Half of Brits think UK did the most to defeat Hitler - but other countries disagree (compare, support)
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.
The U.S. had total air dominance in Europe, and would have against the Soviet Union. The Russians would have been bombed into submission. Their tanks would have disappeared from air attacks as would their troops. Also, we were the only country with THE BOMB.
and we also had the capability of bombing the russian manufacturing base behind the ural mountains, something hitler lacked.
The Germans loved Patton because he talked like a man. They respected him, and he despised the Russians so they had that in common.
I get so sick of this stupid argument that the Russians won the war because they killed so
many Germans. Like sending an entire generation of your men to die in wasteful battles is somehow a good thing.
The US would have defeated Germany. And they wouldn’t have lost 20 million soldiers doing it.
Ridiculous
You can get as sick as you like, that does not change the facts.
perhaps, perhaps not. at that time making a nuclear bomb was not an easy process, even though we had made three of them. and beyond enriching the uranium, there is still the making of the triggers to properly detonate a bomb and have it go nuclear, the triggers at the time were not all that reliable.
but i do agree that truman made the right call.
very true. as i have noted, take out one of the big three pieces on the board, and world war two turns out very differently, with much of europe under nazi rule in a negotiated peace.
without d day there would be no second front to take the pressure off the eastern front, and hitler would have moves at least 15 divisions there to stop the soviet advance. so while the war would have still ended, it would have been a negotiated end, and as i noted before much of europe would be under nazi control.
actually it was the battle of midway. japan lost four fleet carriers, and went on the defensive for the rest of the war. that was the turning point of the war in the pacific.
15 divisions? Lol. Apparently you are not aware about the scale of things on the eastern front. Google or wikipedia could help.
You guys are missing the real factor that meant success or defeat in WW2... basic economics.
Human lives are cheap... a country's ability to wage war ultimately depends on it's ability to pump out weapons/supplies and get them to the fight.
America (and a bit later, Russia) was able to amp up and maintain production relatively uninterrupted while simultaneously interrupting/destroying Germany's ability to do the same.
Hitler was a god awful strategist... going to war on 2 fronts with his means of production vulnerable and having no good strategy to effectively cut off the enemy's supply chain. That is a guaranteed loosing move.
Plenty of internet historians point to the failed invasion of Russia as the place where Hitler effectively lost the war but I'd argue the war was over when Hitler lost the Battle of the Atlantic. The U-Boats did a lot of damage early in the war but Hitler didn't invest in them until it was too late and they failed to stop Atlantic convoys.
Likewise in the Pacific, it was the near total destruction of Japan's navy and merchant fleet that brought Japan to it's knees... and that was accomplished mostly with American submarines.
The U.S. had total air dominance in Europe, and would have against the Soviet Union. The Russians would have been bombed into submission.
You can't air-support your way out of trying offensive ops against 250+ divisions with 110 or so of your own.. Google operation "Unthinkable" - I believe the word used was "fanciful".
Quote:
Their tanks would have disappeared from air attacks as would their troops.
WWII air power didn't work that way. Heck, air power just barely works that way today.
A very, very fine military machine attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, with the country caught unprepared. That didn't work. Doing so in 1945, with the Red Army in its finest shape, combat-tested and flush with victory, and with the Soviet war production at its peak? Bad Idea.
Quote:
Also, we were the only country with THE BOMB.
The singular is very appropriate. 1945 nukes were hand-built, carefully crafted physics experiments in bomb casings. The materials for mass production just weren't there.
The Soviets put the most blood into WWII by orders of magnitude. They got it from both ends, Hitler AND Stalin.
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.
