CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
While supplying the entire allied nations in war supplies (including U.S.S.R.) AMerica was still able to single handedly defeat the Japanesse and still support other nations with people and back up (example D-Day).
"Likewise the USSR managed to handle the entire Eastern front losing far more soldiers than the U.S did in the entire war.”
If you judge the success of a battle by the amount of people lost, than i am happy about at least one thing, and that is you are not a general. All that shows is looking at people as worthless and expendable, not effectiveness.
"If you judge the success of a battle by the amount of people lost, than i am happy about at least one thing, and that is you are not a general. All that shows is looking at people as worthless and expendable, not effectiveness."
I assumed that's the standard measurement of contribution to war in the USA, considering how much credit you claim about D-Day.
Actually, you'd be surprised how much Britain was involved. For a start, it was the Japanese invasion of British Malaya that formally started the war (I know Pearl Harbour was obviously key for US involvement, but it wasn't the formal reason why the war started). They also attacked Hong Kong the same day as Pearl Harbour.
I'm not saying we were massively useful. For the first 9 months or so, we were whipping boys. But, nonetheless, we provided important Naval support, alongside Australia and the Netherlands. And our colony of India led the Allied role in the Burma Campaign.
One could even go as far to say (I wouldn't) that the US weren't even the biggest contributors to the Pacific War. China fought Japan valiantly in the second Sino-Japanese war. This war counted for over 50% of all casualties in the Pacific War.
Actually, you'd be surprised how much Britain was involved. For a start, it was the Japanese invasion of British Malaya that formally started the war
This was independent of the United States's involvement.
I'm not saying we were massively useful. For the first 9 months or so, we were whipping boys. But, nonetheless, we provided important Naval support, alongside Australia and the Netherlands.
I will give more credit to Australia for their aid in some of the south pacific campaigns. Obviously their involvement is swarmed by the US, but nonetheless, the aussies had a role.
And our colony of India led the Allied role in the Burma Campaign.
I wasn't aware India was in the Pacific. Pfft. One ocean wasn't enough for them? ;)
China fought Japan valiantly in the second Sino-Japanese war.
As did thousands of US forces. Just sayin'. Regardless, this is independent of our primary involvement.
his war counted for over 50% of all casualties in the Pacific War.
These are two different wars.
One could even go as far to say (I wouldn't) that the US weren't even the biggest contributors to the Pacific War
That would be Japan, followed by the United States, then a distant Australia.
I wasn't aware India was in the Pacific. Pfft. One ocean wasn't enough for them? ;)
Lol. But for some reason, the Burmese campaign gets lumped in with the Pacific War. So it can be talked about within the Pacific War.
As did thousands of US forces. Just sayin'. Regardless, this is independent of our primary involvement.
C'mon, the US deserves a lot of credit for WW2. But you can't take too much away from the Chinese, I mean, they were still fighting with swords in the early stages of the war. But nevertheless, the Japanese were defeated.
These are two different wars.
And yet it is lumped in with the Pacific War. I also feel that they are 2 separate enitities, but meh.
That would be Japan, followed by the United States, then a distant Australia.
Just because of your intransigence, you do not have the right to downplay the role of the U.S. in World War 2 to a level such as this, especially with your insatiable amount of knowledge on the war.
Funny how you can claim that, when it's your country that teaches myth and propaganda as fact.
For the fourth time, upon what factual basis or personal experience are you in any way qualified to make that assertion? That is nothing but an empty, pathetic emotional plea from a self-righteous ignoramus who is no more capable of free-thinking than the very americans you picture. You are a puppet of the Queen. Sad really...
I gave you the reason of Paul Revere and how your country have glorified him into a national hero for no other reason than a little rhyme.
"That is nothing but an empty, pathetic emotional plea from a self-righteous ignoramus who is no more capable of free-thinking than the very americans you picture. "
Resorting to petty insults are we?
"You are a puppet of the Queen. Sad really..."
More ignorant balderdash, but at least you've used a stereotype, shows some progress in your intelligence.
Anyway, what's wrong with our Queen?She'a lot better than your President.
"Anyway, what's wrong with our Queen?She'a lot better than your President"
Your Queen doesn't do anything, she is just a figure head, nothing more, hence the reason for a Prime Minister.
"I gave you the reason of Paul Revere and how your country have glorified him into a national hero for no other reason than a little rhyme."
You clearly know nothing of military strategy, information is the key to every battle, it allows for a built up defense and counter attack. Look at the battle of Midway for example, America had information the Japanese didn't, as a result, the Japanese lost their ability to carry out their imperialistic ways.
"Your Queen doesn't do anything, she is just a figure head, nothing more, hence the reason for a Prime Minister."
Saying the Queen doesn't do anything is saying that the President doesn't do anything. She has weekly meetings with the Prime Minister where she advises him and gets information on what he's doing. She also has great diplomatic influence and receives more tourists than your President does.
"You clearly know nothing of military strategy, information is the key to every battle, it allows for a built up defense and counter attack. Look at the battle of Midway for example, America had information the Japanese didn't, as a result, the Japanese lost their ability to carry out their imperialistic ways."
He clearly haven't read the information I originally gave you, the whole Paul revere rhyme is a lie. That means it's not true. Paul Revere was one of many soldiers sent to warn of the regulators, he was one of three who failed the mission by instead deciding to go to a public house. Thus your reference to the Battle of Midway is useless aside from the fact that Britain and Russia also knew of the "military strategy" of gather information. Once again the U.S is nothing special.
What's most concerning about your reply (aside from the fact that you assume I know "nothing of military strategy") is that you still believe the story of Paul Revere, You're right information is key, especially propaganda in history lessons.
Actually as far as I understand it the USA was providing aid via sea well before they got heavily involved and that aid in terms of materials was quite significant.
"Not true, the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid"
This is actually impossible, Stallingrad started in August of 1942 (this date is before the German military reached the city). The Lend Lease act of 1941(I believe June) was an act that started America supplying the Allied nations with huge amounts of war supplies, the U.S.S.R was included in this aid. Stalin even addmited that a victory could not of been possible without this act "we would not of been able to cope".
Here is an un-biased writing on WW2 from the BBC Uk.
"Stallingrad started in August of 1942 (this date is before the German military reached the city). "
I'm well aware of when the battle of Stalingrad took place.
"Here is an un-biased writing on WW2 from the BBC Uk."
My friend, all writing is biased to some degree, it is standard practive among historians motivated more by political consideration than historical truth (and most fall into this category) to exaggerate the importance of things like American aid to the Soviet Union.The fact is that the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow – this is before any supplies had reached the USSR from the USA, Britain or Canada.The soviets would still have been able to defeat the Nazis but at much greater cost, this may have led to a stalemate on the Eastern front, I admit that is a very real possibility, for Russia to have beaten the Nazis alone, it would probably have taken another 5-10 years, and caused a few million more casualities, but regardless of US aid, not historian would argue that Hitlers invasion of Russia hadn't failed, all that is left to consider then is whether the USSR could have soundly defeated the Nazis, or whether it would have ended in a stalemate, i.e.
""Initially, the Soviet forces conducted a strategic defence of the Moscow Oblast by constructing three defensive belts, and deploying newly raised reserve armies as well as bringing troops from the Siberian and Far Eastern Military Districts. Subsequently, as the German offensives were halted, a Soviet strategic counter-offensive and smaller-scale offensive operations were executed to force German armies back to the positions around the cities of Oryol, Vyazma and Vitebsk, nearly surrounding three German armies in the process."
"This victory provided an important boost for Soviet morale, with the Wehrmacht suffering its first defeat. Having failed to vanquish the Soviet Union, Germany now had to prepare for a prolonged struggle. Operation Barbarossa had failed."
"Stalin even addmited that a victory could not of been possible without this act "we would not of been able to cope"."
He did no such thing, and he never said "we wouldn't have been abale to cope", where is your source for that? did you simply make it up to suit your argument? Don't try to dodge this question;-)
I beleive his exact words were:
"Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."
You seem to think that quote impies Stalin meant the USSR would have fallen to the Nazis without US aid, this is false. US aid was necesasry for the war effort (on all sides not just that of the USSR , thats he says: United Nations) to defeat the Nazis in the timeline within which they were defeated the Nazis, and there is no doubt that american aid contributed massively to the Soviet Victory against the Nazis.
"I'm well aware of when the battle of Stalingrad took place."
Are you well aware of when the Lend-Lease Act was initiated?
"My friend, all writing is biased to some degree, it is standard practive among historians motivated more by political consideration than historical truth (and most fall into this category) to exaggerate the importance of things like American aid to the Soviet Union"
I merely said that as to emphasize the Non-American perspective to contradict any argument that says it is un-fairly biased towards the U.S.
"the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow"
You could also say the Russian Winter halted the German advance (it certainly halted German vehicles).
"Are you well aware of when the Lend-Lease Act was initiated?"
How can I spell it out any clearer, let me try this approach:
I said: "the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid."
You said: "This is actually impossible,"
I said: "It's actually not impossible at all.....the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow
Now, the Soviets pushed the Nazis back in the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Moscow occured before the Soviets had recieved any aid from the Allies, therefore, when I made the statement: "the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid", I was right, and you were wrong to dispute me, it doesn't matter when Lend-Lease was signed, my statement was correct, your dispute was 100% wrong, now do you follow, or do I have to spell it out in greater depth?
"I merely said that as to emphasize the Non-American perspective to contradict any argument that says it is un-fairly biased towards the U.S."
No, the article is reasonably objective, but you can be sure it is biased towards the allies, not in what it says, but in it what is doesn't say.
"You could also say the Russian Winter halted the German advance"
Can you read? Weather doesn't force an army into retreat, people with guns do.
P.S. I find it hilarious that you would dispute when what I asserted is contained within the source you provided for your defense, i.e.
"T-34 tanks and Katyusha rocket launchers led the way for the fresh Russian soldiers, some of whom donned the white winter camouflage that became the subject of nightmares to the freezing retreating German troops. By 7 Jan 1942, the front lines were driven back anywhere between 100km to 250km. German forces would never again threaten Moscow directly for the rest of the war."
""It's actually not impossible at all.....the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow"
I scanned over this and carried on talking about Stalingrad, ergo, why i reiterated lend lease.
"No, the article is reasonably objective, but you can be sure it is biased towards the allies, not in what it says, but in it what is doesn't say."
You just proved my point, it is not subjectivley biased towards America, which is what I was hoping you would figure out.
"Can you read? Weather doesn't force an army into retreat"
"After a few days of preparations in Moscow's suburbs, on 2 Oct 1941, Fedor von Bock led German troops to assault directly against Moscow. German advances were slower than they had hoped with a rainy fall season and later a cold early winter. As German vehicles become immobilized, the German army continued to advance, however the cold weather was affecting the morale and fighting ability of the troops to a high degree."
This shore sounds like the Russian weather hinders the German war machine, and benefits a defender, which is what i meant by "You could also say that Russian Winter halted German advance". Please look for the deeper meaning in things, rather than take everything literally.
"I scanned over this and carried on talking about Stalingrad, ergo, why i reiterated lend lease."
Look, whether Lend Lease was or wasn't signed by the time the battle of Mozcow took place, the point is that when it took place, the Soviets had received no aid, they were pushing the Germans back before the received any aid, therefore you were wrong to dispute my statement, and you're clearlyn not willing to admit it.
""After a few days of preparations in Moscow's suburbs, on 2 Oct 1941, Fedor von Bock led German troops to assault directly against Moscow. German advances were slower than they had hoped with a rainy fall season and later a cold early winter. As German vehicles become immobilized, the German army continued to advance, however the cold weather was affecting the morale and fighting ability of the troops to a high degree."
What exactly do you think you are proving? Yes, the weather was bad, but the Soviets still had to capitalise on the cold weather, environmental conditions, and fortuitious circumstances are often decisive in determining the outcome of battles, the way you're talking you'd swear the cold weather fought the Germans.
"This shore sounds like the Russian weather hinders the German war machine,"
Why not re-reading what I wrote, where in my previous posts did I claim that the cold weather didn't hinder the German advance? You seem to think you've caught me out for claiming I claimed something I never claimed (phew!!!).
Was the weather a factor in halting the Germans, yes, if course, but from the beginning I have been talking about the Germans being pushed back i.e. losing the ground they had gained
Are you beginning to get it now?
And we both know the weather didn't force the German army into retreat.
"Please look for the deeper meaning in things, rather than take everything literally."
What deeper meaning would that be? And what exactly is wrong with taking things literally, how are people supposed to nail anything down in a debate if they only talked figuratively? That would be one messy debate.
"Look, whether Lend Lease was or wasn't signed by the time the battle of Mozcow took place, the point is that when it took place, the Soviets had received no aid, they were pushing the Germans back before the received any aid, therefore you were wrong to dispute my statement, and you're clearlyn not willing to admit it."
Your ignorance here is amazing, i highlighted a statement of you talking about the battle of Moscow, and stated the reason for the reitteration of Lend Lease, and that was me, skipping over the moscow statement and thinking i was agrueing Stalingrad, not the battle of Moscow. Can i be anymore clear here?
"What exactly do you think you are proving?"
I have been trying to make the point that the Russian winter played a pivotol role in the defeat of the Nazis, which you seemed to be more than ignorant to.
"Why not re-reading what I wrote, where in my previous posts did I claim that the cold weather didn't hinder the German advance"
Where in your previous posts did you claim the could weather hindered the German advance? By making sarcastic statements like the one below, your not really helping your point.
"Yes the weather killed them, and drove them back, then single handedly defeated them, and marched on Berlin and became a global superpower."
Again, I shall reiterate my original statement: "the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid"
Notice what this statement means, it means the USSR were pushing the Nazis back without US aid prior to the arrival of US aid.
You responded with: "This is actually impossible"
When in fact, it isn't impossible, because we have already established the accuracy of my original statement, now regardless of whether you mistook my statement, you have been unable to admit your original error, and I'm not going to stop until you do.
"and that was me, skipping over the moscow statement and thinking i was agrueing Stalingrad"
It really doesn't matter what you thought, you asserted that the USSR could only push the Nazis back with US aid by telling me what I stated was impossible, I called you up on it, I have proved you wrong, but you are still unable to admit your error.
"Can i be anymore clear here?"
Yes, you could be a lot clearer, your actually incredibly frustrating to debate against, although I admit this hasn't been as much of struggle as the Iran debate.
"I have been trying to make the point that the Russian winter played a pivotol role in the defeat of the Nazis"
Do you not think I know that, I know all the obvious arguments, I know Hitler made a tactical error, but the although the weather contributed to the Nazi defeat the West always want to give the weather all the credit, because if they didn't they'd have to acknowledge an incredble Soviet victory (oh my!!!).
People say Hitler made a tactical blunder, it's not really that true, he simply underestimated the Soviets, but at the time he wasn't wrong to do so, the Soviets surprised every military tactician in world war 2.
"Where in your previous posts did you claim the could weather hindered the German advance?"
Wow, reverse the logic of my statement, stellar debating tactic. Why exactly would I make that statement? Why is it so badly required in my previous post's?
"By making sarcastic statements like the one below, your not really helping your point."
Actually I am, it's called reductio ad absurdum, he tried to assert that a significant percentage (which he choose wisely not to quantify) of the German army simply keeled over and died from the cold weather, and didn't have to be defeated by the Soviet troops, frankly I find that pathetic attempt to discredit one of the greatest military victories in human history, so I used reductio ad absurdum (or proof by contradiction) to show how ridiculous the argument is. Weather doesn't win battles, people do.
Why would i try doding a question when I have a in-depth knowledge of the topic? This debate is not for learning purposes. (hint).
"it would probably have taken another 5-10 years"
The Soviet death total of World War 2 is anywhere in between 20-25 million, with the population at about 180 million in 1939. Lets jusst say the USSR joined the war in 1940 to make the numbers a little bit easier. So, lets say you tack on another 5 years on-to the wars length, they have lost 40-50 million people which is about 22-28% of their population. If you add ten years to the wars length, they will have 60-75 million losses, which is about 33 to 42% of their population.
Now i know those numbers include civilians, but it also includes deaths with American aid, so you could argue the numbers are to large or small, but it is a very rough estimate (not meant to be legitimate, just to prove a point).
Anyway, Stalin didn't care about his casulities, but even for him, there has to be some sort of breaking point.
"It is the original website i posted, but i shall post it again:"
Thanks, you're very thoughtful.
Now, to the matter at hand, your quote that supposedly came from Stalin: "we would not have been able to cope", there is no official record of Stalin ever making this statement, it cannot be directly attributed to him, seriously, try and find the record, it doesn't exist, you think I didn't search for it when you made that statement.
I tracked down the origin of the statement, it was apparently made by Krushchev in a series of taped memoirs, therefore Stalin himself never made the statement (at least in public), and we are in effect relying the word of another (see source).
The source also makes another interesting observation:
"It would seem that Hitlers attack was not as badly calculated as most people have assumed. By the end of 41 the Germans while not defeating the Soviets probably caused enough damage to at least ensure a draw."
This is what I have asserted all along, the thing is though, the Soviets had many more backers than just the US, so if the US kept out of the war, the Soviets wouldn't have been alone, this is why I beleive there is a chance (albeit a slim one) that the USSR could have taken on the Nazis with no help from the US.
Oh, I dunno, maybe because in the "American Intervention in Iran" debate, when you responded, you completely discarded nearly everything I said, every question I put to you, and every point I made.
"The Soviet death total of World War 2 is anywhere in between 20-25 million, with the population at about 180 million in 1939. Lets jusst say the USSR joined the war in 1940 to make the numbers a little bit easier. So, lets say you tack on another 5 years on-to the wars length, they have lost 40-50 million people which is about 22-28% of their population."
This is based solely on a completely fallacious assumption i.e. you've assumed a linear relationship between no of deaths and time, which is quite obviously wrong.
The fact is that the USSR lost the significantly more of their men during Operation Barbarossa than at any other period of the war, and the casuality rate had significantly reduced when the Germans were being pushed back.
Also, the population was 200 million, not 180 million.
"so you could argue the numbers are to large or small, but it is a very rough estimate (not meant to be legitimate, just to prove a point"
It would be almost impossible to estimate the error bands for this, that is why the excercise proves very little.
"Anyway, Stalin didn't care about his casulities, but even for him, there has to be some sort of breaking point"
This is easily countered by simply assuming the inverse i.e. but even for Hitler, there has to be some sort of breaking point
"it cannot be directly attributed to him, seriously, try and find the record, it doesn't exist, you think I didn't search for it when you made that statement."
Yes, in the span of five minutes you can find every quote Stalin ever said, you don't need all that time real historians need to find something such as this, because your search was so thorough that your assumption must be correct.
"Soviets had many more backers than just the US"
O yes, because the other two main backers (France and Britain), put up such a strong resistance. France was engulfed be Germany in a few weeks, Britain was being bombed to bits, they were being dominated completely in the air. They were soon to fall, but the U.S. intervened and gave Britain the supplies. Churchill knew this, which is why he said "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job."
"The fact is that the USSR lost the significantly more of their men during Operation Barbarossa than at any other period of the war"
Yes, but also, the fact is that they received significant amounts of supplies from the U.S. during this time, in which they could of very well lost Stalingrad.
As i said, i knew this was un-accurate, it was just a wild estimate for how many deaths they would suffer in a 10-15 year war. Also, if you expect anyone to guess accurately the amount of Soviet deaths without American aid, then you are wrong to criticize anyone.
"Yes, in the span of five minutes you can find every quote Stalin ever said"
I can assure if Stalin had ever made an official statement like that in public it would not be very hard to find.
"you don't need all that time real historians need to find something such as this"
What the hell are you talking about, I found the origin of the statement, it was from a Krushchevs memoirs, just like on the other debate you completely neglect anything that is overtly detrimental to your position. If you think Stalin made that statement then the burden of proof rest squarely on your shoulders, I have already done more than enough to discredit by finding the actual source of the statement, i.e.
"O yes, because the other two main backers (France and Britain), put up such a strong resistance. France was engulfed be Germany in a few weeks, Britain was being bombed to bits, they were being dominated completely in the air. They were soon to fall, but the U.S. intervened and gave Britain the supplies. Churchill knew this, which is why he said "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job."
This whole argument really doesn't dispute anything I said.
"Yes, but also, the fact is that they received significant amounts of supplies from the U.S. during this time, in which they could of very well lost Stalingrad."
And if if's and but's were candy and nut's we'd all be a lot better off. There is more reason to beleive the USSR would have won at Stalingrad, than there is to doubt it.
You see the munitions and military equipment supplied by the US to the USSR (in particular) were crucial for the USSR in defeating Germany on eastern front (which effectively won the war), but the majority of their war machine was produced from the industrialization of the Urals and central Asia.
You see when the Nazis invaded originally they temporarily destroyed the Soviet industrial economy, and thus capacity to produce military hardware, but the Soviets had moved their essential industrial machinary ahead of the invading army. Nobody would try to argue that this above all else was the primary factor in the Soviet victory against the Nazis. Once they had re-established their industry beyond the Ural Mountains, they began to produce tanks, trucks artillery, etc., and that is precisely when they began to push the Germans back.
You see, american aid made a massive difference to the Soviets, there's no doubt about that, it allowed the USSR to build up their army far more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case, but another fact that is nearly always overlooked is the existence of the nationalised planned economy and stalins 5 yr plan, barbaric as it was on the Soviet people, it really worked well in a time of crisis, it facilitated the rapid build up their military and industrial capacity. i.e. "In 1943 alone, the USSR produced 130,000 pieces of artillery, 24,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, 29,900 combat aircraft. The Nazis, with all the huge resources of Europe behind them, also stepped up production, turning out 73,000 pieces of artillery, 10,700 tanks and assault guns and 19,300 combat aircraft." (See V. Sipols, The Road to a Great Victory, p. 132.)
"I can assure if Stalin had ever made an official statement like that in public it would not be very hard to find."
Yes because even to this day Russia is still very fond of the U.S. and would want to give credit to its effort, despite down-playing its role ever since the conclusion of WW2.
"If you think Stalin made that statement then the burden"
All i need you to do is read, "He heard Stalin SAY"
"Krushchev when writing his memoirs recorded a series of taped interviews some of which were never included in the memoirs. On these tapes in reference to LL he says that several times he heard Stalin say "if we had to cope with Germany one to one we would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our industry".
"This whole argument really doesn't dispute anything I said"
Did you forget about this statement?
"the Soviets had many more backers than just the US, so if the US kept out of the war, the Soviets wouldn't have been alone, this is why I beleive there is a chance"
That argument i posted was in response to that statement, which implied that the soviets had signifigant help from other countries.
"Yes because even to this day Russia is still very fond of the U.S. and would want to give credit to its effort, despite down-playing its role ever since the conclusion of WW2."
Can you not see the problem with this defense, because I can guarantee it's patently obvious to anyone that reads it.
Regardless of the subsequent relationship between the West and the USSR, if Stalin had officially made the statement, it would be freely available, and definitely not hard to find.
"All i need you to do is read, "He heard Stalin SAY""
There is a qualitative difference between what some guy heard another guy say in private, and an official pronouncement of the leader of a superpower.
"Did you forget about this statement?"
No, of course not, I provided the source. All the statment proves is that US aid was required in defeating the Nazis. The problem is you want to think that it means without US aid, the USSR would have lost. No historian would agree with this assessement, they would agree that the Nazis had done enough to secure a stalemate, and some would argue the USSR would have eventually defeated them, but I have never seen a historian claim that without US aid the USSR would have been defeated by the Nazis, seriously, I will be amazed if you can show me a credible historian who beleives the USSR would have been soundly defeated by the Nazis and all their territory taken over, without US aid.
"That argument i posted was in response to that statement, which implied that the soviets had signifigant help from other countries."
You're are very hard to understand, what statement?
Yes the Soviets also received aid from Canada and Britain, but they fought alone.
"No historian would agree with this assessement, they would agree that the Nazis had done enough to secure a stalemate, and some would argue the USSR would have eventually defeated them, but I have never seen a historian claim that without US aid the USSR would have been defeated by the Nazis, ”
Other than the support of the Allies, one of Americas biggest points in the war was its immanence of joining the war. You and i know that one reason Hitler attacked Russia so early was because of how Blatantly clear it was that America would join the war. He expected to quickly defeat the Soviets and then be prepared to fight the Americans, this obviously did not work out as planned. This misconception caused the German army to spread to thin and really weaken itself.
Now i promise you that most Historians would agree with me on this.
"one of Americas biggest points in the war was its immanence of joining the war."
I agree.
"You and i know that one reason Hitler attacked Russia so early was because of how Blatantly clear it was that America would join the war. "
No, this actually isn't the reason at all, Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, it was 1944 before a single US soldier ever saw a Nazi, what are you basing this opinion on?
The fact is Hitler was desparate to invade the USSR, this is partly due to the fact that he despised the Slavic race, and wanted to purge them and colonise their land, and because he blamed the Bolsheviks (and the Jews) for the loss Germany incurred in WW1, it was also because communist ideology was antithetical to that of Facism (much more so than any other). Hitler even divulged his plans to invade the USSR in 1924 in Mein kampf. But the reasons he invaded when he did (i.e. 1941) are complex and only an accomplished and respected miilitary historian could elucidate them correctly without committing historical error.
From what I have read, it seems obvious now that Hitler should have delayed invading the USSR and finished conquering Europe, this would have dissuaded the US from getting invovled, either militarily or economically, but Hitlers inability to defeat Britain, or at least agree to some kind of truce with them, effectively prevented this, it is likely that he knew he had to act, the Soviets were caught by surprise, and it is likely he knew that would be crucial in subduing them, it is also likely he knew if he waited another year or so they would anticipate his invasion and be better prepared to repel the German advance. Keep in mind also that the longer Hitler waited the more likely the Soviets would plan a pre-emtpive strike. The Soviet forces were much more effective in offense than defense.
People also forget how close the Germans came to effectively disabling the USSR, they're always too quikc to judge based on the final result, they can never put themselves in the position of the Germans prior to the invasion, invading the USSR was a massive risk that didn't pay off, but it came very close to paying off, and if they had defeated the USSR they would have won the war.
"He expected to quickly defeat the Soviets and then be prepared to fight the Americans,"
What do you mean by quickly, yes he expected barbaraossa to work, but that would have at least taken a year, and he wasn't even thinking about fighting the US, what you basing this on? Have you source, or did you come with this yourself?
"This misconception caused the German army to spread to thin and really weaken itself."
If by americans, you mean every country besides the USSR, then yes I agree. He also overestimated the force of the Italian military which greatly disappointed when called on to fight, it seems they were only good at conquering the impoverished people of ethiopia (or Abyssinia at the time). He also expected the Japanese to simultaneoulsy attack the USSR, the USSR had placed significant forces in the East in anticipation of this, but they never attacked, and these forces were used to further repel the Germans.
"Now i promise you that most Historians would agree with me on this."
I can promise you that they would find your analysis severely lacking, with only a handful of points having any degree of truth or merit to them, you seem desparate to provide a US-centric analysis of WW2 despite the fact that, proportionally, they contributed little to the overall fignting that took place.
"No, this actually isn't the reason at all, Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, it was 1944 before a single US soldier ever saw a Nazi, what are you basing this opinion on?”
I may have exaggerated the U.S. influence a bit, but it was indeed an influence, as the paragraph below shows.
"Hubert Menzel was a major in the General Operations Department of the OKH (the Oberkommando des Heers, the German Army headquarters), and for him the idea of invading the Soviet Union in 1941 had the smack of cold, clear logic to it: 'We knew that in two years' time, that is by the end of 1942, beginning of 1943, the English would be ready, the Americans would be ready, the Russians would be ready too, and then we would have to deal with all three of them at the same time”
"He also expected the Japanese to simultaneoulsy attack the USSR, the USSR had placed significant forces in the East in anticipation of this, but they never attacked, and these forces were used to further repel the Germans.”
This was another reason why Hitler was an awful general, he failed to inform the Japanese of his plan, so they were not expecting this, and were not able to support him. The reason for the withdrawal of troops was because the Japanese had just son a non-aggression pact with the soviets, so had Hitler at least informed them, that pact would never of been signed, and forced the Soviets to maintain the border security.
"if they had defeated the USSR they would have won the war.”
What are you basing this on? Your disdain for the Americans? You really underestimate the U.S. and it’s capability.
You must forget that during this time, was one of the all-time great scientists, Albert Einstein, and he was one reason for the U.S. invention of the Nuclear bomb. I will debate this on another post.
I didn't know it was possible for an opinion to be "wrong."
the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid.'
I'll let raptor argue that. Either way, it is all but irrelevant. Even assuming you are correct (which you are not especially in regards to the UK and France), battling less than half of the german army with tens of millions of soldiers isn't nearly as formidable of an enemy as all of the Japanese armed forces.
"I didn't know it was possible for an opinion to be "wrong.""
Well now you know, glad to be of service;-)
But seriously, my response was largely an overreaction to your comment:
"It's not even close". I mean claiming that it's not even close for the US is simply ahistorical.
"I'll let raptor argue that"
He isn't doing too well in my humble opinion.
"Either way, it is all but irrelevant"
I don't beleive so.
"Even assuming you are correct "
If you mean the statement you are disputing, then yes, I am correct, as it is a matter of historical accuracy.
"which you are not"
""T-34 tanks and Katyusha rocket launchers led the way for the fresh Russian soldiers, some of whom donned the white winter camouflage that became the subject of nightmares to the freezing retreating German troops. By 7 Jan 1942, the front lines were driven back anywhere between 100km to 250km. German forces would never again threaten Moscow directly for the rest of the war."
Keep in mind, this was before any aid had reached the USSR.
"battling less than half of the german army with tens of millions of soldiers "
Actually, they battled the overwhleming majority of the German army on the Eastern front for the overwhelming majority of the war, the Allies wanted the Germans and Soviets to destroy themselves so they delayed opening up the second front until they had bled themselves dry, and one had come out the voctor, you really can't argue with the statistic that they caused 88% (overall) of all German casualities in the war, this kind of flies in the face of your claim that they fought only 1/2 the german army i.e.
"A study of Barbarossa allows an appreciation of the role of grave eminence which the Soviet Union played in the defeat of Nazi Germany; the operation resulted in 95% of the German Army casualties from 1941 to 1944"
Please try to keep in mind that the majority of these casualities were inflicted before a single US soldier lost his life. And also, remember that the US had far more support on the Pacific then the USSR did on the Eastern front.
The US sat on the sidelines for the majority of the war, and was thus, one of the only powerful countries not to be decimated by it, it then swooped in at the end to provide the final push, and to this day the majority of its citizens beleive that entitles them to claim the glory.
"isn't nearly as formidable of an enemy as all of the Japanese armed forces."
Are you serious? I have never seen anyone try to dispute the superiority of Japanese forces over Nazi Germany in WW2, Germany were superior to all other forces, almost everyone acknowledges the superiority of Nazi Germany, all sides knew it represented by far the greatest threat. I have never heard a historian try to claim otherwise, granted, certain armies had certain advantages over the Germans, most notably the superior British Navy, but overall, the Wehrmacht was a uniquely powerful force for its day, and was completely unmatched, is it hadn;t overexerted itself it could have easily retained the whole of Europe.
Even Roosevelt knew in 1940 that Germany represented a greater strategic threat than Japan to US security (let alone Europe or the USSR), i.e.
"Despite the importance of those early battles in the Pacific, America's war strategy was "Europe first." Germany, American war planners recognised, was the greater threat to the US than Japan"
Source: "A People and a Nation: since 1865", Volume 2, 7th Ed., Pg. 743
"In my "humble" opinion, i feel you aren't doin to well yourself."
Shocking!!!!!!!!!!
"But, in your grandiose manner, you wouldn't be able to notice"
Of course not, my grandiose manner is far too grandiose.
"name another significant power that added significant support to U.S. war effort against Japanname"
Well, let's see if you can successfully compare and contrast the following two statements:
The Eastern front:
"The war was fought between Nazi Germany, its allies and Finland, against the Soviet Union. The conflict began on 22 June 1941 with the Operation Barbarossa Offensive, when Axis forces crossed the borders described in the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, thereby invading the Soviet Union. The war ended on 9 May 1945, when Germany's armed forces surrendered unconditionally following the Berlin Offensive, a strategic operation executed by the Red Army, also known as the Battle of Berlin."
"The major Allied participants were the United States, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom (including the armed forces of British India, the Fiji Islands, Samoa, etc.), Australia, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the Netherlands (as the possessor of the Dutch East Indies and the western part of New Guinea), New Zealand, and Canada, all of whom were members of the Pacific War Council.[23] Mexico, Free France and many other countries also took part, especially forces from other British colonies and also Latin America.
The Soviet Union fought two short, undeclared border conflicts with Japan in 1938 and 1939, then remained neutral until August 1945, when it joined the Allies and invaded the territory of Manchukuo, Republic of China, Inner Mongolia,"
"T-34 tanks and Katyusha rocket launchers led the way for the fresh Russian soldiers, some of whom donned the white winter camouflage that became the subject of nightmares to the freezing retreating German troops. By 7 Jan 1942, the front lines were driven back anywhere between 100km to 250km. German forces would never again threaten Moscow directly for the rest of the war."
That is not the part of your statement I was disputing.
Actually, they battled the overwhleming majority of the German army on the Eastern front for the overwhelming majority of the war/ Are you serious?
The average number of Axis troops in the Eastern Front throughout the course of the war was 1.9-2.0 million (3.7 million at its height), while the Japanese Imperial Navy had 5.5 million at its 1945 height. Both Russia and the United States ha to fight virtually single-handedly. Are you seriously going to argue that an army of 3 million is more formidable than an advanced navy of 5.5 million?
The fact that many Soviets died is irrelevant. 25% of USSR troops died compared to 2.5% of American troops. More dead troops does not mean more successful. That is absurd.
remember that the US had far more support on the Pacific then the USSR did on the Eastern front.
Don't you BS with this. The USSR had 35,000,000 forces. 35 MILLION! And all of this (don't bother with semantics with numbers like this) to fight half of one war (eastern front). The US Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard COMBINED had 5,000,000 troops.
"That is not the part of your statement I was disputing."
Well, you did highlight that point, so I naturally assumed you had some beef with it.
"The average number of Axis troops in the Eastern Front throughout the course of the war was 1.9-2.0 million (3.7 million at its height),"
First of all, I didn't say anything about Axis troops, I referred to the German army, secondly, Operation Barbarossa involved 3.9 million troops, not 3.7, keep in mind that for most of this (particularly at the beginning), the Soviet army actually battling the germans was no bigger than 4.5 million.
"while the Japanese Imperial Navy had 5.5 million at its 1945 height."
So what, the German army was vastly superior to the Japanese, we are going to need to agree to a fundamental truism if we are to continue, I'll repeat what I said to raptor:
"the German military was the greatest in the entire war, it surpassed all the other militaries in technological advancement, training, tactics, etc.,...etc.
Even the average German soldier was in many cases worth 2 or 3 Allied soldiers. All of the countries fighting in WW2 were rightly terrified of the Germans, they were a unique fighting force for their time, and anybody who tries to equate them with the Japanese (as you and few others have) simply don't understand the power of the Wermarcht.
I have seen fairly compelling arguments that the British navy was superior, and this is why Hitler never tried a ground invasion, there are also some question's about whether the Luftwaffe really were the greatest airforce fighting in the war, but at the very least, they were equal to the others.
But, on the crucial issue, the actual army, and it's military hardware (tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, etc.) were way ahead of the others. If you doubt this, do some reading;-)"
"Both Russia and the United States ha to fight virtually single-handedly"
No, this is really only true of the USSR.
"Are you seriously going to argue that an army of 3 million is more formidable than an advanced navy of 5.5 million?"
Yes, because the Germans had the element of surprise when they attacked, also, German forces were vastly superior to anything the US faced. The US on the other hand were able to prepare, and attack on their own terms, and whether you want to beleive it or not, they had help.
"The fact that many Soviets died is irrelevant. 25% of USSR troops died compared to 2.5% of American troops. More dead troops does not mean more successful. That is absurd."
Firstly, you're attacking a strawman, please show where in my last post I asserted that the number of Soviets who died proves anything, in my argument on the other side I presented the number of soviet casualities, this was intended to illustrate the scale of the death and destruction.
Secondly, the number of Soviet troops that died does mean something, most US/Euro centric views take the opinion that the large number that perished shows how hopeless the USSR was, while this maybe true, it detracts from shwoing how determined they were. That fact that they could take such punishment and continue demonstrates an unbelievable will to victory. Think of France, they had a relatively powerful military, but when they saw what Germany did to Poland, they capitulated almost as soon the Germans arrived. I greatly respect and admire the Soviet response, not the generals who sent wave after wave of men to perish, but the men themselves, think about it, how many other nations would have responded that way? I can guarantee it wouldn't be many, most would have simply surrendered when the death and destruction became too severe. I doubt even if the US would have lasted very long if subjected to such an onslaught.
"Don't you BS with this."
Where exactly have I done that?
"The USSR had 35,000,000 forces. 35 MILLION!"
You know I would accuse of committing the logical fallacy "two wrongs don't make a right", but I never committed the original wrong, i.e. I never tried to assert: Greater no. of Soviet deaths = More success
But you have tried to assert: Greater number of Japanese forces = Harder battle
AND
Large Soviet force = Easier Victory
Not that all of these statements are false, but for someone who falsely tried to criticise me for making this a numbers game, you sure are behaving hypocritically.
"And all of this (don't bother with semantics with numbers like this) to fight half of one war (eastern front)."
I really don't know what will convince you. The Eastern front was the largest battle in military history, and it was fought by Germany and the USSR.
The pacific theatre involved ferocious battles, but was in no way was comparable to the Eastern front, not in the least. This Western/US centric view of the war has dominated the populations collective conciousness since the war ended because of propaganda. Hollywood movies depicting the US as the saviors who road in on a white horse to save the day, with Britain by it's side, now that my friend is complete BS!!!
I don't wish to diminish the US role, it was crucial, without US intervention the war would have taken on a very different complexion, no historian would argue otherwise.
But if you ever get the chance to discuss the matter with a German who is knowledgeable on the subject (as I have on many occasions) I can guarantee you he/she will say some combination of the following:
1. The war was decided on the Eastern front, i.e. ""The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."
"It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."
2. The Soviet's were in Poland and on their way to Berlin by the time a US soldier even saw a Nazi, there is strong reason to suggest this is as much about deafeating Hitler as it as about preventing the USSR from taking the whole of Europe when it became obvious they would beat Germany.
3. The US entering the war accelerated Germany's demise, but didn't determine it, this can ony be said of Japans defeat.
Now, if the US didn't enter, the Japanese may have free to invade the USSR, this is just speculation, also, depending on what estimate you beleive, the Chinese caused 70% of the total Japanese casualities in the war.
Also, remember that Japan and Germany weren't exactly close allies, not the same way Italy and Germany were, and prior to the war, Germany were allied with China, and the failure of Japan to invade the USSR shows just how much one could rely on the other.
America "single-handedly won the war in the pacific"? What are you smokin'? Americans, whilst they did play a big role, were not - were not - the only combatants!
To name just one battle for a bunch of different countries involved:
Battle of Hong Kong - Canada
Battle of the Coral Sea - Australia
Battle of the Java Sea - The Netherlands
Battle of Timor - Great Britain (and The Netherlands, and Australia).
To say that we single-handedly won the war in the [P]acific is quite ignorant.
Finland defeated the USSR AND Germany during the course of WW2. Against the USSR, the Finns killed 25% of the Soviet forces. In fact, the total casualties suffered was 5:1 in Finland's favour. It was in this war that the Finns invented the Molotov bomb. A comprehensive slaughtering.
As for the Nazi's, they outnumbered the Finnish about 3:1. What happened? Finnish victory, of course. Whilst it was closer than the Winter War against the USSR, the Finnish still won.
If I had to choose between the two you provided, I would have to go with the USA. It completely changed the course of the war. And those supporting the USSR should be reminded that the only reason the Nazi's didn't decimate Russia was due to Hitler's poor tactical decisions at certain points. This image of the might Red Army destroying the evil Nazi's is quite misinformed.
But, as for the true hero, we should all remember the heroic nation of Finland. One ballsy nation.
"the only reason the Nazi's didn't decimate Russia was due to Hitler's poor tactical decisions at certain points"
Lets not forget the huge importance of the Russian winter, German forces were expecting to finish their objective before this occurred, they were close. This lead to the Germans being completely unprepared and not properly equipped by the time the winter appeared. They were freezing, starving and their moral was just shot because they were supposed to be home by then. The Germans were not at all prepared for the Russian winter, the soviets on the other hand, took it to full advantage, and in-turn turned the war around.
This though, could obviously support your point because this was a poor tactical decision
See my argument disputing Garry on the other side. It goes into more detail about Germany's failure. The Russian winter played a huge part, but for 2 reasons.
1. Germany should have won by Blitzkrieg before the winter started. Their failure to do so was probably due to Hitler's growing incompetence.
2. Russia's logistical system was far superior to Germany's, again, I believe this to be due to Hitler's incompetence regarding Russian capability.
Of course the winter was key. Napoleon knew as well as Hitler that it sucked. But it only was key due to German errors.
I didn't mention the continuation war. I know that that was a Soviet victory, but the two I mentioned, the Winter war and the Lapland war, both resulted in Finnish victory (well, the former is technically a draw, but the Finns won in every measurable aspect).
It should also be noted that the continuation war was between the joint forces of Nazi Germany and Finland, against the USSR and the UK.
I'm really tempted to say the USSR, because I think they are greatly undervalued but it's difficult to argue the American contribution. The United States fought the war on three fronts: Western Europe, North Africa, and the Asian Pacific. Whereas Russia only fought on one front: Eastern Europe. As well as bankrolling both British and Russian forces.
"The United States fought the war on three fronts: Western Europe,"
The Western front was opened up near the end of the war (1944), this second front was being called for by Stalin in 1941, but it was ignored by Churchill and Rosevelt as they wanted to see the USSR crippled almost as much as they wanted to see Hitler crippled, also this was fought with the help of many other countries, and it was a relatively easy win as Germany was completely pre-occupied on the Eastern front, i.e.
"Although most of total German military deaths occurred on the Eastern Front, German losses on the Western Front were almost irreplaceable, because most of Germany's resources were being allocated to the Eastern Front. This meant that, while losses there could be replaced to some extent, very little replacements or reinforcements were being sent to the west to stop the advance of the Western Allies."
This was primarily fought by British Commonwealth forces, the US contribution was relatively small, and only really became significantl near the end of this campaign.
and the Asian Pacific."
This was largest US contribution (in terms of actual fighting anyway), but the Soviets also had a hand in it near the end.
"Whereas Russia only fought on one front: Eastern Europe."
That is frankly a pathetic justification which isn't really true, the Eastern front was the single largest military confrontation in human history, your contributions in all other areas pale in comparison, the USSR had been fighting since 1941, the won all the crucial victories before the Allies even decided to join in, they defeated the Nazis, the fact that you swooped in at the end of the war in order to provide the necessary push does not entitle you to claim you won the war, without them in the war Hitler would have had an easy time of it, but Hitler knew who his main competitor was.
"As well as bankrolling both British and Russian forces."
That is frankly a pathetic justification which isn't really true, the Eastern front was the single largest military confrontation in human history, your contributions in all other areas pale in comparison
Largest in terms of body count, sure, but that's simply because Russia had a huge population size, and it's soldiers were getting massacred by German forces throughout the majority of the war. A lot of Russian soldiers weren't even issued a rifle, and were required to pick up rifles from fallen comrades. The Americans were fighting the Germans, the Italians, and The Japanese. Imagine if the Russians had to fight both the Germans and the Japanese, it would have been a completely different story.
Not to mention the massive economic contribution the US gave to the allied forces in WWII, even before we officially entered the war. Factor into that the supplies that the US denied German forces, the planes it shot down, the tanks it destroyed, the industrial plants it bombed, the Sea vessels it sunk. The Americans had an economic strangle-hold on German as well as Italian, and Japanese forces.
The USSR is underrated I think, but it still doesn't quite compare.
"Largest in terms of body count, sure, but that's simply because Russia had a huge population size, and it's soldiers were getting massacred by German forces throughout the majority of the war."
Well, the above statement isn't necessary false, of course the Russians were getting massacred, they were fighting the Nazis single handedly.
Also, your attempt to simply equate the magnitude of the military campaign with the body count is pretty disingenuous, the Eastern Front was the largest military confrontation in history, that doesn't mean it simply had the most deaths, it means no other military confrontation can compare in terms of scale. The Nazi war machine, which was the most technologically advanced in the world at the time, was defeated on the Eastern Front, I don't think any other country could have accomplished what the USSR accomplished, if Hitler had held up his alliance with the USSR, Britain have been crushed under his boot heel, and Allies would have lost, simple as.
"The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history. They were characterized by unprecedented ferocity, wholesale destruction, mass deportations, and immense loss of life variously due to combat, starvation, exposure, disease, and massacres. The Eastern Front, as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and the majority of pogroms, was central to the Holocaust. Of the estimated 70 million deaths attributed to World War II, over 30 million,[6] many of them civilians, died on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat.[7][8][9] It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany for nearly half a century and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."
"A lot of Russian soldiers weren't even issued a rifle, and were required to pick up rifles from fallen comrades. "
I'm well aware of that.
"The Americans were fighting the Germans, the Italians, and The Japanese."
Please stop, you never really fought the German army, Britain and the US only had to defeat a relatively meagre force Hitler had positioned on teh Western front, it had no backup. At no point in the whole course of the war did the Allies have the entire force of the Third Reich bearing down on them, the USSR on the other hand had to deal with the entire German army for three whole years before another front was even opened up, and this was when the USSR was well on top. That is why it is beleived that it may have been opened up in order to halt the USSR, in as much it as it was to defeat the Nazis.
I'll admit you defeated the Japanese, but as I said in the previous argument, the Italians and the German forces stationed in North Africa were deafeated largely by commonwealth forces, again your contribution was crucial, but not as signigificant as I'm sure you'd like to beleive, but why am I even bothering, Americans want to beleive the single handly won WW2, and nobody is going to convince them of anything different.
"Imagine if the Russians had to fight both the Germans and the Japanese"
You didn't have fight the Germans, the USSR did, 90% of all German forces were defeated on the Eastern front, by the USSR!!!
"it would have been a completely different story."
This is beginning to feel futile.
"Not to mention the massive economic contribution the US gave to the allied forces in WWII,"
As I said in mr argument, you supplied the USSR in order to keep the blood flowing on both sides, nobody ever expected the Soviets to actually beat the Nazis.
"Factor into that the supplies that the US denied German forces, the planes it shot down, the tanks it destroyed, the industrial plants it bombed, the Sea vessels it sunk. "
Why not try factoring into your equation the fact the USSR single handedly beat the Third Reich, 90% of their total losses were inflicted on the Eastern front, you really are clutching at straws.
"The USSR is underrated I think, but it still doesn't quite compare."
This should read:
The US is greatly overrated I think, but this consensus only seems to exist among US citizens (surprise, surprise), but in reality, although their contribution was crucial in ending the war in a timely fashion, and soundly deafeating the Axis forces, the part they played is probably only slightly more significant than Britains (given that the US entered the war so late), and was in fact, completely eclipsed by the USSR.
Well, the above statement isn't necessary false, of course the Russians were getting massacred, they were fighting the Nazis single handedly.
This is false. The USSR was composed of some 8 or so countries. This isn't even including the Allies that were fighting the Nazis on other fronts; Italy, North Africa, and then The Western front.
You didn't have fight the Germans, the USSR did, 90% of all German forces were defeated on the Eastern front, by the USSR!!!
Most sources seem to indicate about 75% to 80%, and who knows what number of those deaths were caused by the Germans being ill-prepared for the Russian Winter. And you also have neglected to acknowledge that Germany wasn't the only Axis power. As far as combat related deaths, Japan suffered roughly the same number of casualties about 2 to 3 million as did Germany. Including over 1 million captured Italian soldiers by Britain and the US. Russia had a hell of a lot more help fighting the Germans than the USA had fighting the Japanese.
As I said in mr argument, you supplied the USSR in order to keep the blood flowing on both sides, nobody ever expected the Soviets to actually beat the Nazis.
So what you're saying is that with monetary and supply aid from the US, the blood wouldn't have been flowing so evenly, that the Russians would have been beaten back. Now that we understand that...
"This is false. The USSR was composed of some 8 or so countries. This isn't even including the Allies that were fighting the Nazis on other fronts; Italy, North Africa, and then The Western front."
Please don't try to call me out on a a little technicality like that, we both know I meant the USSR, besides, if you really wanted to score that sad little point you should have been more careful not to make the same mistake yourself, i.e.
"I'm really tempted to say the USSR, because I think they are greatly undervalued but it's difficult to argue the American contribution. The United States fought the war on three fronts: Western Europe, North Africa, and the Asian Pacific. Whereas Russia only fought on one front: Eastern Europe."
"Most sources seem to indicate about 75% to 80%, and who knows what number of those deaths were caused by the Germans being ill-prepared for the Russian Winter."
Yes the weather killed them, and drove them back, then single handedly defeated them, and marched on Berlin and became a global superpower.
"And you also have neglected to acknowledge that Germany wasn't the only Axis power."
Thats because the others powers were incredibly weak relative to the strength of the German army, the Italians were atrocious, and needed to be bailed out in North Africa, the Japanese were better than the Italisn but still couldn't hold a candle to Germany, i.e.
"For the Allies in World War Two, the defeat of Germany was their priority. Italy and Japan never posed the same kind of threat as the European superpower they fought alongside. Their defeat, costly though it was, became irresistible. The key to ending the world crisis was the defeat of Hitler's Germany."
"Russia had a hell of a lot more help fighting the Germans than the USA had fighting the Japanese"
Just stop.
"So what you're saying is that with monetary and supply aid from the US, the blood wouldn't have been flowing so evenly, that the Russians would have been beaten back. Now that we understand that..."
No, that doesn't lead logically on from my statement, what I am talking about is how the USSR were perceived by the US, the UK and by the Nazis. They were the surprise package of WW2, even people who think it was all due to bad tactics would have to acknowledge that.
Please don't try to call me out on a a little technicality like that, we both know I meant the USSR
Okay, but you still completely ignored my other point which was that the western allies fought the Nazis on other fronts, to say that the USSR defeated the Nazis single-handedly is completely false.
Yes the weather killed them, and drove them back, then single handedly defeated them, and marched on Berlin and became a global superpower.
First of all this is a straw man, I only said that it greatly contributed to Nazi deaths.
"ignored my other point which was that the western allies fought the Nazis on other fronts, to say that the USSR defeated the Nazis single-handedly is completely false."
I didn't ignore it, what more proof do you need? The Soviets casued 88% percent of the total casualities inflcited on the Germans, 9 out of every 10 german soldiers that were killed, were killed by the Soviets, I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to assert based on that, that the USSR defeated the Nazis single-handedly, granted, it may be an exaggeration, as it was a war of information, and there were many other important factors, but you can't dispute the fact that when it came to the physical reality of the war, the USSR done the OVERWHELMING!!! majority of the fighting against the Germans, and beat them.
No other nation can claim that.
"First of all this is a straw man"
No it is not, it's reductio ad absurdum.
Also in response to this statement: "Most sources seem to indicate about 75% to 80%" ->
"A study of Barbarossa allows an appreciation of the role of grave eminence which the Soviet Union played in the defeat of Nazi Germany; the operation resulted in 95% of the German Army casualties from 1941 to 1944"
Germany + Spain + Austria = 13 million strong militarily
I'm only adding them together because most sources seem to include Austrian and Spanish military as part of the German count."
The German army was well ahead of any other army in WW2. But there is no way to prove that, that's why it's still being argued by war historians, simply counting the numbers really doesn't do it justice.
"In what world is this considered a rebuttal. Address the issue."
How did the Russian's have a hell a lot more help?. The Soviet Union was left isolated precisely because the Allies wanted it to be destroyed, or severely weakened, or else for the same to happen to Hitler, they didn't want to open up a second front, it is only when one of them gained the upper hand that they knew they had to act.
The Russian role is so often completely neglected, or downplayed, despite that fact that it is the most significant in the whole war, but why should we be surprised, communism was despised, after the war ended the cold war began (more or less), and it was prudent for the US (and Western Europe in general) to play down the strength of the USSR, and it's role in war. This is the way the history in the West was written.
Hitler and the Allies fully expected a Soviet defeat, and then the Allies would have moved in to defeat a weakened German force. This was essentially the original plan Nobody can argue that the Russians didn't astonish everyone with their emergence as a great military power, while being bombarded by the Germans; 20-25 million russians were killed, this is my mind trivializes any debate about the heroism of the west.
"What the hell does how they were perceived have to do with anything."
Well, it determined their strategy. You must remember how much the USSR was underestimated, people love to talk about Hitler tactical failure, but everyone beleived at the time that the USSR was massively inferior, and first few months of Operation Barbarossa only bolstered this opinion.
"The USSR received monetary and Supply aid from the US."
I'm well aware of that, IMHO, the reason the USSR was able to repel the Nazis and eventually defeat them was primarily due to the following:
1. The unbeleivable strength of the Soviet will, buttressed partly by the wilingness on the part of the Nazis to allow detained soldiers to write home to their families.
2. Willingness on the part of Stalin to let an unlimited supply of Soviet soldiers perish in the pursuit of victory, the Soviet Union had a massive population relative to Germany, and the men could almost be called on indefinitely, and were.
3. American aid, I'm not going to say for one second that this didn't make a hell of a lot of difference, it providede the Soviets with the ability to effectively push back the Nazis on all fronts, this would have nearly impossible without it, and would most likely have led to a much more protracted conflict, and a possible stalemate.
4. Nearly always overlooked (very rarely will you hear much about this if you're reading up on the 2nd world from a Western perspective), the Soviets had moved their essential industrial machinery ahead of the invading army, but it was temporarily destroyed and inoperable for most of 1941. Once they had re-established their industry beyond the Ural Mountains, then they put their Nationalised planned economy to work, which allowed them to produce military hardware at a staggering rate due to it's unparalleled ability to meet collective objectives, i.e.
""In 1943 alone, the USSR produced 130,000 pieces of artillery, 24,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, 29,900 combat aircraft. The Nazis, with all the huge resources of Europe behind them, also stepped up production, turning out 73,000 pieces of artillery, 10,700 tanks and assault guns and 19,300 combat aircraft." (See V. Sipols, The Road to a Great Victory, p. 132.)
otherwise Britian and France could have managed without them.
What are you talking about? The French couldn't even defend themselves, and for the vast majority of the war french forces were fighting for Hitler aside from small resistance forces.
Their only main contribution was the Pacific fronts,
The Japanese Military was almost as big as the German Military and With the exception of Great Britain defending it's own colonies in the Pacific The United States Pretty much fought the entire Japanese Military by itself won and still managed
to fight the Italians, and the Nazis.
And fought it well.
Not really. The soviets vastly outnumbered the Germans and yet they were still getting their asses handed to them, if not for the Russian Winter and desperately needed Supplies from the Americans, the Nazis probably would have taken Moscow.
"What are you talking about? The French couldn't even defend themselves, and for the vast majority of the war french forces were fighting for Hitler aside from small resistance forces."
Yes I'll admit that the French sort of surrendered... But Britain had started ti reconquer land before USA even joined the war,
There are even more examples I could provide that would include victories of China and Russia. While USA helped speed up victory, I will not withdraw myt statement that Britain and the allies could have managed without them.
"The Japanese Military was almost as big as the German Military and With the exception of Great Britain defending it's own colonies in the Pacific The United States Pretty much fought the entire Japanese Military by itself won and still managedto fight the Italians, and the Nazis"
Likewise, the German and Italian military was bigger than the Japanese military, and with the exception of USA soldiers Great Britain and USSR pretty muched saved Europe on their own and Britain still managed to lend a hand to fight the Japanese.
"Not really. The soviets vastly outnumbered the Germans and yet they were still getting their asses handed to them,"
Just because more Russians died than Americans did, doesn't ommit their contribution to the war.
"if not for the Russian Winter and desperately needed Supplies from the Americans, the Nazis probably would have taken Moscow."
Fighters are heros not the guys who supply them with the equipment, yes the equipment may have been crucial, but the confidence and bravery of the fighter is more important.
But Britain had started ti reconquer land before USA even joined the war, I will not withdraw myt statement that Britain and the allies could have managed without them.
That wasn't the debate question. The debate question is who contributed more to victory USA or USSR.
I will go so far as to say that if any of the 3 major Allies; Britain, USA, or USSR were absent from the war, it could have likely come to a different outcome.
Likewise, the German and Italian military was bigger than the Japanese military
The soviets didn't fight the Italians (few exceptions), Americans and Brits did. So you should be combining the Japanese and the Italians.
Just because more Russians died than Americans did, doesn't ommit their contribution to the war.
Agreed, but it doesn't add to it either.
Fighters are heros not the guys who supply them with the equipment
Supply lines can easily determine the course of the war. A soldier without a weapon, without bullets, and without food is machine gun fodder. Many soviet soldiers didn't even have a rifle and were forced to pick up the rifles of fallen comrades.
"That wasn't the debate question. The debate question is who contributed more to victory USA or USSR."
I believe the Debate is open to suggest other countries as well, I believe the Debate creator only chose U.S.A and U.S.S.R because he considers them the only worthy candidates and was too close minded to put this as a perspective debate. Whereas if we counted the British Empire as 1 hero (like I would have wanted to), it would easily win.
"I will go so far as to say that if any of the 3 major Allies; Britain, USA, or USSR were absent from the war, it could have likely come to a different outcome."
I completly agree with this and the rest of your statements, I believe this argument is over.
"But Britain had started ti reconquer land before USA even joined the war,”
The battle of Taranto was after the U.S. had given the British 50 destroyers in the destroyers for bases deal, and being a large naval conflict, this made a difference.
"I will not withdraw myt statement that Britain and the allies could have managed without them.”
Well, thats interesting, Churchill didn’t believe that Britain could defeat the Nazis without U.S. aid, thats why he said "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” but its good to know your judgement is better than that of Winston Churchill.
"Great Britain and USSR pretty muched saved Europe on their own and Britain still managed to lend a hand to fight the Japanese.”
Please look into the lend Lease act, it was America supplying the entire allied front with significant amounts of war supplies, but again, feel free to differ from a world war 2 leader, Stalin said this Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, "we would not have been able to cope”
You can glorify the U.S supplying the Allies, but the debate asks "Who was the hero of World War 2? " not "Who helped the hero of World War 2 by giving them things without actually fighting?"
"Im not sure if you know this, but there was something called D-Day, I advise you to look into it before you make statements such as these."
1) I'm not sure how this disagrees with "Britain fighting the Japanese", I guess you hadn't read my sentance proporly or just assumed what I had written.
2) I know enough about D-Day, to know that the U.S's soldiers failed so much that their only real use was cannon fodder. (Apoligies for being blunt about it)
3) I suggest that you might want to conduct more research yourself about D-Day instead of just watching the story "Saving Private Ryan".
"The Japanese Military was almost as big as the German Military"
Yes, but the German military was the greatest in the entire war, it surpassed all the other militaries in technological advancement, training, tactics, etc.,...etc.
Even the average German soldier was in many cases worth 2 or 3 Allied soldiers. All of the countries fighting in WW2 were rightly terrified of the Germans, they were a unique force for their time, and anybody who tries to equate them with the Japanese (as you and few others have) simply don't understand the power of the Wermarcht.
I have seen fairly compelling arguments that the British navy was superior, and this is why Hitler never tried invading, there are also some question's about whether the Luftwaffe really were the greatest airforce fighting in the war, but at the very least, they were equal to any other.
But, on the crucial issue, the actual army, and it's military hardware (tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, etc.) were way ahead of any other fighting in the war. If you doubt this, do some reading;-)
"Not really. The soviets vastly outnumbered the Germans and yet they were still getting their asses handed to them"
I find your this attempt to diminish one of the greatest military victories in history quite pathetic.
"if not for the Russian Winter and desperately needed Supplies from the Americans, the Nazis probably would have taken Moscow."
Again, you americans always use the old Russian winter and that fact that 24% (which BTW wasn't free and was only provided to weaken the Nazis by prolonging their conflict with teh Soviets who were fully expected to lose convincingly) of the aid you provided went to the USSR, as an excuse for their victory.
"the Nazis probably would have taken Moscow."
This tells me that you simply don't have the depth of knowledge on the subject you think you have. As I have stated in other posts, yes, the Russian winter played a big part, but the aid only matter later when the USSR began to seriously push the Nazis back on all fronts. The USSR halted the Nazi advance and pushed them back 100-250km prior to the arrival of any outside aid.
This effectively means that Operation Barbarossa had failed, without any aid being required, now, what would have happened if the US didn't supply aid, or if no other country supplied aid, is a matter of speculation. If you check it out you'll find that most historian's agree it would have ended in some kind of a stalemate after the USSR had exhausted themselves in pushing the Nazis back as far as they could, but it doesn't rule out a Soviet Victory, it rules out a Soviet defeat, that's what nearly all Americans who argue this fail to grasp.
"it surpassed all the other militaries in technological advancement, training, tactics, etc.,...etc.”
America invented the nuclear bomb if i am not mistaken, and had the best fighter of the war in the P-51 mustang. The ME-262 had no impact on the war, along with the V-1 and V-2 rockets.
Part of technological advancement is ease of manufacturing, and affordability of the equipment, this you cannot dispute. The Sherman, although not comparable to something as the tiger 1v1, there were so many more of them that the tigers strength did not matter, they were not invincible. The soviets and Americans gambled on quantity vs quality, and proved this was a more significant technological advancement than what the Germans had.
"America invented the nuclear bomb if i am not mistaken"
Yes, you are completely mistaken, again, I have done some research into the subject, the scientific expertise came directly from Europe. Remember the time period, Europe was the most modernised part of the planet, if there wasn't a war going on there, the bomb would have been developed in Europe, they even contemplated building it in Britain, but decided the situation there was too precarious. Although many american scientists particpated in Manhattan Project, the expertise required in building the bomb came from the Europe, with out it the US could not have built the bomb, the largest contribution the US made to the project was in supplying the raw material and proivding the necessary hardware and space. This again tell's me you are simply ignorant of the history.
"and had the best fighter of the war in the P-51 mustang. The ME-262 had no impact on the war, along with the V-1 and V-2 rockets."
I really don't want to get into contrasting the merits and demerits of each individual piece of military hardware from each different military, if you don't beleive me that the German army was leaps and bounds ahead of any other in the war, then I advise you do some reading on the subject, as I can guarantee you will struggle to find a historian who tries to claim otherwise. (see my response to Bohemian)
"Part of technological advancement is ease of manufacturing, and affordability of the equipment, this you cannot dispute."
No, I can dispute this because it's 100% wrong, the isn't what is meant by technological advancement at all, you clearly don't have clue what you're talking about, what you're describing are the conditions necessary to commercialise technology.
". The soviets and Americans gambled on quantity vs quality, and proved this was a more significant technological advancement than what the Germans had."
Just stop my friend, please stop, you are only embarrassing yourself, I'm not here to argue against something that every military historian would agree with i.e. in WW2 Germany were the eminent military force
"Handedly can dispute this because it's 100% wrong, the isn't what is meant by technological advancement at all, you clearly don't have clue what you're talking about, what you're describing are the conditions”
Watch the video at 3:10, and before you say this heavily favors the Americans, it automatically supports the Soviets for they used the same technique(the number 1 rated tank is the T-34, a Russian tank).
"if you don't believe me that the German army was leaps and bounds ahead of any other in the war”
I agree that the German army was a extremely powerful force, but you exaggerate their power. I will use your argument, although I do not agree with it, you said "Operation Barbarossa had failed, without any aid being required”
this essentially means that you think the Soviets single handedly defeated the Germans, its hard to say the Germans were leaps in bounds ahead when they were “single Handedly” defeated.
"Britian and France could have managed without them.””
Lets see, France engulfed by Germany in a few weeks, Britain’s RAF not putting up much resistance to Lufftwaffe, and being Bombed to bits (example Battle of Britain), it looks like they would have managed very well indeed.
"Lets see, France engulfed by Germany in a few weeks, Britain’s RAF not putting up much resistance to Lufftwaffe, and being Bombed to bits (example Battle of Britain), it looks like they would have managed very well indeed."
Yes I'll admit that the French sort of surrendered... But Britain had started to reconquer land before USA even joined the war, even your example of the Battle of Britain (I can't understand how you can portray it negatively), was a victory that could be considered the turning point of the war.
There are even more examples I could provide that would include victories of China and Russia. While USA helped speed up victory, I will not withdraw myt statement that Britain and the allies could have managed without them.
“ But Britain had started to reconquer land before USA even joined the war, even your example of the Battle of Britain (I can't understand how you can portray it negatively), was a victory that could be considered the turning point of the war.”
Why would you use the Battle of Taranto after i proved the U.S. helped Britain win this battle? Even if you believe that AMerica did not contribute greatly to actually fighting, it is impossible to argue its importance in the war with its supplying of the Allies. Now again, remember what Stalin and Churchill said,if you feel your opinion is better than theirs, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
"Why would you use the Battle of Taranto after i proved the U.S. helped Britain win this battle? Even if you believe that AMerica did not contribute greatly to actually fighting, it is impossible to argue its importance in the war with its supplying of the Allies. Now again, remember what Stalin and Churchill said,if you feel your opinion is better than theirs, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about."
I'm not stating that the U.S deserves no credit for the war, I'm just saying that they don't deserve the title of "hero of World War 2", they only joined after the allies started to win. If any country deserves it it should be the British Empire, which lost everything after World War 2.
The British empire invested so much into stopping the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese. That it couldn't afford to maintain or protect it's empire after that, and thus had to give it up. I consider that an achievement when the U.S failed to commit to the war from the start.
"What you have been claiming is that the Allies could have won without the U.S. aid, provide a battle than distinctly proves this."
D-Day, though there are better examples i think it fair to pick one you're definatly going to know about. The U.S involvement was the invasion of 1 beach while Britain and France had to manage 2 each. The american soldiers then proceeded to launch their craft hours before they should have, thus all their amphibious vehicles sunk and most of them got slaughtered. Most of (if not all) the vehicles were provided by Britain. Overall the only help America provided was cannon fodder.
I think the U.S. was by far the bigger hero in WWII. To start, the Soviets had originally formed a peace treaty with Hitler and planned to split Poland they invaded. That's pretty uncool. Second, Hitler's war (in which the U.S.S.R. was fighting in) only involved Europe, so it was very heroic for the U.S. to help the Allies destroy the Nazi regime in a continent that wasn't even their own. The U.S. also single handedly ended the war in the Pacific, and freed many countries and islands previously under Japanese control. The U.S. also supplied most of the equipment for Allied troops even before they entered the war.
Pretty much, the U.S.'s goal was to protect freedom around the world, and it did a damn good job of doing just that. As for the U.S.S.R., instead of freeing the countries they took from Germany, they ruled over them with an iron fist for decades until the U.S. put a stop to that in the 1990's, but that's another story...
the Soviets had originally formed a peace treaty with Hitler and planned to split Poland they invaded.
Nether Hitler, nor Stalin, ever had any intention of sticking to that treaty. It was only signed because the Germans needed safety for a year or two when conquering Europe, without having to fight on two fronts. And the Soviets signed to give themselves time to arm the country, ready for the inevitable war with Hitler.
Hitler's war (in which the U.S.S.R. was fighting in) only involved Europe
Oh yeah, it was only the most important front in the entire war, in which the Soviets had to fight on their own for years. Only that important.
The U.S. also single handedly ended the war in the Pacific,
Nope. They were the leading power, but Britain, Australia and the Netherlands made vital contributions.
freed many countries and islands previously under Japanese control.
Don't make it sound as if the US was fighting for freedom. They were fighting because of Pearl Harbour.
Pretty much, the U.S.'s goal was to protect freedom around the world, and it did a damn good job of doing just that.
As for the U.S.S.R., instead of freeing the countries they took from Germany, they ruled over them with an iron fist for decades until the U.S. put a stop to that in the 1990's, but that's another story...
The US did not stop the USSR at all. What history books are you reading?
"The US did not stop the USSR at all. What history books are you reading?"
Your joking right? The U.S. ended the Soviet Union in the cold war by spending money on the military at levels the soviets could not ectype, eventually causing economic collapse for the union, sorta why Ronald Reagan was so popular.
That's different to the US stopping the USSR. Stopping implies direct action against one nation's plans. Besides, I would rather say it was the west in general rather than America that caused the collapse of the USSR.
Neither. It was the UK who valiantly fought to the end. I know this is a bit biased coming from a Brit, but still. Anyway, I decided that out of the two the USA did the most.
Given that this site is primarily populated by US citizens, this debate question is never going to get a fair, unbiased, and objective response.
I have argued this plenty of times before, firstly, I will say that the war could not have been won in the manner in which it eventually was won without US intervention, US intervention was decisive, but the USSR fought the Germans single handedly for most of the war, for their efforts they lost approximately 25 million of their citizens on the eastern front, they took on the Germans single handedly and won. I have seen estimates that say 90% of all the Russian men between the age of 18-25 (or something like that), were killed in the war, i.e.
""The Eastern Front of World War II was a theatre of World War II "
"The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history",
"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."
"It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."
It is well known that prior to the start of the second world war, the British and the Americans feared the USSR a lot more than they did the Germans, remember what facism is, it is state controlled capitalism (often withTTotalitarian and authoritarian overtones), so is it ridiculous that the US and Britain would feel more comfortable with Hitler than with Stalin, that they would feel more warmth and have more affinity for Hitler regime than that of Stalin's prior to the start of the war? This is clearly illustrated by an excerpt from a famous Orwell Essay; "THE LION AND THE UNICORN: SOCIALISM AND THE
ENGLISH GENIUS (1941)",
"The British ruling class were not altogether wrong in thinking that
Fascism was on their side. It is a fact that any rich man, unless he is a
Jew, has less to fear from Fascism than from either Communism or
democratic Socialism. One ought never to forget this, for nearly the
whole of German and Italian propaganda is designed to cover it up. The
natural instinct of men like Simon, Hoare, Chamberlain etc. was to come
to an agreement with Hitler. But--and here the peculiar feature of
English life that I have spoken of, the deep sense of national
solidarity, comes in--they could only do so by breaking up the Empire
and selling their own people into semi-slavery. A truly corrupt class
would have done this without hesitation, as in France. But things had not
gone that distance in England."
This was one of the reasons Hitler was ignored while he re-constructed the German military apparatus, which was accomplished with the help of unbiased free markets whose resources and commodities only go were the most profit is to be made, it well known that UK, US, and French resources were used to rebuild up the German army.
Remember also that Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941, yet a second front wasn't opened up by the US and Uk until 1944. People like WW2 because they view as a nice clean war, a good stroy to tell the kids and all the brainwashed masses, you know, good (the US and UK) vs. evil (Hitler), this plays well with people, it's simple, but it ditracts from the reality of what really transpired.
It is well known that the UK and US beleived Hitler would vanquish the USSR (as hitler beleived as well), this is why the US supplied the USSR with aid (i.e. to keep the blood flowing on both sides), it wasn't an altruistic move as some would try to portray it. The truth is the USSR terrified the West almost as much as Hitler i.e.
""Along an 1,800-mile front, 4.5 million soldiers of Hitler’s Nazi Germany and its allies commenced Operation Barbarossa, launching themselves against Stalin’s Communist regime. At the time, not many gave the Soviet Union much chance of survival, and the results of the first few months of fighting seemed to bear out those estimations."
"Churchill, who despised Stalin and was keenly aware of the threat Communism posed to the free world, was once called to account for his support of the Soviet Union in World War II. He replied, “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” Roosevelt, meanwhile, never forwent an opportunity to materially and morally prop up the Soviets and “Uncle Joe,” as he naïvely referred to Stalin. Simply put, Britain and the United States were only too happy to see Europe’s two great totalitarian powers bleed themselves white on the plains of Central Europe."
The Soviet war mahince was a juggernaut and it is widely beleived that the second front Stalin had been begging for since 1941 was opened up when it was partly due to fear that the USSR wouldn't simply stop when it got to Germany, and would instead continue to engulf the rest of Europe under the Iron Curtain.
""The outstanding fact [that] has to be noted is the recent phenomenal development of the heretofore latent Russian military and economic strength – a development which seems certain to prove epochal in its bearing on future politico-military international relationships, and which is yet to reach the full scope attainable with Russian resources." (FRUS, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945, pp. 107-8.)"
So, in summation, the US role in WW2 should not be underestimated, without the US presence, and US aid, it is very likely the war would have dragged on, and it is likely Hitler would not have been soundly defeated in the manner in which he was, but, by the same token, the role of the US should not be overestimated, adn this is something that almost every american I've ever ecountered tends to do, if any country can be said to have deafeated the Nazis, it is the USSR, their contribution simply eclipsed that of all the others.
I tend to agree with the majority of what you said. It is quite startling how many Americans appear to think that the US was the only hope the Allies had, and that the entire war was single handedly won by Uncle Sam. US action was more like the final, and biggest, nail in the Nazi coffin. They tend to forget that the US didn't give that much of a damn about Europe compared to the Pacific.
But the idea of the Soviet juggernaut steamrolling the Nazi's is quite misinformed. As the article you provided states, the Nazi's were dominating the USSR for the first few months of the war. But I must disagree with the reasoning behind Russia's recuperation. Whilst the logistical effort was undoubtedly important, I would actually value Hitler's errors as the most turning point.
It is not known by the majority that Hitler was quite ill from about 1942 onwards. He suffered from Parkinsons, and he was taking all sorts of remedial drugs. In most situations, the leader would have to hand over responsibilities to his delegates. But Hitler did the reverse: all of his delegates were simply ignored or stripped of their power. Hitler believed he knew what was best, and demanded that no decisions be made without his approval. However, Hitler would spend many days in bed, sometimes during crucial hours where instant reaction was needed. You can see how this would be quite problematic. So when Russia was regaining strength, the German forces were helpless without Hitler.
It should also be pointed out that Hitler wasn't a particularly great tactician. Make no mistake about it, Adolf Hitler was, at least in my opinion, one of the greatest politicians the world has ever seen. He had a simply unparalleled way of seducing the public. But despite winning the Iron Cross in WW1, he made many poor decisions. His logistical actions were quite frankly awful. The Wehrmacht was, to put it bluntly, fucked. Hitler gravely underestimated the sheer numbers the Red Army had, and despite the quantities of killing Germany could carry out, there was always an extra soviet force waiting for them. It could also be blamed on the fact that Hitler's knowledge of Soviet government was at best average. He had no idea how flexible the system was (contrary to popular belief), and completely failed to realise the speed at which the Soviets could carry out transfers.
To conclude, I believe that the USSR's role was indeed a crucial one, but not really caused by the USSR, themselves. I won't dispute the will the Soviet forces showed (although one could argue that Germany's "never surrender" strategy shows why sheer will can actually be a drawback, but that's another issue), but they had a lot of help from Hitler's decisions. If you're looking for an objective answer, you could argue for either side.
I'm still disappointed at the lack of mention of Finland though. Check out my post on the other side, they're the true heroes of the war!
It is quite startling how many Americans appear to think that the US was the only hope the Allies had
It's also quite startling to see how many Americans believe Obama is the antichrist, but that doesn't stop us (24% of republicans).
They tend to forget that the US didn't give that much of a damn about Europe compared to the Pacific.
You would be wrong there. We gave a very large damn.
Nazi's were dominating the USSR for the first few months of the war.
In the USSR's defense, so was mother nature.
The Wehrmacht was, to put it bluntly, fucked.
I would disagree to an extent in regards to the Western Front.
I believe that the USSR's role was indeed a crucial one, but not really caused by the USSR, themselves
That is going way too far from your previous acknowledgments about the German military stratagem in the east. The USSR had 35,000,000 forces. That is not a small number. That is more than the United States (16,000,000) and Germany (18,000,000) combined.
I'm still disappointed at the lack of mention of Finland though. Check out my post on the other side, they're the true heroes of the war!
By that logic, I would say Belgium deserves mention.
You would be wrong there. We gave a very large damn.
In comparison to the Pacific? Don't get me wrong, the amount of US aid poured into the European campaigns shows that they were concerned with Europe, but Japan were seen as the US' main enemy, no? American involvement in the Pacific was surely greater than their involvement in Europe.
In the USSR's defense, so was mother nature.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, the Russian Winter? My statement was about Nazi domination of the war before the Russian Winter kicked in.
I would disagree to an extent in regards to the Western Front.
I was referring to the Eastern front. That is to say, the German forces fighting in the East were, to put it bluntly, fucked.
That is going way too far from your previous acknowledgments about the German military stratagem in the east. The USSR had 35,000,000 forces. That is not a small number. That is more than the United States (16,000,000) and Germany (18,000,000) combined.
Your point is...
By that logic, I would say Belgium deserves mention.
After reading up on Belgian involvement, I will agree with you. All hail Belgium.
But before we start listing countries that deserve a mention, I'd like to point out that my post was a little bit of a joke. I only did it because of my friend, who is a fierce Finnish patriot, and never shuts the fuck up about his country's involvement. So yea.
Don't get me wrong, the amount of US aid poured into the European campaigns shows that they were concerned with Europe, but Japan were seen as the US' main enemy, no? Don't get me wrong, the amount of US aid poured into the European campaigns shows that they were concerned with Europe, but Japan were seen as the US' main enemy, no?
Truman stated that Europe was of much more concern to him than the pacific. We deployed 22 Army divisions to the Pacific compared to 76 in Europe/Mediterranean. The Navy deployment was higher in the Pacific; however, our army was more than double the size of our naval involvement.
Your point is...
To say that was the reason they lost is to ignore the sheer forces involved. The germans were severely outnumbered.
I only did it because of my friend, who is a fierce Finnish patriot, and never shuts the fuck up about his country's involvement.
Truman stated that Europe was of much more concern to him than the pacific. We deployed 22 Army divisions to the Pacific compared to 76 in Europe/Mediterranean. The Navy deployment was higher in the Pacific; however, our army was more than double the size of our naval involvement.
Fair enough.
To say that was the reason they lost is to ignore the sheer forces involved. The germans were severely outnumbered.
Numbers do not win wars. The Wehrmacht was the most feared armed forces of any nation during World War 2. One German soldier was worth 2 of any other. Whilst the Russians had the numbers, the Germans had the weapons (for the majority of the war), the training, and the morale to take down any nation on the planet (maybe not the US, but it certainly would have been close).
So a Finish Axmiester?
I'm gonna sound stupid here and ask what or who Axmiester is?
I agree. But when you outnumber the enemy almost 3:1, you have a slight advantage.
I'm gonna sound stupid here and ask what or who Axmiester is?
I lobe the UK. Don't get me wrong. One of my favorite countries (and ranked above the US), but this guy is truly a blathering idiot. The British equivalent of the stereotypical dumb, Christian, bible-thumping, gun-toting, republican, uneducated, drunk redneck. Axmeister
But when you outnumber the enemy almost 3:1, you have a slight advantage.
But when the enemy is superior in every other measurable way, the advantage is cut completely. Think of it like this: who would you back in a fight? The team of Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking and Victoria Beckham; or Chuck Norris on steroids?
I lobe the UK. Don't get me wrong. One of my favorite countries (and ranked above the US), but this guy is truly a blathering idiot. The British equivalent of the stereotypical dumb, Christian, bible-thumping, gun-toting, republican, uneducated, drunk redneck. Axmeister
Oh, I know him. He is quite... patriotic. But my friend is isn't as... "special" as Axmeister.
I any case it was a combined effort, but the Soviets were the ones going toe to toe with the Germans fighting over their homeland. the Americans came in at the end and were a huge boon. They were the waking giant, but still I thin the Soviets had by far the toughest part of the war.
I'd say considering the USSR were basically on their own, yet the USA had the British, and minimal French forces to help out, they were the better side. If Germany could focus all their efforts on one front, then either side probably would have been crushed. That's not to say that America wasn't key in the war, as Britain really didn't have the resources to push back through France on their own, and could barely defend themselves.
But, the USSR just kept getting pushed back, until they finally gained the advantage deep into Russia, then the steamroller tactic started to excel, and without that, the rest of the Allies would have been crushed.
The Soviet Union allllllll the way! They were the ones that stormed the heart of Nazi Germany with ease. They made Hitler commit suicide. They were the ones FULLY responivle for the vicotry of WW2 in Europe.
Let's think calmly and logically about this. First, WWII was on two main fronts, The Pacific and Europe. Europe was more important than the Pacific because of Hitler and his megalomania, and Japan was not too powerful compared to other major powers at the time. If you do not believe me remember the Allies had a ''Germany First'' strategy. Knowing this, we can now look at which of the two countries did more to fight Germany. The country who did more was the Soviet Union. This is because almost the entire German army was tied up on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front was just one big meat grinder for both sides and only the Soviets could afford to fight that kind of war of attrition. This is because the USSR has the population, the will, and the production necessary. So now we can say that on a Germany vs. USSR debate alone the USSR would win. Now you may say, ''The Western Allies Invaded Normandy drawing away German troops, and bombed German cities.'' I would respond to that comment in the following manner: Firstly, the West invaded Normandy in mid-1944. By then the war in the East was tipping strongly in the Soviets favor, and disastrously for Germany, Hitler was in direct command of the forces operating in the East. So we can assume that the Soviets would win regardless. Secondly, the Allied bombing of Germany was largely in-effective against war industry and just an attempt at destroying morale.
Let's think calmly and logically about this. First, WWII was on two main fronts, The Pacific and Europe
Do not patronize me.
Japan was not too powerful compared to other major powers at the time
The Japanese navy was arguably the dominant naval power pre-battle of midway, aided by a fighter, the mitsubishi zero that dominated the skies until later on in the war. The army it possessed, was comprised of virile men, whom would not see the pain of defeat. If this nation did not demonstrate military prowess, then you do not revere military history.
the Allies had a ''Germany First'' strategy
This evidences nothing, except perhaps the genuine plurality of European nations in the allied forces. Germany was the largest threat to the allies due to the nature of their global positioning; they were the threat for a majority of the allies. Japan being on the other side of the world, was to far away to be considered a threat to them ( the Europeans). The other allied powers, the U.S. and China, focused on Japan because of its strength and location relative to them. Yet despite this major threat, the U.S. still provided massive aid to fund the war against the Nazis, albeit indirectly. The lend lease act was certainly an integral part to the Nazis defeat.
now we can say that on a Germany vs. USSR debate alone the USSR would win.
This is so utterly false, the Germans (Hitler) were fighting on two fronts (Britain did not fall in large part to the lend lease act) and the French were not entirely defeated. Fighting on two fronts is difficult even for the most powerful militaries. Even so, the Russians were saved by the harsh condititions of their own winter; they were being pushed back quickly by the Germans, of which were supplied only for warm weather fighting (Hitler expected a decisive, quick victory). I think you can figure out the rest.
Secondly, the Allied bombing of Germany was largely in-effective against war industry and just an attempt at destroying morale.
I'm sorry but the entire argument you attempt to make is false.
Do not act like you have a degree in history. It is apparent that you have obtained all your information from second-rate historical documentaries and your own personal hunches. You haven't the slightest clue about Armaments Minster Albert Speer and his relocation of German war industry, this is what made the Allied bombing highly un-effective against armaments facilities. You may now argue the issue of morale and German workers casualties; however, the Nazi propaganda machine led by Josef Goebbles saw to it that the majority of the civilian population was sufficiently indoctrinated to resist the propaganda value of Allied bombings in their entirety.
Now you are also making an attempt at arguing that the Allied supreme leaders, including FDR and Churchill, knew nothing whatsoever about the strength of Nazi Germany in Relation to Imperial Japan. This is simply preposterous. May I remind you that Germany was very close to complete domination of Europe. This was the primary threat. Additionally, the German Whermarcht employed revolutionary tactics and strategy. This, along with very advanced weaponry made them a seemingly unstoppable force. The German military High Command was also very keen on developing ''wunderwaffe'' or wonder-weapons. Some of the more known ones are: The King Tiger, The ME-262, The V-1, V-2 and V-3 series of revenge weapons, Seran Gas, and the most dangerous of these weapons, a nuclear type device. There are some eye-witness accounts of an actual test of one of these nuclear devices near the Baltic coast. This is corroborated with tests from the alleged sight. This of course cannot be definitively proven, but it is a possibility. The leaders of the Western Allies knew the threat of German Super-weapons was great, this was spurred on by a letter from Albert Einstein to FDR warning about the Nazi nuclear programme.
As for the Japanese, the facts you state are also preposterous. Yes, the A6M was a very good fighter, but by late 1942, the Allies deployed fighters capable of besting the Zero in a dogfight. Namely, these were the F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair. The Japanese navy was relatively large, but the Royal Navy was significantly larger, and the American and Canadian navy's were in a massive expansion programme. Japan could simply not compete with this.
Japanese strategies and tactics were also out-dated, Banzai charges against .30 caliber machine guns are a big no-no in military thought. The Japanese tanks such as the Ha-Go, were inferior even to the Sherman, and production could not hold a candle to that of the US, or USSR. May I also remind you that the USSR and Germans were fighting almost exclusively on one front from 1941-1943. The battle of Kursk took place in the Summer of 1943 and was a decisive Soviet Victory. Your claims are completely false.
Remember, the USSR and Japan fought it out in 1939. The Soviets were victorious.
the-forgotten-soviet-japanese-war-of-1939
And would you like to back up your claims? It will be impossible because they are largely false.
You haven't the slightest clue about Armaments Minster Albert Speer and his relocation of German war industry
I would disagree
Allied bombing highly un-effective against armaments facilities
This is still debated in the most vehement of fashions among historians. To claim an absolute, without residing as an historian yourself, is simply preposterous.
You may now argue
Why do you attempt to make an argument for me? Such action is excessively patronizing.
May I remind you that Germany was very close to complete domination of Europe.
Only until they attacked the Soviets
FDR and Churchill, knew nothing whatsoever about the strength of Nazi Germany in Relation to Imperial Japan.
FDR knew the power of the the Germans. He also knew the outcome of operation Barbarossa.
the German Whermarcht employed revolutionary tactics and strategy. This, along with very advanced weaponry made them a seemingly unstoppable force.
The most important lesson from WW2 was that quantity is quality on its own
here are some eye-witness accounts of an actual test of one of these nuclear devices near the Baltic coast. This is corroborated with tests from the alleged sight. This of course cannot be definitively proven, but it is a possibility. The leaders of the Western Allies knew the threat of German Super-weapons was great, this was spurred on by a letter from Albert Einstein to FDR warning about the Nazi nuclear programme.
I can actually guarantee that there was no German nuke after February 20th, 1944.
American and Canadian navy's were in a massive expansion programme. Japan could simply not compete with this.
Americans no, Canadians yes.
Japanese strategies and tactics were also out-dated
Excluding the bonsai charges, that is so utterly false. Just try to think of the tactical significance of pearl harbor, as one example.
You have seemed to change your tune relatively quickly.
The simple fact is, the USSR contributed far more to final victory than the US did. It is simple statistics. The USSR accounted for almost 75% of Nazi casualties. Furthermore, the Soviets managed tie up approximately 200 Whermarcht divisions. This was the bulk of the German army.
I also do not want to hear about any "lend-lease"
This is because the USSR produced 95% of their armaments.
On your second point, it is evident that Nazi Germany was a more dangerous foe than imperial Japan. Seriously, it's pretty evident. The USN absolutely destroyed the IJN without much of a fight at all.
"On the other hand, Germany was universally considered the stronger and more dangerous than Japan."
-Morton, Louis. Strategy and Command: The First Two Years. The United States Army in World War II. Washington: GPO, 1962, p. 88
Remember, the USSR and Japan fought it out in 1939. The Soviets were victorious.
WHAT! Soviets lost twice the number the Japs did. They lost nearly half their territory in Korea. And the war ended because the RUSSIANS asked U.S.A. to settle a treaty. What are you reading for history books?
