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.
you must have learned history from an illegal alien. try reading a real history book and find out what really went on during world war two.
first the soviets and the germans were NOT allies. the only thing they had between them was a non aggression pact, that divided poland, and set lines that hitlers armies would not cross.
second when you suggest one country over any other country had more to do with winning world war two, denigrates ALL the other countries on the allied side. for instance, it was britain that kept the sea lanes open, including the ones to russia, so that manufactured goods could flow from the US to britain and russia.
it was britain that stopped the germans at the english channel, and in north africa before the US got in the war.
it was the US that manufactured huge amounts of the weapons of war before and during the time we go tin the war. everything from trucks, to tanks, to cargo ships, to landing craft, to airplanes, fighters, fighter bombers, and bombers, warships, guns, bullets, bombs, grenades, etc. we built so many aircraft that we were supplying russia with a large part of their air force, as well as a fair amount of the british and australian air forces, and the chinese air forces.
henry j kaisers ship yards were pumping out liberty ships at the rate of one every four days, and that was before we got into the war.
and while the russian effort was indeed gigantic, dont forget that they one had to fight on one front, britain and the US fought on more than one front. we fought a two ocean war.
take any one of the allied pieces off the board and the war turns out quite different. for instance take britain off the board, and the d day invasion becomes far tougher to accomplish since everything would have had to cross the atlantic with no air support beyond halfway.
or take the US off the board, and russia gets beaten down by the germans, because the 8 million men and their equipment isnt there to make the d day invasion as well as the italian invasion the success they were. in fact take the US off the board, and there is no sicily invasion, and forget normandy, that never happens. and without the western allies beating up on the german army in western europe, the eastern front becomes much tougher for the russians, and i doubt they push the germans back to berlin. more like the lines stabilize outside stalingrad, and a negotiated peace takes place with germany oh so close to the russian oil fields.
and of course without the US there is no atomic bomb to end the war in the pacific either, and japan holds a huge empire there including a large portion of china, all of korea, and indochina, through to burma and perhaps even part of india.
no you cant make the claim that one ally had a larger contribution than another.
No countries on the allied side are getting denigrated but facts are facts. Germany's back was broken at Stalingrad, and they were on the run after Kursk. It was only a matter of time.
Also, the war in the pacific was going to end in about the same time frame, with surrender of Japan. Sorry to be cynical about it but the purpose of using the nuclear weapons was different.
No debate there. If you have a choice, see to it that your country is between two giant anti-tank ditches.
Good point, and one I like to remind people of whenever the "rah rah 'Murica" stuff gets too nauseating. The United States is the most geographically blessed nation on Earth, and that includes our two wonderful defensive frontiers called "Pacific Ocean" and "Atlantic Ocean." Yay us for putting up such solid defense!!
Between agricultural independence and those two rather large anti-tank ditches, America does make for a fine spot to put a proper castle that is really easy to defend. Thing is, no American really had much to do with all that natural defense, so a lot of the chest thumping is kind of ridiculous.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,183 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
England had a moat.
This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
I generally agree with the theory that Russia and the UK played the largest roles (especially given that the UK invented the first operational radar), however, the US added much needed man- and firepower. Don't forget, the US also supplied USSR with tons of equipment, food, and clothing.
The United States and the United Kingdom combined lost 800,000.
The Soviet Union lost 27 million dead.
It was the Soviet Union that ripped the heart out of the Wehrmacht.
Hitler had the stupidity to declare war on the three countries that when combined, he couldn’t possibly defeat. Britain provided an unsinkable aircraft carrier just off the coast of Fortress Europe, shielded by the Royal Navy and the RAF from invasion, the Soviet Union provided limitless manpower and the United States enormous industrial capacity.
In the great documentary series “The World At War”, it was noted that a German officer was quoted as saying “the Wehrmacht is like an elephant while the Russians are like ants. The elephant will kill hundreds of thousands or millions of the ants, but in the end due to their numbers, the ants will eat the elephant to the bone.”
I generally agree with the theory that Russia and the UK played the largest roles (especially given that the UK invented the first operational radar), however, the US added much needed man- and firepower. Don't forget, the US also supplied USSR with tons of equipment, food, and clothing.
Yes, let's not minimize the US's role, but I agree that Russia paid the most and extracted the biggest toll and it would have been over early without the UK being steadfast in opposition.
Half of Brits think UK did the most to defeat Hitler - but other countries disagree
I haven't seen any survey on the subject, but it wouldn't be at all surprising if well over half of Americans aren't at all aware that Russia played the major role in defeating Germany.
Something like 70% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front.
And the Russians paid a horrible price for that; 25+ million deaths.
Hitler had the stupidity to declare war on the three countries that when combined, he couldn’t possibly defeat. Britain provided an unsinkable aircraft carrier just off the coast of Fortress Europe, shielded by the Royal Navy and the RAF from invasion, the Soviet Union provided limitless manpower and the United States enormous industrial capacity.
It really was the worst of all worlds as choices go.
As in, if you were to ask any continental European in 1940 which three countries would be the worst possible trio to have allied against you, you simply couldn't top Russia, England the United States for exactly the reasons you describe, and also because all three are damn near impervious to invasion by themselves, much less if working with allies, and oh by the way, they have you surrounded, mostly.
Maybe you can win a war against one, with the other two either allied with you or being neutral, but no way you possibly defeat all three, or even one of them enough to get the other two to say "OK, enough, let's call it a day."
It really was the worst of all worlds as choices go.
As in, if you were to ask any continental European in 1940 which three countries would be the worst possible trio to have allied against you, you simply couldn't top Russia, England the United States for exactly the reasons you describe, and also because all three are damn near impervious to invasion by themselves, much less if working with allies, and oh by the way, they have you surrounded, mostly.
Maybe you can win a war against one, with the other two either allied with you or being neutral, but no way you possibly defeat all three, or even one of them enough to get the other two to say "OK, enough, let's call it a day."
It was a huge blunder but I wouldn't say Russia was "impervious" to invasion with the advancements the Germans made on Russia's major cities.
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.
