Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Who really won the 2nd world war ?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Aiden (U1707544) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
The Americans like to take all of the credit which is hardly surprising considering the level of Hollywood propaganda on this issue.
We in Britain played a vital role because we fought alone and against all odds before The USSR and USA joined the war effort only after they were attacked.
But the most astonishing statistic is that of the 3,500,000 German military killed in the war 3,300,000 were lost on the eastern front, so its the red army and armed forces of communist USSR who were mainly responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. -
Message 2
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
The Americans like to take all of the credit which is hardly surprising considering the level of Hollywood propaganda on this issue.
We in Britain played a vital role because we fought alone and against all odds before The USSR and USA joined the war effort only after they were attacked.
But the most astonishing statistic is that of the 3,500,000 German military killed in the war 3,300,000 were lost on the eastern front, so its the red army and armed forces of communist USSR who were mainly responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Ìý
It was a combined effort of 58 nations involved that eventually secured the surrender of the Axis Forces in 1945. -
Message 3
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
The Yanks conveniently forget that they were "late again".
-
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
No single nation won the war, although USA and USSR like to think they did it alone. That is why the victors are usually referred to as "The Allies".
-
Message 5
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
The yanks wanted to be 'the cavelry' coming to the rescue at the last possible moment... again.
-
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
I think that even if the WWII was only against all forces of Germany thrown against Russia, Russians could have won the war by themselves... no problem for a country that fought like that while it was at the same time exterminating some 60,000,000 of its own citizens !!!
-
Message 7
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
The Americans like to take all of the credit which is hardly surprising considering the level of Hollywood propaganda on this issue.Ìý
"The Americans" do not make war films, the entertainment industry in Hollywood does. I doubt if the valiant exploits of, Ivan the Nazi Slayer, would keep them in business for long.
We in Britain played a vital role because we fought alone and against all odds before The USSR and USA joined the war effort only after they were attacked.Ìý
We were attacked by Japan, not Germany who was hardly in any posture to blitzkrieg the Hollywood propagandists.
But the most astonishing statistic is that of the 3,500,000 German military killed in the war 3,300,000 were lost on the eastern front, so it’s the red army and armed forces of communist USSR who were mainly responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Ìý
WOW!!, What a revelation. Have you considered a career in research. -
Message 8
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
The yanks wanted to be 'the cavelry' coming to the rescue at the last possible moment... again.Ìý
and if you are an example of the British Officer corps we were just in time. -
Message 9
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
The Yanks conveniently forget that they were "late again". Ìý
Well there we were, late again, late to give y'all 50 destroyers when we were supposed to be nuetral. Late again to be sending you arms and munitions, Late again to be feeding your hungry butts. Late again because the Germans had just kicked your army's backside....again. I wonder just what your real problem is with Americans dave. It has to be something deep in your psychi the way you go on. Did a Yank steal your girlfriend dave, are you half American ? Whatever it is I hope one day you get over it. It must be awful to have all that hate and venom eating away at you. -
Message 10
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
expat, where was Lend-Lease during the Battle of Britain? Where were your 50 destroyers when the Germans were poised to invade across the channel? When Britain had it's darkest and finest hour, it was Britain that saved itself without the help of the Yanks. Of course, we couldn't win the war without you and, anyway, you fleeced us for everything we had during and after the war so if anyone was the real victor of the Second World War, it was the USA.
-
Message 11
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8th July 2002 that:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us. " -
Message 12
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
Sadly to see, not in the first time,that men instead of setting themselves up as the defenders of democracy all over the world doing hell knows what....The disputes broke down in petty aquabbles,with each side accusing the other of having 'started it',or of having 'betrayed' the other....Men took sides on the basis of hurt feelings and outraged sensibilities.....
WE(I+I+I..) ARE THE WINNERS! -
Message 13
Posted by Aiden (U1707544) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
No one can doubt the sacrifice of the US forces in the second world war, and lets face it we are never going to allowed to forget are we.
But the point I was making is that the massive sacrifice of the Russians is overlooked throughout the west and it's worth acknowledging that the German army was fought to a standstill on the eastern front.
It could be said that it was there the back of the German army was broken.
So perhaps a film of Ivan the Nazi killer would be a great idea. -
Message 14
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
OUNUPA,
Would you prefer we sit around agreeing with each other and passing cucmber sndwiches?.
If I don't care for a particular thread, I move on. -
Message 15
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
No one can doubt the sacrifice of the US forces in the second world war, and lets face it we are never going to allowed to forget are we.
But the point I was making is that the massive sacrifice of the Russians is overlooked throughout the west and it's worth acknowledging that the German army was fought to a standstill on the eastern front.
It could be said that it was there the back of the German army was broken.
So perhaps a film of Ivan the Nazi killer would be a great idea. Ìý
We came out of a cold war that lasted around 50 years. It’s hardly surprising the Soviet effort was not front and foremost of western interest. No one disagrees with the Soviet contribution. It indeed makes the rest of us look like slackers. I would imagine Ivan the Nazi Slayer has been made in Russia many times over, and why not. BTW Britain was not alone. Free Europeans and Commonwealth soldiers were right in there with you.
Cheerz. -
Message 16
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
I read all of the contributions to this thread , and would, now purely out of interest, like to ask the following question :
" How many of you did actually took active part in World War 2,or,how many of you were living during the time 1939-1945".
What I am trying to establish is are you speaking from personal experience or from hearsay and/or research. -
Message 17
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
Expat,we must understand that satin 'go-go' boots don't make it with a blue suit.
Although I've got my own beloved Great Lines from real movies:
'I STICK MY NECK OUT FOR NOBODY'
Humphrey Bogart in Casablanka.
'I LOVE THE SMELL OF NAPALM IN THE MORNING'
Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now....
and I want a seat in the smoking,eating,talking,and spitting area
-
Message 18
Posted by Trident_MKV (U2431765) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
in the words of churchill
"the soviets ripped the guts out of the nazi war machine"
what was it, something like 80% of nazi forces were in the east and we only had to deal with the rest - which were bloody hard enough -
Message 19
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8th July 2002 that:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us. "Ìý
Interesting, but it can't be forgotten that you pressurised us into dropping the £ as the international currency for the $, removing our revenue from that position. You also forced us to dissolve Empire Preference, which allowed gave the protected the Empire countries and their economies. Then of course we have the Suez Crisis of 1956. In all, you lost the British Empire. -
Message 20
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
<quote user='Lord Ball' userid='1767246'><quote user='expat32' userid='2025313'>Then of course we have the Suez Crisis of 1956. In all, you lost the British Empire.</quote>
Is it possible that you are saying that Americans were responsible for the fact that the British Empire fell apart after WW2 and that the US cost Britain control of Suez?
Amazing!
I find it a bit disturbing that Britons can accuse the US of just about everything that is wrong with the world today and can so easily forget that much of today's problems reflect what England, her Empire, and other European colonizing countries put together during the last couple of centuries.
As for WW2, I doubt if Germany could have been beaten without the cooperation of all the allies. Russia desperately needed the help of both Britain and the US during 1941 and 1942 and without that help might well have been forced to make a separate peace with Hitler. Churchill noted several times that this was one of his greatest concerns. As for the US taking its time about helping Britain, from what I have been able to glean from readings, Roosevelt desperately wanted to help Britain in 1940 but most of America was convinced that it was a European war and that Europe, having gotten itself into the state it was in, could get itself out. Once the 1940 elections were safely behind him, the US, under his direction, did everything they could short of outright war to help...and that includes using American warships to escort convoys bound for Britain.
Make all the bold statements you wish about the Battle of Britain and how Britain held on alone, but it isn't true. Canada, Australia, NZ, and the rest of the Empire sent troops, ships, materiel and supplies long before the US entered the war, and squadrons from Poland, France, and other conquered countries were flying in that contest. And having said that, let's not forget that without the rather miraculous production efforts of American shipyards and factories, the Battle of the Atlantic would almost certainly have been lost. My brother fought with Montgomery in the rush from Holland into Germany and it's worth noting that he was in a Sherman tank -- US supplied -- not a particularly good tank, but better than nothing -- which is what he'd have had without US equipment. He also adds that a great deal of their air support was flown by P-47 a/c. There were Typhoons and Tempests around and they did a great job, but they didn't fly alone.
It took the combined efforts of the US, Britain, the Commonwealth and the Soviet Union to win WW2. Not one of them could have done it alone and it's assinine to argue about it. -
Message 21
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
Expat,we must understand that satin 'go-go' boots don't make it with a blue suit.
Although I've got my own beloved Great Lines from real movies:
'I STICK MY NECK OUT FOR NOBODY'
Humphrey Bogart in Casablanka.
'I LOVE THE SMELL OF NAPALM IN THE MORNING'
Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now....
and I want a seat in the smoking,eating,talking,and spitting areaÌý
Fair enough, You can have my blue go go boots.
'I LOVE THE SMELL OF NAPALM IN THE MORNING'
" IT REMINDS ME OF..........VICTORY." -
Message 22
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
<quote user='Erik Lindsay' userid='231970'><quote user='Lord Ball' userid='1767246'><quote user='expat32' userid='2025313'>Then of course we have the Suez Crisis of 1956. In all, you lost the British Empire.</quote>
Is it possible that you are saying that Americans were responsible for the fact that the British Empire fell apart after WW2 and that the US cost Britain control of Suez?
Amazing!
I find it a bit disturbing that Britons can accuse the US of just about everything that is wrong with the world today and can so easily forget that much of today's problems reflect what England, her Empire, and other European colonizing countries put together during the last couple of centuries.
As for WW2, I doubt if Germany could have been beaten without the cooperation of all the allies. Russia desperately needed the help of both Britain and the US during 1941 and 1942 and without that help might well have been forced to make a separate peace with Hitler. Churchill noted several times that this was one of his greatest concerns. As for the US taking its time about helping Britain, from what I have been able to glean from readings, Roosevelt desperately wanted to help Britain in 1940 but most of America was convinced that it was a European war and that Europe, having gotten itself into the state it was in, could get itself out. Once the 1940 elections were safely behind him, the US, under his direction, did everything they could short of outright war to help...and that includes using American warships to escort convoys bound for Britain.
Make all the bold statements you wish about the Battle of Britain and how Britain held on alone, but it isn't true. Canada, Australia, NZ, and the rest of the Empire sent troops, ships, materiel and supplies long before the US entered the war, and squadrons from Poland, France, and other conquered countries were flying in that contest. And having said that, let's not forget that without the rather miraculous production efforts of American shipyards and factories, the Battle of the Atlantic would almost certainly have been lost. My brother fought with Montgomery in the rush from Holland into Germany and it's worth noting that he was in a Sherman tank -- US supplied -- not a particularly good tank, but better than nothing -- which is what he'd have had without US equipment. He also adds that a great deal of their air support was flown by P-47 a/c. There were Typhoons and Tempests around and they did a great job, but they didn't fly alone.
It took the combined efforts of the US, Britain, the Commonwealth and the Soviet Union to win WW2. Not one of them could have done it alone and it's assinine to argue about it. </quote>
I said all that? Must have slipped my mind. I wasn't completely blaming the US for the collapse of the Empire, merely just the road to recovery for it being cut off by the Americans. WWII destroyed the Empire, no doubt about that. Inform me of why the British Empire is responsible for the world's problems? There was silly old me thinking that the Empire created three of the most successful world powers and has lead to another being formed on the Indian Sub-Continent. Of course, the way in which Wilson hastily withdrawed from Empire lead to problems in these countries, but there's a Labour Government for you. The destruction of the Empire Preference system doomed the Empire and after that the Commonwealth countries to economic hardship as free trade gradually pushed them out of the market for many goods. Of course, America promoted free trade while also protecting her own industries by putting tarriffs on goods the African countries, now economically desolate, produced. -
Message 23
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
Prior to Japan attacking the US, there was strong opinion amongst American citizens to stay out of the war in Europe. To Americans, the Europeans were once again fighting, as they have done since the days of the Roman Empire. What business was it of ours?
Furthermore, two of America's most important personages, Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg, were outspoken in their anti war feelings. These men were Hitler-admirers. Lindberg started an organization called "America First." It's purpose was to rally support and public opinion aganinst entry into the European war.
AS an amatuer historian, I collect a few "historical" objects--old magazines, newspapers, etc. I have one pre WW2 (pre Dec. 1941) newspaper which speaks of the increase in production of war materials, and of the increased man-power in the US military. This came as a surprise to me, clearly indicating that the US government knew it would soon be involved the European war.
I also have a pre-US-entry-in-the-war article, concerning one of Lindberg's anti war rallies. Protesters who believed the US should enter the war to fight against Germany, were physically assaulted by the Lindberg crowd. The police watched.
I don't think true students of history really believe that any one nation won WW2.
jbeire. -
Message 24
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Monday, 14th November 2005
No one nation won the war of course but the nation that played the major role was the Soviet Union.
Its armies destroyed 80% of Germany's divisions.
For political reasons however the powers that be have always either ignored or tried to play down the Soviet contribution. -
Message 25
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 14th November 2005
A little perturbed that yet another thread has descended into a US v Brit slanging match, with some vitriol on both sides. Can't we all at least keep this civilised? If someone says something that's factually wrong, please do not rip into them as though they were simpletons - we all make mistakes.
Please everone, calm down!! -
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 14th November 2005
Agreed Stoggler.
There is one thing, the US's isolationist feeling is totally understandable. If you think that most US citizens were either immigrants fleeing something nasty (famine, religious repression, general racism) from usually a European country, or fleeing war in Europe, or they were descendants of the above immigrants, I don't find it surprising that they wanted to keep out of the war. After all, they had left this continent for a new life, without all the fear and hate and war that had stricken Europe for centuries, so who can blame them if they didn't want to be involved? Just a thought....
The more surprising thing is that the outlying parts of the British Empire DID stand up and fight alongside the nation that hadn't exactly treated them well in the past.
If you view WW2 objectively, if one of the major Allies (with the exception of France, who was soundly defeated) had not fought against Germany or Japan, then the outcome may have been very different. If the US had not been involved, then the Russians would have found it even harder, due simply to the lack of trucks!! The British would have been forced to seek terms due to the U-boat campaign. If the Russians had surrendered we would have seen Britain fall soon after, and the US would have been under threat from a German-japanese invasion. If Britain fell, there would be no Arctic convoys to Russia, no British/US strategic bombing of Germany, no D-Day, and either a Nazi or Soviet dominated Europe after the war.
All played their part, and all were essential.
No need for slanging matches. AS USUAL!!!!
DL -
Message 27
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 14th November 2005
Well said DL. Hear hear.
-
Message 28
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 14th November 2005
Cheers!
My God what is the world coming to, am I really fighting the US's corner here?!!!! Nah, just being unbiased, the fact is that none of the allies alone would have won the war. If put simply I would say that the war was won (in Europe at least)by a combined effect of the Red Army's attrition of German forces on the Russian Front, US industrial might (the Arsenal of Democracy in full flow) and massive manpower, and Britain's refusal to surrender in the face of certain defeat (Airstrip One was essential) and technical ingenuity (radar in 1940, plus again in the Atlantic with centimetric anti-sub radar, and of course, the breaking of Enigma at Bletchley).
Against Japan, the war was won by US Industrial might, and a hell of a lot of US Marines, Aussies, New Zealanders, Indians, Brits and Chinese, but the eventual defeat was caused by five things, the US Aircraft Carrier, the US Marine, the Hellcat fighter, the B29 and the Manhattan Project.
Cheers
DL -
Message 29
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 14th November 2005
The Americans like to take all of the credit...
We in Britain played a vital role because we fought alone and against all odds...
Ìý
Sorry, but if you want to castigate the Americans for being ignorant of other countres' involvement, then you can't parrot the old lie that Britain stood alone. We did not. We had troops from South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Empire as well as volunteers from the conquored bits of Europe. And yes, even American volunteers. Short of actually declaring war, America provided all sorts of assistance which severely tested the borders of neutrality - that's one reason why Germany was so keen to declare war when given the opportunity by Japan.
As for being against the odds. Britain had more ships. Even in the dark days of the Battle of Britain we produced more aircraft that the Germans, and importantly we could retrieve downed pilots.
Yes it would have been nice to have the US militarily involved from 1939, but I'm sure the Chinese would have liked our help in 1936. Yet we stood back and did nothing because we hadn't realised it was in our interest to prevent japanese aggression. -
Message 30
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Monday, 14th November 2005
"If you view WW2 objectively, if one of the major Allies (with the exception of France, who was soundly defeated) had not fought against Germany or Japan, then the outcome may have been very different. If the US had not been involved, then the Russians would have found it even harder, due simply to the lack of trucks!! The British would have been forced to seek terms due to the U-boat campaign. If the Russians had surrendered we would have seen Britain fall soon after, and the US would have been under threat from a German-japanese invasion. If Britain fell, there would be no Arctic convoys to Russia, no British/US strategic bombing of Germany, no D-Day, and either a Nazi or Soviet dominated Europe after the war"
SOme of this is true but the solid fact remains the Red Army defeated Germany in WWII.
Trucks or no trucks the allies didn't land in the main theatre until 1944 long after Stalingrad and Kursk.
You can't ignore the facts, Russia was where the German army was most committed. -
Message 31
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 14th November 2005
I don't disagree Simon, it was where the majority of the German Army was destroyed, along their myth of invincibility.
Stalingrad and Kursk were without a doubt the most decisive battles in the war, I don't deny that, but without the participation of the US and the UK, it is likely that the USSR would have been defeated. Two weapons won the war for the Russians, the T34 and the US supplied trucks that kept them supplied. Without the trucks, the tanks would not have been able to advance so rapidly, or consistently, and this would have given the Germans time to regroup and prepare. As it was, once Zitadelle failed at Kursk, after the massive tank clash at Prokhorovka, the Germans never regained the initiative in Russia, and their war was a continual retreat.
You put "Some of this is true" referring to my previous post, can you please explain which parts of it you feel are un-true?
Cheers
DL -
Message 32
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Monday, 14th November 2005
"Two weapons won the war for the Russians, the T34 and the US supplied trucks that kept them supplied. Without the trucks, the tanks would not have been able to advance"
Sorry but this is simplistic. If you read any account of the Russian campaign you will find the Red army soldiers played the major role in defeating the Germans. The T-34s were important, so was the Soviet artillery arm, their side weapons and the Soviet air force.
To try to say that US trucks played a pivotal role is frankly risible and in fact continues the myth that somehow soviet soldiers were "inferior" or incapable of fighting unless huddled behind tanks.
The part that is not true is the part that tries to somehow down play the Soviet role.
Losing Britain would have hindered the Soviets, but it would not neccesarily have been decisive, why should it have been?
As was realised at the time in the West WWII was essentially a clash between Germany and the Soviet Union.
And thank god the soviets won. A debt which has only been rarely acknowledged. -
Message 33
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 14th November 2005
Simon,
I am no way saying that the Russian soldier was "inferior" that is total garbage, the Eastern Front was the most brutal, horrific conflict the world has ever seen, and bravery was commonplace. My original post was to point out that ALL of the allies played a vital role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and I posted that because this thread was rapidly turning into another "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" argument and quite frankly I am sick of it.
There are better ways to make your point than by belittling the efforts of the other allies involved, and that is precisely what you are doing. Yes the western allies couldn't have defeated Germany without the Russians, and vice versa. The war in Russia was more horrific, and barbaric and almost beyond description, but to look at this objectively, had the UK surrendered before Barbarossa (as was Hitler's plan, he always considered the war with the UK to be the "Wrong war"), then the Germans would have had sufficient reserves and strength left in December 1941 to take Moscow (even with units tied up all over Europe, they still got with 30 or so miles!). Stalin chose to remain in Moscow at that time, so it is a safe assumption ot say that with forces freed up due to no enemy in the west, the Germans would have taken Moscow, and Stalin would have either died or been captured in Moscow. If Stalin falls, communism would probably have followed, and then some sort of peace deal with the new Russian government shortly after.
The Russians could not have defeated Germany alone, neither could the British Empire or the US. Even combined together it still took the 3 powers four more bloody years to do it!
None of the big three could have done it without the other. FACT.
DL -
Message 34
Posted by ixora05 (U2484484) on Monday, 14th November 2005
I just found this thread--I'm 17, and studying for my History GCE A Levels in Singapore. WWII is something that I've covered in great detail in class but this is the first time I've actually thought about who won the war. non-historic answer would be nobody wins war because everybody suffers but that's the idealist in me talking. I think everyone's raised really good points so far, gonna be showing this to my teacher for class discussion!
-
Message 35
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Monday, 14th November 2005
<quote user='DL' userid='1683040'>Simon,
I am no way saying that the Russian soldier was "inferior" that is total garbage, the Eastern Front was the most brutal, horrific conflict the world has ever seen, and bravery was commonplace. My original post was to point out that ALL of the allies played a vital role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and I posted that because this thread was rapidly turning into another "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" argument and quite frankly I am sick of it."
Wacky doo facts are facts whatever you think of them.
The pivotal role was played by Russia - 80% of German divisions destroyed.
Oh and the US and UK supplied about 33% of Russia's trucks, important but not vital.
"There are better ways to make your point than by belittling the efforts of the other allies involved, and that is precisely what you are doing. Yes the western allies couldn't have defeated Germany without the Russians, and vice versa."
No that is my whole point. The Russian contribution was decisive, it was where the German armies were broken in the field. The allies help was useful, important, but not decisive.
After all, as has been said many times, all the equipment in the world is of no use without soldiers willing to use it.
"The war in Russia was more horrific, and barbaric and almost beyond description, but to look at this objectively, had the UK surrendered before Barbarossa (as was Hitler's plan, he always considered the war with the UK to be the "Wrong war"), then the Germans would have had sufficient reserves and strength left in December 1941 to take Moscow (even with units tied up all over Europe, they still got with 30 or so miles!). Stalin chose to remain in Moscow at that time, so it is a safe assumption ot say that with forces freed up due to no enemy in the west, the Germans would have taken Moscow, and Stalin would have either died or been captured in Moscow."
Or Stalin would have moved the capital before the Germans captured the city (the russians were rather good at city fighting as the Germans found), or the Russians would have counter attacked earlier. Pure speculation. The russians had no place to go, there was no question of a peace treaty, Hitler wasn't offering one.
And Hitler used troops drawn from Spain, Roumania, Flanders, Holland, Finland etc for his grand crusade. He didn't lack resources (rather he did, but it wasn't due to great committmements elsewhere)
If Stalin falls, communism would probably have followed, and then some sort of peace deal with the new Russian government shortly after."
If you think Stalin would have stayed in Moscow to be taken before Adolf I think you are mistaken.
The Russians had already showed how they dealt with invaders.
The Russians could not have defeated Germany alone, neither could the British Empire or the US. Even combined together it still took the 3 powers four more bloody years to do it!
None of the big three could have done it without the other. FACT.
No the FACT is that Russia defeated three army groups with no allied soldier in sight. The fact is that much of 1942, 1943 and 1944 the Russians fought their way into Europe when the allies wasted time in Italy. -
Message 36
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 14th November 2005
On a lighter note,
I recall reading a few years back of Peter Ustinov's ( now that would have been a dinner guest to remember) adventures in the British Army. It was of course during WW2. He found himself as a Pvt pulling guard in a pillbox (small fortification) with a fellow squadi. As the other guy was a Czech enlistee in the British army, they were struggling for a mutual language. He often thought afterwards that Hitler may have launched Sealion immediately had he known the two closest British soldiers between the Wehrmacht and the English coast were communicating to each other in German.
Cheerz. -
Message 37
Posted by Wrdozier (U2495905) on Monday, 14th November 2005
As with any history 'what if' question, the real answer is we cannot possibly know the true answer. What if the UK had been taken out of the war? Well we know for sure (or reasonably close to for sure) that all the first line combat soldiers in the West could have gone East. Would that have changed the final outcome of the war? Who knows. It sure would have made life a bit harder for the Soviets.
Indeed it was very much the effort of the UK, fighting in places like North Africa, Greece, and Crete that tied down thousands of German soldiers (and more importantly military minds) that would have otherwise been put to use against the USSR.
Saying the Soviets won the war alone is wrong. It was an effort of the UK, US, USSR, and other countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) that won the war. Each major ally played a critical role in the final outcome. -
Message 38
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005
Politically the Allies won, militarily, undoubtedly the Russians get the Gold medal. The Americans like to take all of the credit which is hardly surprising considering the level of Hollywood propaganda on this issue.
We in Britain played a vital role because we fought alone and against all odds before The USSR and USA joined the war effort only after they were attacked.
But the most astonishing statistic is that of the 3,500,000 German military killed in the war 3,300,000 were lost on the eastern front, so its the red army and armed forces of communist USSR who were mainly responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Ìý -
Message 39
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005
"Politically the Allies won, militarily, undoubtedly the Russians get the Gold medal."
This is an intersting point. Whether it is completely true is open to question, the Russians installed their "system" throughout Eastern Europe so that has to count for something.
But propaganda wise the allies got all the prizes. To read some popular accounts (now changing) one would almost get the impression that Barbarossa and its aftermath were a sideshow.
Disgracefully this culminated in the D-Day celebrations when apparently the Russians were not even asked to attend.
The point is an important one. Having lost over 20 million people in the war the Russians were understandably traumatised by the experience - and determined to ensure it did not happen again.
More understanding of this position would perhaps have led to an earlier ending of the CW.
Though again this is speculative. -
Message 40
Posted by Simplicissimus (U2398521) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005
Britain came third in the second world war, which is pretty good for a small island with a broken empire.
-
Message 41
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005
3.3M out of 3.5M seems a high percentage but then the Germans were more likely to surrender to the Western Allies. The west captured 100,000s in Tunisia (albeit mainly Italians), the Falaise Gap and crossing the Rhine.
Enemy at the Gates is a Hollywood film showing some aspects of the war in the East.
As mentioned, it was a combined effort but the efforts of British, Commonwealth & Empire troops should not be diminished given the fact they fought in Burma and the Far East as well as Europe and the Middle East. Perhaps without the German losses in the Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa would have been successful.
The Soviets underplayed the contribution by everyone else in the Great Patriotic War but I don't see why they should be invited to the D-Day celebrations any more than Stalingrad and Kursk were anything to do with the Western Allies.
Just some thoughts! -
Message 42
Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005
Who WON the War? The Russians.
The Soviets made the vital contribution to the Second World War. Without them, the Allies could not have fully defeated Hitler, in the comprehensive manner that they did in 1945. -
Message 43
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005
Cosidering the cost in lives and in treasure, can ANY of the combatants really claim to have won the war? From my perspective (born late 40s), I'd say that the neutrals were the only "winners".
-
Message 44
Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005
Cosidering the cost in lives and in treasure, can ANY of the combatants really claim to have won the war? From my perspective (born late 40s), I'd say that the neutrals were the only "winners".Ìý
From my own perspective, I hardly think that Ireland emerged from the War as a winner, although it was lucky that it got out intact. I cant speak for any of the others. -
Message 45
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005
Simon21, I believe you are right. I don't think the Russian contribution in WWII is fully appreciated by many of us in Western Europe. The Russian people paid a huge price to grind down the Nazi war machine under the oppressive 'guidance' of Joe Stalin. The contribution of the US should not be underestimated or played down as is fashionable to do nowadays, but the achievements of the Red Army by causing a virtual collapse of Hitlers drive for the oilfields in the East is sadly just lightly touched upon when history is recalled by us. This is a direct result of the Cold War when the Soviet Union had the means to directly challenge the US and its allies and the technological advances they made from Werner Von Braun et al. Of course I'm very grateful, as I'm sure the vast majority are, that the US came out on top.
-
Message 46
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005
I agree, Stalin seemed to get much of what he wanted in the carve up.
The Â鶹ԼÅÄ seem pretty convinced that the Russians were invited:
For my two-pennies-worth, any nation naturally concentrates on its own achievements, partly because that will naturally interest more of the locals.
The Soviet involvement was played down for propoganda purposes during the Cold War. But equally, the US and UK contribution to the war effort is largely ignored in Russia.
On more practical notes, it has been easier for UK & US historians to physically access records and evidence from the UK and US. Not all historians read Russian which is reflected in the histories. Also, the Soviets resticted access to many files and to first hand accounts of survivors because they wanted to control the perception that the USSR had won the war despite the duplicity of the Allies.
Most of the books in the shops are either about one front or another. Few books about D-Day give much credit to the Soviets. But nor do books about Stalingrad give much credit to the British Eighth Army.
I don't think it'll be ever possible to answer the question of whether the USSR could have beaten germany without aid. But at least it keeps us entertained discussing it.
I personally doubt it. America supplied almost 1/3 of the pairs of boots used by the Red Army - much more of an essential than the huge numbers of trucks, food aid and tank parts. "Politically the Allies won, militarily, undoubtedly the Russians get the Gold medal."
This is an intersting point. Whether it is completely true is open to question, the Russians installed their "system" throughout Eastern Europe so that has to count for something.
But propaganda wise the allies got all the prizes. To read some popular accounts (now changing) one would almost get the impression that Barbarossa and its aftermath were a sideshow.
Disgracefully this culminated in the D-Day celebrations when apparently the Russians were not even asked to attend.
The point is an important one. Having lost over 20 million people in the war the Russians were understandably traumatised by the experience - and determined to ensure it did not happen again.
More understanding of this position would perhaps have led to an earlier ending of the CW.
Though again this is speculative.Ìý -
Message 47
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005
The Yanks conveniently forget that they were "late again". Ìý
DaveMBA: Starting immediatelly after the presidential election in 1940, the U.S. (Roosevelt) began supplying England with just about everything she needed.
Remember, Standard Oil of New Jersey produced more petroleum products than the entire Axis Empire.
From June 1942 until September 1943 the U.S. produced 40 aircraft carriers. 50,000 aircraft of all types. 20,000 tanks and armoured vehicles. Plus jeeps, trucks of all sizes, motorcycles.
By January 1, 1943 we were producing one "Liberty Ship" every three days. And this doesn't count all the rifels, pistols, ammunition, food. The U.S. alone produced almost ten times the military equipment of the Axis powers.
I have read books that say U.S. productivity and the Russian Soldier won WWII. -
Message 48
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005
Hi jesw1962,
Dave is a complete waste of time. He is quite bright but for some reason as anti American as a person can get.
Cheerz. -
Message 49
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005
Ustinov, genius, several years in the army and never rose above private.
-
Message 50
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 17th November 2005
Cloudiy,
And some of the American trucks, which were given to Stalin as the aid by USA,were used by
commies in a very sophisticated way.
In May 1944 ,in the Crimea,NKVDers came to the thought that these trucks could resolve the part of trasportation problem which was connected with some of the 'traitorous nationalities' (the Crimean Tatars,Greeks,Bulgarians...) for their deportation in Siberia .....
'the Soviets resticted access to many files and to first hand accounts of survivors because they wanted to control the perception that the USSR had won the war despite the duplicity of the Allies.'...I just want to add ...and the modern Putin's Russia doing such things also...
I think our DL is right.......for what hell Hitler invaded into that Russia....to give the Russians chance for boasting and lies or so?
Now,as the outcome, we are doomed to hear the Russian 'fairy tales' about their 'Great Patriotic War' to the last days of our lifetime,because of the fact that they almost certainly have no any events to celebrate as their own WIN in case if we accept the claims of Russian leaders that Russia is the successor of the former USSR (i.e. the Russian Empire) of course, I guess....Such 'Gold Medal' so to speak.
Pah!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.