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.
No they wouldn't. German forces were concentrated in the east were not just German. They were Romanian, Hungarian, Spanish, Italian, Croatian, Austrian, Norwegian, Finnish, Polish, French, and from all across Europe.
It was the most diverse and unified Europe ever was in the history of the world, and the Russians won. They could have fought on for another 30 years and Hitler would have nothing. Even if they took Moscow Russian industry the Urals would have run them dry.
The west had nothing to do with it, they acted so they could grab some power for the post war era and build a few shrines for their token forces in Europe. Russia loss everything, American and Britain gained a few war stories to tell their children.
Then Americans have the vanity to say Russia was evil too? The evil Russia committed was so that America didn't have to sacrifice anything and still rule the world afterwards (giving American civilians cheap goods to consume at wits end). And that is ignoring the atrocities and Churchill and Eisenhower allowed and committed.
As somebody who personally had family that were 'bombed' - TWICE! I can categorically say that there was more to it than 'a few war stories to tell their children', did you see what the Nazi's did to Coventry?. Did you see what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbour? Do you know about the Atlantic convoys and the Desert Rats? Have you seen how American soldiers had to fight fanatical Japanese from island to bloody island? Yes if Russia had surrendered then the Allies would not have 'won' the war BUT alternatively if Britain didn't fight on alone (while the Russians were happy to appease) then the Allies would not have 'won' the war the Battle of Britain was crucial in the outcome, or as Churchill eloquently put it 'NEVER in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few'. There would have been NO Dday landings without a free and fighting Britain and there would have been NO Dday without American involvement and the brave American soldiers. Your writing off of the 'other' Allies contributions (and I include ALL of them) apart from the Russians is simply 'laughable'. The Allies were ALL pretty reliant on each other.
The Russians killed more of their own than the Germans did. The Russians sent their troops into battle and only half were armed. Those without weapons had to pick up a rifle from those that were killed. Behind them was a line of soldiers who were there to execute anyone who tried to retreat. That is how the Russian army kept up their attack. Most of their "suffering" was at their own hands.
That suffering allowed the US to come out of the war with its hands clean and dominant.
That means cheap goods for you and great propaganda for this time of the year.
Pushing atrocities onto third parties and benefiting from them does not mean you are clean. Much like exporting slave labor to Indonesia then purchasing the fruits of that labor for practically nothing.
One really needs to read Zuhkov's biography to appreciate the role of the US in saving the USSR. Zuhkov is quite clear that without the help of US steel, gunpowder, food, cotton,trucks, and tanks that the USSR would have been defeated.
Interestingly, Zuhkov publically stated so even while Stalin was still alive and helped dispel the myth that the Soviets single handedly defeated the Germans. Zuhkov was one of the few Soviets that even Stalin could not afford to kill, despite his paranoid fear of his popularity. Interestingly, Zuhkov was instrumental in securing Krushchev as the first party Secretary after Stalin's death. The army listened to Zuhkov, not the rival political elements.
The opinion that the US saved the USSR came from the man who was probably mostly responsible for the defeat of the Germans on the eastern front. It was only the near collapse of the USSR and the fall of Moscow that led Stalin to give Zukhov free reign to save the nation from his incompetence.
Witness the HUGE loss of Soviet forces in encirclement maneuvers by the Germans due to Stalin refusing his generals from conducting strategic withdraws. 2 million troops were sacrificed in the first year of the war by Stalin's idiocy at Kiev and Kharkov. Had there been anyone but Paulus and Hitler directing the operation at Stalingrad, this would have been another massive Soviet loss and encirclement, as had happened on the approaches to Stalingrad in which the Soviets had 400,000 troops captured. Hoth and von Manstein markedly objected to entering Stalingrad, as it eliminated the German advantage of armor maneuvers and the ability to encircle the Soviets.
Germany on the other hand didn't have much of a surface navy but instead relied on U-Boats to sink the American convoys which would have starved Europe into submission, crippling their ability to fight the war. But the United States was cranking out Liberty ships (Kaiser's coffins) faster than they could be sunk. Over 90% of German U-Boats were sunk by the time the battle of the Atlantic was over. Thanks to the destroyer escorts.
I have no doubt in my mind that if it wasn't for America's industrial power the world would be a very different place today. Whether they could have defeated the United States on our own shores is probably an open question and certainly debatable? As they'd have to cross two oceans to get here. But with the development of missile technology in Germany who knows what the outcome would be? And how long would it be before Germany developed nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM's)?
At any rate and due to the technology of the times and logistics I doubt very much that the Axis powers (Germany, Japan and Italy) could have ever won the war. I often wonder too what the world would be like if we took Patton's advise and invaded Russia? Not too mention how many Russians would defect and join forces with the United States in that endeavor?
Fallacy- The opening of a third front (there was already a front in Italy) was critical to the Soviets, as it diverted massive resources from the eastern front.
1. The Germans and the Soviets were allies right up to the beginning of Barbarosa.
2. The US did not support Nazi Germany. There were elements in the US (including Hollywood and the German American Bund) who supported the Nazis. Hollywood supported the Nazis as they were then allies of the Soviets. Sean Penn's father was a big supporter of the Nazis.
3. There is no way that the USSR would have lasted more than a year without financial support from the US and UK- that is clear to most historians. The Soviets were dependent on allied supplies all the way through the war. Had Finland been more aggressive and taken Murmansk, the Soviets would have lost.
4. The entry of the US into the war in Dec 1941 helped secure a Soviet victory. Given the attention that the Japanese would give to South East Asia, the Soviets were able to move well over a million troops for the defense of Moscow. Had Japan not attacked the US, the Soviets would have maintained troops in the east, essentially insuring a german victory in the east.
5. The Soviet navy, until late in the war, was completely ineffective against the Germans. It was the US/British navy that secured the supply lines for the Soviets, without which they would have been defeated.
6. Stalin killed more of his own citizens prior to WW2 than Hitler killed in WW2. That fact is lost to many of the Marxist/Stalinist apologists.
7. Stalin nearly lost the war for the Soviets, despite massive numerical superiority in troops, tanks, and artillery, due to complete stupidity. It was only when he finally gave in to Zukhov in the defense of Moscow that the situation turned around.
8. Had the Soviets fallen, the US and the UK would have used the available nukes on the Germans (and then the Japanese) and won the war single handedly.
Germany was never going to win, but had the Russians not bled the Germans to death, the US would have to get their hands dirty and the image of the greatest generation would be destroyed.
Just like the Soviet invasion of Manchuria ended the need for another ground invasion onto Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
If it was MORE complicated than good guys vs bad guys, then how can you say you don't believe it was a collaborative effort? Your post makes zero sense.
The Soviets paid a heavy price for taking on nearly 80% of the German Wehrmacht, freeing up the Americans and British to take on the other 20%.
America paid an equally heavy price on daylight bombing missions. These more precise than night missions that the British flew, destroyed much of Germany’s ability to wage war. Unlike the Luftwaffe, America was able to replenish their plane losses and crews. Destroying German war infrastructure, helped all the Allies, including the Soviets. Without American air support, the Soviets would have been severely hampered in their drive to fight the Nazis.
But little nations played a big role too. Poland turned over equipment that had broken the Nazis’ secret code to the British. “Enigma†allowed the Allies to learn German plans and operations, which played a crucial role in thwarting the Nazis.
Without American help, the British might of had to sue for peace. But British involvement kept the Soviets from collapsing, and possibly of the US taking on the Germans alone. Odds are a German Iron Curtain would have been established.
Yes, I also know Churchill celebrated pearl harbor despite all the men laying dead in the pacific. The truth is all these maneuvers were not what brought victory.
And the British were never going to sue for peace as Germany had little interest in invading. The image of Hitler wanting to dominate the entire world is a joke. The Germans knew they didn't have the logistics capability to hold western Russia, forget about the world. The Germans had one goal, and that was to take Slavic Land, and Russia won that war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
At its memorial site in Bedford, Virginia, there are 4,414 names enshrined in bronze plaques representing every Allied soldier, sailor, airman and coast guardsman who died on D-Day. (just one day)
Just stop it!
Indeed, people died which was very sad. But that didn't make the United States what it is today. At most those deaths live on in their families, but not in the American people at large. Russian deaths were different.
Germany was never going to win, but had the Russians not bled the Germans to death, the US would have to get their hands dirty and the image of the greatest generation would be destroyed.
Just like the Soviet invasion of Manchuria ended the need for another ground invasion onto Japan.
Yes, I also know Churchill celebrated pearl harbor despite all the men laying dead in the pacific. The truth is all these maneuvers were not what brought victory.
And the British were never going to sue for peace as Germany had little interest in invading. The image of Hitler wanting to dominate the entire world is a joke. The Germans knew they didn't have the logistics capability to hold western Russia, forget about the world. The Germans had one goal, and that was to take Slavic Land, and Russia won that war.
Indeed, people died which was very sad. But that didn't make the United States what it is today. At most those deaths live on in their families, but not in the American people at large. Russian deaths were different.
You've never heard of 'Operation Sealion' then I take it?
By your reasoning and logic they should just turn Auschwitz-Birkenau into an amusement park complete with rides and live entertainment. They can even turn the prisoners barracks into a hotel.
As far as Normandy goes I'm just quoting what someone who has been there 11 times wrote in our local paper. You don't have to lecture me about World War Two. I've studied it intensely. By the way Omaha Beach had the worst casualties and was the most difficult to take. Because of it's steep cliffs and it was the most heavily defended. Just try to imagine what it must have been like scaling 100 ft. cliffs heavily laden with equipment while the Germans were shooting down at you. Everything went wrong at Omaha from the start. I just couldn't imagine frolicking out on that beach today.
If you have no problems dancing on the graves of those who have given their lives for the freedom that you have today. Then it's you that has a serious problem.
Nonsense! You're being combative over silliness.
You've ignored without mention my reference to Dieppe completely.
All those beaches and anywhere allies died is "sacred ground" but just because one nations soldier decries that same ground they landed upon ONE day now being enjoyed by the populace is no reason to make it any more special than any other area of conflict. That war was five years long and people died by thousands in many places today used as recreational areas or even strip malls.
Every beach landing zone and the towns beyond presented the allies with challenges. There are 5400 Canadians buried at Normandy with there being 18,000 Canadian casualties in total.
Before you go off on another tangent....my father went over there as a Troop Sergeant tank commander fully two years before the U.S. deemed it their war, was involved in the N. Africa campaign, the landing at Sicily and fighting all the way up the Liri Valley of Italy and the liberation of Holland. He was wounded twice; once in Italy being jumped by a German patrol while re-placing a damaged track at night during the recovery of a tank abandoned behind enemy lines, and the second time having his Sherman destroyed by a German Flak 88 in Holland, killing two of his crew in the bargain.
I have attended two commemorative anniversaries of the liberation of Holland and walked the area where his tank was destroyed so do not presume to lecture me with stupid chit about "turning Auschwitz into a theme park" or "dancing on graves"..
There can be no denial that Russia suffered exponentially and contributed to the ultimate victory by absorbing and taxing German resources. Stalin, the thug, purged his military of all it's most experienced officers before WWII because he feared their allegiance was iffy. He thereby set up the scenario for his military to be ineffective and suffer tremendous losses due to their early tactics of simply throwing bodies into the fray without any battle plan at all.
They learned quickly and adapted through trial. Amazing feats of tenacity in the face of mechanical odds advantage became their signature.
Without "lend lease" and the supplies arriving via the North Atlantic escorted by other navies they would have been doomed. The battles of Kursk and Stalingrad notwithstanding, without arriving munitions supplies and other necessary resources to sustain a front it would have been a disaster of epic proportions.
Not the least of Hitler's huge blunders was; had he actually prevailed and successfully invaded a country the size of Russia....where did he think he would get the manpower to occupy it AND sustain manning for the rest of the conflict in Europe. He must have known Great Britain and it's allies weren't going to be satisfied and rest on their laurels with simply winning the air war and leaving the European continent to his whim.
The very great achievement that is not given it's full recognition is that so many nations came together with one purpose and intent. Yes there were missteps along the way and Russia was a somewhat reluctant and obstreperous partner, but for all of those militaries to work relatively co-operatively with one end game in mind is astounding.
Average age of a combat soldier during WW-II was 26, not 18, and US was never in any danger of being invaded and occupied buy Germany.
WW-II vets were, and are, fine people, but why do you turn the D-Day into a drivel about how you hate younger people. Maybe you'd be speaking Arabic if it weren't' for them. Or maybe you'd be begging on the street since they pay for your retirement, and if they arent yet, they will be.
You are the one whining, not them.
Yes Hitler in fact did intend to attack America.
asserted in his second book (not published until I did it for him in 1961) that strengthening and preparing Germany for war with the United States was one of the tasks of the National Socialist movement. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/32084
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.
