrous the Soviet regime was. Arguably, the Allies should have cleaned out the Bolshies after WWI, but there was still some question as to how bad they were then. After the Stalinist purges, there was no question anymore. The immediate aftermath of the war with Germany would have been the free world's best chance to defeat the Soviets.
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.
It had nothing to do with oil or resources. The Germans simply did not have the manpower to win at that point. It's not different than the issue Hannibal faced. He could beat the Romans time and time again but they could field large armies consistently while his army began to dwindle in size.
History
