Who ended the WWII?

[Kenshin Himura]

I say U.S.S.R

U.S.S.R captured Hitler, not U.S

Japan vs U.S.A was another war, but it was glued in to a peice of WWII.

What do you think?

[Krelian]

the war with japan was still world war 2, so technically the us ended the war (by bombing nagasaki and hiroshima).

as for the european theater, i can't really say. it'd be between the us and ussr, and i think both were about even. if i remember my history classes correctly, the soviets were picked to take berlin because of their heavy losses earlier in the war, or something of the sort. they didn't capture hitler though, he committed suicide.

as for killing civilians with the a-bomb, i think it was justified given the circumstances, but we could argue that back and forth for the rest of eternity.

another thing i thought i'd note, over here in america the british are given hardly any credit for what they did in the war. people seem to think they just sat around waiting for us to bail their asses out, which is entirely off the mark. also, i hear plenty of brits have an equally off-the-wall viewpoint, that they could've won without any help. heh, too much national pride on both fronts :P

[Kingox]

Originally posted by jman@Jan 20 2004, 06:53 AM
another thing i thought i'd note, over here in america the british are given hardly any credit for what they did in the war. people seem to think they just sat around waiting for us to bail their asses out, which is entirely off the mark. also, i hear plenty of brits have an equally off-the-wall viewpoint, that they could've won without any help. heh, too much national pride on both fronts :P
I think you right about that. However, I will add that they got plenty of our troops kill by leading them into an ambush (not on purpose) - Gallipoli I belive - Because at that time we still thought of britan as the other land.

[Recluse]

Hitler was defeated by a combination of the allied forces, the Russians just happened to get to Berlin first.

Russia was very instrumental in defeating the Nazis, but the Russians didn't begin fighting Hitler until he blundered by opening a second front to the war when he invaded Russia in 1941, long after WWII began. The US didn't begin fighting Hitler until after Pearl Harbor (also 1941) when Hitler, as per his agreement with Japan, declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan. However, the US had been a major supplier of material, trucks, jeeps, etc. for the allies before that time.

The French were overrun by Hitler quite easily in the earlier stages of the war, and the UK bore the major burden of fighting Hitler until mid-1941.

The US didn't have much help against Japan, although the Chinese were fighting them (and getting slaughtered) as well.

[Blade]

When you think about it, technically, the United States ended the war when the Nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as that resulted in the surrender of the last Axis power.

I don't think the end of the war can be pinpointed down to a single event or the acts of a single country, all the events that occured in the time pieced together the events in time that eventually led to Hitler's defeat. If countries had done differently, the results could have been a whole lot worse for us.

Anyway, I'll vote the Nuclear bomb.

[Recluse]

If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia when he did, with the inadequate plan, poor supply lines and logistics, poor understanding of weather and road conditions, and ambiguous strategic objectives, it's more than likely he would have prevailed on the Western front. The Russian campaign ate huge chunks of Hitler's resources and ultimately bled his forces and supplies dry.

Russia wasn't about to start war with Hitler at that time, especially since they had secretly signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Hitler that increased Russia's unopposed sphere of influence in Eastern Europe as an agreement for mutual non-agression.

In fact, when Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin was so surprised that when the first reports of the invasion reached him from the border outposts he sent back orders to have the reporting sentries shot for spreading false rumors.

[Kenshin Himura]

When I was in Russia, people said they and the U.S ended the war. When i came to U.S, U.S say they and the british ended the war.

Make up your mind.

[Krelian]

i'd say it was mainly the us and russia who ended the war in europe. to my knowledge, the british forces had less of an influence at the end of the war, mainly because of the losses suffered by fighting so long alone.

[Kingox]

Originally posted by Recluse@Jan 20 2004, 11:42 AM
The US didn't have much help against Japan, although the Chinese were fighting them (and getting slaughtered) as well.
We helped :unsure: :tweet:

Not enough to count it guess.

[Billy The Mountain]

Ok here is a little time line for ya.

September 1 1939 Germany invades Poland

September 17 1939 Russia invades Poland

November 30 1939 Russia invades Finland

March 12 1940 Finland gives up and cedes territory to Russia

April 9 1940 Germany invades Denmark and Norway

May 10 1940 Germany invades Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg (also Churchill becomes Prime Minister)

May 12 1940 Germany invades france

May 14 1940 Dutch army surrenders

May 26 through June 4 1940 Dunkirk evacuation

June 9 1940 Norway signs armistice with Germany

June 10 1940 Italy declares war on france and Britain

June 11 1940 Italy invades france

June 14 1940 Paris falls

June 15 1940 Russia occupies Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia

June 22 1940 france signs armistice with the axis

September 27 1940 Japan joins axis alliance

October 7 1940 Germany invades Rumania

November 20 1940 Hungary joins the axis

November 22 1940 Rumania joins the axis

March 25 1941 Yugoslavia joins axis

April 13 1941 Russia and japan sign a 5 year non- aggression treaty

May 22 1941 Germany, Italy, Rumania declare war on Russia and Germany invades

May 26 1941 Finland declares war on Russia Hungary the next day

September 8 1941 German siege of Leningrad

September 19 1941 Germans capture Kiev

November 8 1941 Germans run over the Crimea

December 5 1941 German blitz on Moscow is stopped

December 7 1941 japs bomb Pearl Harbor

December 8 1941 japan declares war on USA and Britain

December 11 1941 Germany and Italy declare war on USA

June 25 1942 Germany wins battle of Kharkov on Russian front

July 1 1942 Germany takes over Sevastopol in the Crimea

July 23 1942 Russian Rostov-on-don falls to the Germans

August 9 1942 Germany captures oilfields in the Caucasus

August 12 1942 Churchill, Stalin, USA and free french forces representatives meet in Moscow and discuss Second front options


Now up to this time Russia was getting its butt kicked in a major way hands down.

Now please look at some maps and you will see that Russia mostly took back territory it had recently lost and or had already invaded itself quite recently.

I hope I am pointing out that without the huge push by USA and Britain in Africa, then Italy and Greece. Followed by the Normandy invasion on D-Day Russia would never have been able to start a counter offensive.

I am not saying that theirs was not a valiant fight and brave but only that it would have been impossibility without the USA and British forces and their combined industrial strength.

As far as the European theater of war was concerned it was over for quite some time before the USA quite justifiably used the atom bomb on the japs.

April 16 1945 Russians begin an all out attack on Berlin

April 23 Soviets enter Berlin (they were allowed to enter first as a political ploy cooked up by the Brits and USA)

April 25 1945 Allied and Russian forces meet at the Elbe River

April 30 1945 Hitler commits suicide in his Berlin bunker! Hooray

May 7 1945 Germany formally surrenders

August 6 1945 Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima

August 8 1945 Russia declares war on japan

August 9 1945 Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki and Russia invades Manchuria

August 14 1945 japan surrenders

I want to say that your poll is biased and try’s to give America a black eye. Innocent indeed! The whole history of WWII is marked by the slaughtering of innocent civilians by the japs.

This was murder and torture in the coldest of blood all through the Philippians and China and wherever the jap war machine went.

Murder by first hand with swords and torture and mass exterminations not by artillery and bombs or unintentional crossfire.

There were about 210,000 total casualties between Hiroshima and Nagasaki both.

And the USA did nothing out of the ordinary for the period of history in which the bombs were dropped. Why the murdering japs killed more people than that and civilians to boot.

In Nanjing China alone! The count was over 300,000 murdered not bombed or killed in fighting!

Just check out this link to see the story

http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/ (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/)

[Kenshin Himura]

Just a reminder - Germany attacked Russia so many times and got it's a*se kicked, Russia had so many countries captured they were the ones who got Hitler, no need to die :(, the Japan's spirit was shattered when hitler died and the bomb on it's cities caused them to surrender.

Did I mention Russians ancestors are barbarians?

September 1 1939 Germany invades Poland

September 17 1939 Russia invades Poland

So Russia saved Poland from being tortured by Germany and made them be torutured by Russia.

Did I mention Russia defeated Napoleons Army?

[Billy The Mountain]

Just because you ignore the facts of history does not make it real.

Russia as I pointed out in the time line in my last post had had its butt kicked from one end of the map to another.

The countries Russia took over had no armies left to defend themselves.

The only army they actually fought was the Germans.

Russia didnt even have a modern airforce they were running obsolete WWI aircraft and at the beginning of WWII had the largest horse calvary in the world.

The USA and Great Britian won WWII or at least 80% of it give or take 10%

God bless America and God save the Queen Hooray!

[Kenshin Himura]

Originally posted by Billy The Mountain@Jan 22 2004, 06:22 AM
Just because you ignore the facts of history does not make it real.

Russia as I pointed out in the time line in my last post had had its butt kicked from one end of the map to another.

The countries Russia took over had no armies left to defend themselves.

The only army they actually fought was the Germans.

Russia didnt even have a modern airforce they were running obsolete WWI aircraft and at the beginning of WWII had the largest horse calvary in the world.

The USA and Great Britian won WWII or at least 80% of it give or take 10%

God bless America and God save the Queen Hooray!
Americans lie, they always lie in the newspaper, in the news and everywhere else.

U.S was too busy shooting down Japan, and you're wrong, where did you get that info? If it's american site it's a lie.

We had one of the best tanks, yes it was hard to move but it packed a good punch.

I mean they had to find why they attacked Iraq. The terrorists were not Iraqs.

A stable? Please, Russia bulit one of the best tanks on the world, we stoped TarTars, the undefeatable. We defeated Germany Forces again and again.

Hitler was the leader of the evil.

So you better think twice before giving U.S a 80%

[Blade]

Originally posted by Kingox+Jan 21 2004, 03:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kingox @ Jan 21 2004, 03:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Recluse@Jan 20 2004, 11:42 AM
The US didn't have much help against Japan, although the Chinese were fighting them (and getting slaughtered) as well.
We helped :unsure: :tweet:

Not enough to count it guess. [/b][/quote]
I didn't hear of many Australian warships fighting at Coral Sea, Midway and other battles ;)

Oh, and Kenshin, I don't think you can call Americans liars by what the media say. Didn't the media yell and scream against America going into Iraq? If America wanted them to lie, wouldn't they have them lie in their favour?

And once again, I don't think a country can be given favourability in the war, because each country pieced together events in time. Change one thing, and the outcome could have been a whole lot different.

[Krelian]

kenny, grow up. indeed americans do lie, but so does everyone else. it's a fact of life, and the sooner you stop ignoring it and most everything else that could class as fact, the sooner you're going to be taken seriously.

the winners write the history books, and it's nigh impossible to find a viewpoint that's nonbiased. there's only so much adjustment that recent history can take though, so the core facts remain.

perhaps next you'll tell us that ww2 was fought solely by russia, and that the us lost the cold war?

[papa_kulikov]

Stalin ended the war in europe.............with the vast armies of russia he single handedly defeated the german's in the east.......

[Blade]

Originally posted by papa_kulikov@Jan 23 2004, 09:58 AM
Stalin ended the war in europe.............with the vast armies of russia he single handedly defeated the german's in the east.......
I wouldn't go that far, if Hitler's focus wasn't on other countries such as America and Britain, and totally on Russia, (Among other things of course) the outcome would have been a whole lot different.

[Billy The Mountain]

Like I said if it was not for America and the UK the whole world would be speaking German and japanese by now!


http://www.redsrangers.us/rar_images/redsicons/usa.gif

God Save the Queen

http://www.redsrangers.us/rar_images/redsicons/TN_english.JPG

Also, the brave soldiers of Canada, and Australia

http://www.redsrangers.us/rar_images/redsicons/canada.gif

http://www.redsrangers.us/rar_images/redsicons/TN_australia_wl_e0.JPG

[papa_kulikov]

......well.....i now think that the axis powers where defeated because of all the allied powers fighting against them........everyone did there part to stop the rise of hitler in europe.......and the Japanese empire in asia.....

[Teufel]

Well, as mentioned, World War 2 ended when America dropped the bombs and made Japan surrender, thereby avoiding an invasion of the Japanese mainland that could've cost at least one million American lives and a lot of Japanese.

But the Nazis were taken down by mostly the Americans, British, and Russians. Take one of those out of the equation and the Nazis could've won.

[papa_kulikov]

you must think of everyone else who helped defeat the axis powers.....
Canada,New Zealand,Australia,India, and thats just naming a few........
the whole world helped to defeat the nazis and the japanese...........

[Teufel]

Well, I certainly don't mean to diminish what they did in the war, but they didn't have incredibly significant impacts on the course of the war like the three I mentioned.

[papa_kulikov]

i think they did..........without them the three main powers could not have won the war..........(in my opinion)

[Blade]

The Australians, Canadians and the other countries who helped fight the Axis powers contributed and fought bravely, but without the British, the Russians and the Americans, I think it would have been a lost cause. The Australians had scarce influence in the Pacific, wheras the Americans had a large number of battleships, aircraft carriers and destroyers.

The Canadians helped in D-Day, but if they didn't exist, the Americans or British would have filled the void.

Obviously, if these other countries hadn't helped out in the war, there would have been quite a few more British, Russian and American casualties, but I don't think the influence that these smaller countries made was enough to decide whether the war would have been won or lost. If the major powers didn't exist, I think it would have been slaughter, except for the fact that Australia and Canada are such large countries, and would have been hard to invade.

[papa_kulikov]

but the minor countries did contribute quite alot to the war cause

[Blade]

They sure did, but I'm not sure if it was enough to win the war by themselves. For starters, none of the countries really had a navy which would be fit to challenge the Japanese. Without the Americans, the Japanese would have unchallenged access to the Pacific.

[Billy The Mountain]

In my humble opinion there is too much emphasis given to Russia.

If it were not for the alliance of the USA and UK and alllies Russia would never have had a chance to build up their military and to modernise as they did.

At the beginning of the war Russia had 90% horse calvary and no airforce or navy.

And if Germany had not been fighting on two huge fronts the battle of Stalingrad would have been a German victory and then moscow was only a day away for mechinized units.

Being historically factual they were only able to start producing war planes and tanks of modern design at the very end of WWII.

And as I pointed out they fought none but German forces from the
Caucasus' to Berlin.

I am not trying to degrade their efforts and accomplishments but I want to stick to facts

[papa_kulikov]

they all most have been there for the other to win........take away one and the whole thing falls apart..........

[Mr. bean]

I don't know if this was mention but Also another reason why anyone broke threw to berlin was because of Hitlers Unorganized plan on Puppeting a Regime in Yugoslavia/Croatia at the time. Hitler was wasting too many supplies and such to Croatia the Puppet Regime for what was formerly known as Yugoslavia. At this point the USSR broke threw that very spot. *SIDE NOTE* Hitler went in mad rage practically and ordered execution of all his Astrologists and his astrology books because he believed he was a prophet from god to lead germany into victory for a 1000 years of rule *End of Side Note* Hitler after this began to become very Unorganized as his troops hit rock bottom. At this time if Hitler truely wouldof spent more time on his never ending battle of the borders there possibly could have never been a break to Berlin. Also, as I mentioned USSR Broke threw and had a way better advantage point to reach Berlin.

As for USSR Josef Stalin was scared to the point of Nightmares of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was always steps ahead of Stalin. And USSR was ready to be taken over its a miracle they weren't demolished but them Rooskies do have strength I'll give them that.

[papa_kulikov]

yes the Russians did good didnt they? :thumbsup: ..............the field marshal that lead the trust into Germany was Zhukov.......i think.........
is that right?????

[Mr. bean]

I believe it was a Joint Operation not sure though, but yes Zhukov was a leading marshall in the operation.

[imported_Matbacon]

5 big battle ended the war

Stalingrad

D-Day beaches

Attack on Berlin

Pearl Harbour

Atomb bomb dropped...

[imported_Matbacon]

Oh and yeah did you know austrailia defeated japan preventing them to stop going to russia. What about Africa and the hole African war.
Canada invaded one fo the beaches on D-Day i think its naem was Juha.
Well i'm british and i salute America and russia for helping us and i bow to austrailia new zealand africa canada and india, I spit on finland,germany,austrai-hungray,japan and italy

[EnZym3]

Originally posted by Recluse@Jan 20 2004, 11:42 AM
Hitler was defeated by a combination of the allied forces, the Russians just happened to get to Berlin first.

Russia was very instrumental in defeating the Nazis, but the Russians didn't begin fighting Hitler until he blundered by opening a second front to the war when he invaded Russia in 1941, long after WWII began. The US didn't begin fighting Hitler until after Pearl Harbor (also 1941) when Hitler, as per his agreement with Japan, declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan. However, the US had been a major supplier of material, trucks, jeeps, etc. for the allies before that time.

The French were overrun by Hitler quite easily in the earlier stages of the war, and the UK bore the major burden of fighting Hitler until mid-1941.

The US didn't have much help against Japan, although the Chinese were fighting them (and getting slaughtered) as well.
The US didn't have much help against Japan. Hello??? Australia and New Zealand!!! The British were also in that theatre. Sheesh the dead diggers are rolling in their graves.

[Wafflestomper]

The question implies "If one of these countries wasn't at war with the Axis, which would make it so Germany would have won?" IMO, none of them. It's much too complex to really answer.

Firstly, some people say the Soviets. For good reason, it was them who faced the brunt of the Nazis and finally captured Berlin, forcing surrender. But, there is a counter-argument that the tide didn't turn in Stalin's favor until Stalingrad, where the USSR would have also lost should they not have been supplied by other Allied powers. So the credit should go to Britain and America.

I think the most devastating impact on Hitler was not his enemy, but his own tactics. Fighting a two-front war against the largest army in the world on one side, and the most powerful navy/strongest industry on the other, it was no surprise he ended up defeated. The Russians strongest factor was their numbers, and no matter how technologically superior the Reich was, the fact was the vast majority of his troops would have to march thousands of miles away from the opposite front for victory. Leaving western Europe mostly unoccupied, things like RAF bombings of Germany and the D-Day invasion could occur. If the Wehrmacht could have only focused in one area at a time, undoubtedly they would whoop bootay. So really, credit all around.

So, consider it: Allies without the US? Japanese attack Soviets, take Vladivostok and most of Siberia. Russia falls, Axis probably able to conquer world.

Allies without UK? US must handle Western Europe alone, doubtful. Plus, you're without the Royal Navy, who did good stuff... but I dunno what...

Allies without USSR? Reich keeps strong hold of Western Europe, even the US+UK couldn't handle that.

What did Hitler really need? Some *****in' patience.

@Matbacon: I'll try to answer your questions, but someone correct me if I'm wrong because my knowledge of WW2 is fairly limited, most of what I know is from 9th Grade History, The History Channel and WW2 PC games. :D

Most of the War in Africa was to secure that the Mediterranean would be safe from Allied navy, and to capture the Suez Canal, which would basically halt British materials from India and other Imperial lands. Also, North Africa was necessary to stage an invasion of Italy, by first taking Sicily.

Australia didn't defeat Japan. They helped, but the US did almost the entire job in the Pacific. Plus, without the A-Bomb the Japanese mainland would have had to be invaded, and Australia didn't have the manpower for that. Japan was prepared for full guerilla warfare, Samurai-style. Without all the hunky-Tom-Cruiseness.

And that's Juno Beach.

And your 5 battles, those moreso changed the war, not as much ended it.

(And anyone, if any of my stuff is untrue or maybe a little off, feel free.) :)

[imported_KeV]

Clan:
Fav. Map: I suck
Fav. Gun: hard at
Fav. Gametype: Call of Duty

:lol:

Anyways, I think your post pretty much tells it how it is. Hitler defeated Germany. It's not easy to fight in two theaters of one war; just ask the USA -- we barely got by supplying troops and supplies to both the European and Pacific theater.

And, to be honest, I think most of Hitlers highest ranking officers and officials knew this. Many attempts were made to withdrawal troops/bolster lines on different fronts, but Hitler thought he was invincible.

After a while, a country stops spitting out boys to a useless war effort. That undoubtedly hurt the Germans in the end, as well.

[Slava45]

I'm definatley going to have to go with the ussr. Because they were the ones who took berlin, and they also opened up a front in japanese occupied manchuria in the last week or so of the war. If the americans hadnt dropped the bomb they would have been in japan within a few weeks.

[mcdarkness]

Originally posted by Slava45@May 11 2004, 04:53 AM
I'm definatley going to have to go with the ussr. Because they were the ones who took berlin, and they also opened up a front in japanese occupied manchuria in the last week or so of the war. If the americans hadnt dropped the bomb they would have been in japan within a few weeks.
i agree but the russians didn't take berlin by themselves......it is obvious that the russians did most of the fighting.....from the great plains and the russian steppe country to the bombed streets of berlin.

[Slava45]

Firstly, some people say the Soviets. For good reason, it was them who faced the brunt of the Nazis and finally captured Berlin, forcing surrender. But, there is a counter-argument that the tide didn't turn in Stalin's favor until Stalingrad,

Not true :P The barbarossa started to go against hitler's favor at the seige of moscow. That was the first german defeat on the eastern front. During the aniversery parade of the revolution, in october, soviet troops tanks and vehicles paraded through red sqaure, and through moscow...they marched to the front lines. Many of them never returned. But realizing finaly that the japanese were not going to invade through manchuria, Stalin alowed for more than half of the Far-east army to be sent to Moscow's aid. The experienced, well trained, well equiped troops of the Far-east army with armor and artillery support, were sent to the battle of moscow as reenforcements. By then the bitter russian winter had set in. This time, stalin also alowed his generals to use strategy for the troops instead of just throwing them into the fight.
Hitler had gambled that the war would be over before winter, and he had lost. The reenforcements and the defenders of moscow pushed the german army group centre (which had the bulk of the troops and was given the task of taking moscow) back to the frozen russian steppe. The germans who could retreat, did so leaving tanks vehicles, cars and any other mechinized units behind, for they were not made to operate in such cold weather. Also, even though most were equipped with warm winter clothes and coats the germans were not prepared to fight a war in such bitter cold weather.
Advanced russian ski troops and mechinzed units were at the front of the attack, keeping the germans on the run.

This was the first time the tide of war turned away from the favor of hitler. Though, it was said that the soviet victory at the battle of stalingrad was assurance that the germans would not win the war, and then the battle of Kursk was assurance the the germans would loose the war.

So, consider it: Allies without the US? Japanese attack Soviets, take Vladivostok and most of Siberia. Russia falls, Axis probably able to conquer world.

Actually japan, before it went to war with the other allies, did attack the soviets.
In July of 1938, when the Kwantung Army of Japan attacked troops of the Ruusian Far Eastern Army on the eastern border of Manchukuo. The Kwantung Army was stopped in it's tracks.

[DesertStorm]

all im going to say is the ussr did not end world war 2! all he used for his campeigns were propaganda he didnt do sqaut, the only reason why he even got into germany was the lack of supplies germany sent to the west to hold of the us and british from invading, once they captured and libarted france

[larry]

The title alone should tell you who ended the war --- WORLD WAR 2 --- Everyone contributed not just one country alone -- it was a combined effort -- sure bigger countries contributed more than others but that’s all relative -- every country had its moments of glory and deservedly so – every country lost men and women and some times children – the Russians could not have done it with out the allies supplies, the US couldn’t have either or certainly not ended the war when it did, same goes with the combined efforts and supplies of the Commonwealth -- everyone gave their all when they had to and if just one country had sat out the war, well it would have had a great effect on the eventual out come of the war. Why even the French poured their efforts into espionage, sabotage, smuggling and communications which Eisenhower believed saved their butts a couple of times. So every country help chip away at the final out come. Not just one. The best example I think of cooperation for a common goal had to be the African campaign. Every country need one another and every country took their turn at getting their ar$es kicked. ;)

[Jameslinehan]

Hitler idiocy ended the war...

[Daft Nader]

actually, the Japanese general signed the unconditional surrender, that ended WWII, the A-Bomb was the clinch thought.

[Tizmo]

Woah, talk about bringing back a dead thread!! About the war, when Germany lost the Battle of the Bulge, everyone knew that Germany would lose. Then the Ruskis came into Berlin and occupied it. So pretty much, the US and the Russians won the European theater. The pacific, I would say that the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced Japan to surrender. However, it can also be said that the Japansese also helped win the war in the pacific, because Japans own emperor wanted the war to end because of all of the casualties and suffering. The top Japansese generals did NOT want to surrender.

[Alpha_Pasta]

You could argue the fate of WW2 was settled after the Battle of Stalingrad.

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alpha_Pasta @ Dec 4 2005, 04:44 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
You could argue the fate of WW2 was settled after the Battle of Stalingrad.
[/b][/quote]

That is also true.

[Alpha_Pasta]

And also, things began to turn after the battle of el alamein, although that isn't the major winning battle of the war

[Tizmo]

Yeah, it's not that major, but the tank army began to see a decline after that. About Stalingrad, that was the turning point of the war.

[BritishBulldog1]

El Alemain was the first loss Germany had and showed that they could be beaten, which also increased the moral of all allied troops, so I think that rates as the turning point.

BB1

[Fighter falcon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James Linehan @ Dec 3 2005, 07:42 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Hitler idiocy ended the war...
[/b][/quote]

this is an interesting thread. hitler's idiocy was a huge part of the reason the allies won. i'll name a few blunders:
no long range bomber fleet, switching to destroying cities instead of airfields during battle of britain, and a lot more. unfortunatly, i just happen to be unable to remember them right now. maybe in an edit i'll add some more

the US ended the last leg of the war against japan, still stubbornly resisting against the superior numbers and resources of the allies. they would've been destroyed anyway. but the atom bomb was a better alternative to an invasion. the japs would have resisted for every inch of land and it would have been a lot bloodier for both sides. but the atom bomb still did a lot of damage to innocent civilians.

and to make note of the last few posts, i think the biggest turning point was stalingrad. that was when the russians defeated the germans. the allies got a huge addition to their list of countries and ever since stalingrad, the germans were constantly retreating.

[mp33]

First huge mistake that, imo, decided the end of the war was the loss of the battle of britain and the offensive against russia.

1) If the idiots like Göring, Udet and Hitler would have continued the airfield bombings and inventing long range bombers, like falcon fighter already said, UK would be part of Germany today.
USA wouldn't had a chance to attack the west front.

2) Afrika: It wasn't only the supportment for Italy, no, Germany wanted colonies. Like Wilhelm II. before WW1 Hitler did the same mistake.

3) Attacking Russia while having 2 fronts. Also dumb was the assignment of the fighters from russia to africa in the winter.

4) Rather "bad" intelligence services. Canaris ftw!


After all, we all can be happy these mistakes been made =)

[sankyonage]

Soviets were ready to end 2WW in 1941. German offensive met Russian forces ready for invasion. Stalin was planning to break the alliance with Nazis. Hitler simply won the race! (His decision saved - in the long run - Western Europe from communists. Think of Russian tanks speeding accross Europe, with weak England and not engaged USA - no second front!)

Russians got Berlin after political decision - Ike made Patton believe in German strongholds in Alps, so he slowed down instead of running to Reichstag - he could be first.

First signifficant turn point was Battle for Britain - the "end of beginning". Glory to pilots of RAF and their allies.

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sotokaitennage @ Dec 6 2005, 03:36 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
First signifficant turn point was Battle for Britain - the "end of beginning". Glory to pilots of RAF and their allies.
[/b][/quote]

Yeah, the Germans were really close of winning. It was only a matter of hours. England was all ready to surrender, but then as posted previously, Hitler made a stupid mistake and called off the attack.

[BritishBulldog1]

"Close to surrender?" where do you get that from? Beaten perhaps, but surrender was never an option, not for Churchill. It is true that some (one I think) cabinet member wanted to discuss terms, but Churchill overuled him.

BB1

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BritishBulldog1 @ Dec 6 2005, 07:59 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
"Close to surrender?" where do you get that from? Beaten perhaps, but surrender was never an option, not for Churchill. It is true that some (one I think) cabinet member wanted to discuss terms, but Churchill overuled him.

BB1
[/b][/quote]

My dad is a world war 2 freak. He told me all about that. What I meant by the "close to surrender", I meant that England was really close of losing, not necessarily surrendering.

[BritishBulldog1]

Well, there you see it. Chinese whispers, being beaten is not the same as surrendering, just like Hitler didn't "call off the attack" he just changed the objectives from the airfields to the towns and cities. That was one huge mistake.

BB1

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BritishBulldog1 @ Dec 7 2005, 10:02 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Well, there you see it. Chinese whispers, being beaten is not the same as surrendering, just like Hitler didn't "call off the attack" he just changed the objectives from the airfields to the towns and cities. That was one huge mistake.

BB1
[/b][/quote]

Lol, chinese whispers!! Yeah, when the Germans used the v1's, they could be easily shot down. Then the v2's, they basically hit civilian targets, not military targets. Yeah, the RAF would have lost if Hitler did not switch objectives.

[Alpha_Pasta]

BB1, it was Lord Halifax, after humilitaion at Dunkirk that wanted to discuss a peace deal with hitler.

[Fighter falcon]

i think that the battle of britain was the main thing that caused everything after it to be possible including the allied victory. despite incredible odds, they stemmed the german airborne offensive.as winston churchill put it, "never in the face of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" had they not won the battle of britain, the nazis would have overwhelmed england and taken over the world. the few were the pilots who flew during the battle. our way of life today may well have been in the hands of about 800 pilots, and reginald mitchell and sidney cam, designer of the hurricane and spitfire respectively.

and to address what would have happened if not for those people i just mentioned, i watched this documentary about if hitler had invaded. the british army would have been overwhelmed by blitzkrieg and britain would probably be forced to surrender. then, the world would be nazi and not just the people then, the people now too. think of the significance of it. if not for the 800 or so pilots, their support crew, and the designers of huricane and spitfire, we could all be nazis, worshipping hitler and making jews extinct.

[Alpha_Pasta]

Well.

The passing of the Battle of Britain brought on the Blitz.

[BritishBulldog1]

Yes it did Alpha, but it was the wrong tactic and Hitler eventually paid the price and thanks for reminding me. Yes it was indeed Lord Halifax.

As for being beaten Fighter, I guess we'll never know, but I rather suspect that we would have had a very active underground.

BB1

[sharpshooter07]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fighter falcon @ Dec 7 2005, 12:04 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
we could all be nazis, worshipping hitler and making jews extinct.
[/b][/quote]

Man I wouldnt accepect being a nazi would you. Screw hitler I would lead a massive rebilion and use gurrelia tactics(although i would probaly not survive for long)

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fighter falcon @ Dec 7 2005, 12:04 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
we could all be nazis, worshipping hitler and making jews extinct.
[/b][/quote]

This soudns kind of weird, but the funny thing about the whole war is that if it would of not been for the Germans and for Hitler, I most likely would be some Russian, with nothing in my life. The Germans helped Finland out during the war. This is kind of off topic, but, oh well.

[Alpha_Pasta]

Yeah, what is that about?

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alpha_Pasta @ Dec 8 2005, 12:31 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Yeah, what is that about?
[/b][/quote]

I'm just going to tell everything I know. On November 30th 1939, the Soviet troos attacked Finland from the east. That started the winter war. The Russians marched into Finland with their marching uniforms thinking that it would be easy to take over Finland. But that was not so. The Finns, outnumbered and outgunned, used superb military tactics to repel the Russians back to where they came from. On one Battle, called Raatteentien Taistelu, the Russians lost 23,000 men. During the whole war, Finland lost 25,000 men. So, lots of Russians died on that road. Then came the Battle of Lapland, where the Finns fought against the Germans in 1941. Here, the Germans burned Lapland because Finland refused to do something (I can't remember what it was). Then couple years later, in 1944, came the Jatkosota, or the Continuation war. This is where my point comes to. Germany gave lots of equipment to Finland (tanks, airplanes, guns, ammo etc). If Germany would have not done that, then Finland would have lost. Also, one other reason why Finland did not fall under communism was that the Mannerheim, the Finnish leader (not president) refused Germany's order to continue attacking Russia. If Finland would have continued, then Finland would have lost. There is still lots more to these battles, but those are the main basics.

[Alpha_Pasta]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tizmo @ Dec 8 2005, 12:14 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alpha_Pasta @ Dec 8 2005, 12:31 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Yeah, what is that about?
[/b][/quote]

I'm just going to tell everything I know. On November 30th 1939, the Soviet troos attacked Finland from the east. That started the winter war. The Russians marched into Finland with their marching uniforms thinking that it would be easy to take over Finland. But that was not so. The Finns, outnumbered and outgunned, used superb military tactics to repel the Russians back to where they came from. On one Battle, called Raatteentien Taistelu, the Russians lost 23,000 men. During the whole war, Finland lost 25,000 men. So, lots of Russians died on that road. Then came the Battle of Lapland, where the Finns fought against the Germans in 1941. Here, the Germans burned Lapland because Finland refused to do something (I can't remember what it was). Then couple years later, in 1944, came the Jatkosota, or the Continuation war. This is where my point comes to. Germany gave lots of equipment to Finland (tanks, airplanes, guns, ammo etc). If Germany would have not done that, then Finland would have lost. Also, one other reason why Finland did not fall under communism was that the Mannerheim, the Finnish leader (not president) refused Germany's order to continue attacking Russia. If Finland would have continued, then Finland would have lost. There is still lots more to these battles, but those are the main basics.
[/b][/quote]




I've got something else I know.

The Finns struck a peace deal with the Russians allowing the Russians 30% of all Finland's industrial power. The brits also formed units and sent weapons over there.

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alpha_Pasta @ Dec 8 2005, 01:54 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tizmo @ Dec 8 2005, 12:14 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alpha_Pasta @ Dec 8 2005, 12:31 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Yeah, what is that about?
[/b][/quote]

I'm just going to tell everything I know. On November 30th 1939, the Soviet troos attacked Finland from the east. That started the winter war. The Russians marched into Finland with their marching uniforms thinking that it would be easy to take over Finland. But that was not so. The Finns, outnumbered and outgunned, used superb military tactics to repel the Russians back to where they came from. On one Battle, called Raatteentien Taistelu, the Russians lost 23,000 men. During the whole war, Finland lost 25,000 men. So, lots of Russians died on that road. Then came the Battle of Lapland, where the Finns fought against the Germans in 1941. Here, the Germans burned Lapland because Finland refused to do something (I can't remember what it was). Then couple years later, in 1944, came the Jatkosota, or the Continuation war. This is where my point comes to. Germany gave lots of equipment to Finland (tanks, airplanes, guns, ammo etc). If Germany would have not done that, then Finland would have lost. Also, one other reason why Finland did not fall under communism was that the Mannerheim, the Finnish leader (not president) refused Germany's order to continue attacking Russia. If Finland would have continued, then Finland would have lost. There is still lots more to these battles, but those are the main basics.
[/b][/quote]




I've got something else I know.

The Finns struck a peace deal with the Russians allowing the Russians 30% of all Finland's industrial power. The brits also formed units and sent weapons over there.
[/b][/quote]

Yes, the main thing in the peace deal was peace, of course, and that Russia would gain the extra land that Finland had right on the border. Compare these pictures.

Finland now (after the deal) in this pic (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/33/300px-Map_of_Finland.png)

and Finland before the deal in this pic (http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Images/newbpics/Swed-winter-war-map.jpg)

[Fighter falcon]

that was the russo-finnish war. russia attacked their borders, and they got into a war and everything. and i remember that the russians lost way more men then the fins. that was a huge weakness in the red army and russia. of the 55 million people killed in ww2, 20 mil were russian.

[Tizmo]

Yeah, those were the military deaths. The civilian death toll was way higher. In the soviet union alone, talin killed off 65 million of his own people.

[Alpha_Pasta]

And all the time Hitler was watching the USSR for its use of military tactics and what weaponry they possesed.

[Impalist]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>U.S.S.R captured Hitler, not U.S[/b][/quote]
Hitler committed suicide, so you mean the U.S.S.R. captured the Reichstag, the German parliament house.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>they didn't capture hitler though, he committed suicide.[/b][/quote]
Exactly.

[Tizmo]

Welcome to the boards impalist!! Yes, the Russians took over the Reichstag. Before they did that, the Germans fought desperately for Berlin against the Russians.

[Impalist]

Thanks mate, yep you are quite right style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

[Tizmo]

Oy mate!!

[Alpha_Pasta]

Yes, even if the germans had by a small chance kept the russians out of berlin, the russians and allies would have surrounded it, and plastered it in bombs.

[Tizmo]

Yeah, they totally outnumbered the Germans.

[relax 1.0]

HITLER ENDED THE WAR!

Well doe Hitly old pal!

[Alpha_Pasta]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cyclopse @ Jan 20 2006, 07:38 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
HITLER ENDED THE WAR!

Well doe Hitly old pal!
[/b][/quote]


Agreed, but the Russians drove him to do it.

Who knows what would have happened to him if they got hold of him.

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cyclopse @ Jan 20 2006, 08:38 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
HITLER ENDED THE WAR!

Well doe Hitly old pal!
[/b][/quote]

Yes, ended the war in Europe, not in the pacific.

[Sandy]

The US owned the ***** outta WW2. J/k

Nah, you really cannot say one person, or one country ended the war. When the U.S. Got involved, because of Japan, it seemed to get the allied forces into a planning mood. That is when a lot of the major actions were exacted with cooperation of other countries. Storming the north beaches could not have been done alone without the allies. Yes, the US had the ability to paratroop many soldiers, but if the British or Canadians had the ability they would have done so.

[relax 1.0]

It was an effort by ALL the allied countries involved. Britian in Africa, US in Normandy and the Russians on the Eastern Front, who knows what would have happened in the Germans won in Russia?

Oh and if in wasnt for British intelligence, and the french resistence, there would have been no D-Day.

[Chief Master Sgt Walter Harriman]

I think America won ww2 for the allies. With out America's involvement, Germany would have had most of their forces concentrated on the USSR. The soviet union simply didn't have good enough leadership, their officers simply sent their soldiers in to die. They wasted hundreds of thousands of good people.

America did kick ass. The British and Canadians simply didn't have enough soldiers. They were both key in smaller ops and intelligence of course.

I don't know a ton of history, but I've read some stuff, and I think the eventual death toll of Russian soldiers was in the millions, and many many millions. If they were trained better and not treated like dirt by their officers and by Stalin, they no doubt would have been the guys I would have voted for.

[Tizmo]

Also, looking from the German side, if Hitler would of not made some specfic mistakes, Germany would of been so much stronger.

[BritishBulldog1]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chief Master Sgt Walter Harriman @ Jan 24 2006, 03:07 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I think America won ww2 for the allies. With out America's involvement, Germany would have had most of their forces concentrated on the USSR.
[/b][/quote]

Statements like that tend to inflame attitudes. When the USA finally had no real choice but to come to the physical aid of Europe, they wanted to charge in all gung ho. Churchill persuaded them that they shouldn't just storm across the channel and that they should test their men in battle first, or let the British and Canadian veterans put them through war training. USA decided to test their men first - in Tunisia. Check out http://www.army.mil/cmh/brochures/tunisia/tunisia.htm and start from page 16 (you can read the preceding if you wish, but 16 shows how exposed the USA was.)

BB1

[Alpha_Pasta]

One of the key things that srtikes me is that Hitler trained his armies as offensive, and eventually took too much than he could defend - his army had no idea how to defend.

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

America ended it. Atomic bond was no doubt the motive behind the Japanese surrender.. if not we would have to fight well over 3 million of Japans finest. The Russians, overly cerimoniously I might add, took the reischtag. Big deal, they lost 300k men to Hitler scouts and the elderly.. huge accomplishment IMO. The fact of the matter is that America won the war, and thats why we enjoy our prestige of international superpower.

WWII was an unjust war anyway. Germany was totally *****ed over by the Treaty of Verasilles (Sp?) and left an economy in ruin. Zionists bargained for their land in Israel with the British war cabinet with a promise that they would weild their power in America to bring us into WWI. If not for our pro-British stance in WWI, why should we enter WWII, or on the side of the "Allies"? Common language/culture with british, true, but we had a huge minority of German/Central Europeans living here, so an isolationist standpoint would probably had been adopted for both wars, if not for Zionists. The Germans had every *****ing right to lash out at their oppressors, and we should have bombed Moscow instead of Berlin in my opinion.

The real culprits of WWII was not the NSDAP, not Adolf Hitler, not anyone but the French and British, and, more specicifically, the Zionists.

My unjust WWII spiel..

Enemy

[MFKR]

I actually would have to say Germany did a fine job of defending. But twords the end they were forced to use less trained, younger troops, most of the hardened vets were either dead or captured. Lack of ammo and supplies hurt the German defense even more so. They were excellent defenders overall, i mean look at the Italian campaign. The SS were so well dug in, with little to work with, and prompted the Americans to invade France (d-day) in order to make another front.This made the Germans draw troops from other fronts to cover this new gapeing hole.

[Alpha_Pasta]

The German army was not created to defend.

It worked far better when it had light tanks and blitzkrieg.

[pilot]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alpha_Pasta @ Feb 17 2006, 05:10 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
The German army was not created to defend.

It worked far better when it had light tanks and blitzkrieg.
[/b][/quote]


Thats true, the Wermacht and the SS were not ment for defending, they were ment for Blitzkreig (lightning warfare) thats how they brought most of Europe to its knees early in the war. Maybe they were good at defending, but they were not made for it nor did the hardend SS and Wermacht (what was left of them) like it.

[Alpha_Pasta]

Hitler should have realised that when he created his army.

[pilot]

yes

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

Haha.. all this is true. But Germany still loses. One word; Resources. Native people in the Phillipines still today worship empty oil drums and former supply dumps of the U.S. Military, they are called "Material cults". The fact of the matter is that Germany and Japan are alike, densely populated in a small area in a comparsion to the amount of people they had living there. The U.S.S.R. was exponentially bigger, though it had only a fairly slight population advantage on Germany. Same thing with the U.S., And the UK for that matter (with its vast empire). Germany and Japan only had one thing: supreme and utter loyalty from their people and ingenuity, and that alone was not enough to defeat a well suplied allied army.

No matter what pretty much, Allies win. Germany had the advantage of intial shock, but no way near enough to overcome the combined strength of the world.

[BritishBulldog1]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(COD-RIOT-STARTER @ Feb 17 2006, 03:10 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
America ended it. Atomic bond was no doubt the motive behind the Japanese surrender.. if not we would have to fight well over 3 million of Japans finest. The Russians, overly cerimoniously I might add, took the reischtag. Big deal, they lost 300k men to Hitler scouts and the elderly.. huge accomplishment IMO. The fact of the matter is that America won the war, and thats why we enjoy our prestige of international superpower.

WWII was an unjust war anyway. Germany was totally *****ed over by the Treaty of Verasilles (Sp?) and left an economy in ruin. Zionists bargained for their land in Israel with the British war cabinet with a promise that they would weild their power in America to bring us into WWI. If not for our pro-British stance in WWI, why should we enter WWII, or on the side of the "Allies"? Common language/culture with british, true, but we had a huge minority of German/Central Europeans living here, so an isolationist standpoint would probably had been adopted for both wars, if not for Zionists. The Germans had every *****ing right to lash out at their oppressors, and we should have bombed Moscow instead of Berlin in my opinion.

The real culprits of WWII was not the NSDAP, not Adolf Hitler, not anyone but the French and British, and, more specicifically, the Zionists.

My unjust WWII spiel..

Enemy[/b][/quote]

Some mis-conceptions there COD. Japan was on the brink of surrendering before the bomb was dropped. True, there were die-hards that did not want to capitulate, but the tide was turning.

America did not "win" the war, and it is not the reason why America became a superpower, that has far more to do with economics. With the devestation caused to the countries in Europe, money had to be found to rebuild them. America never had this devestation and could therefore concentrate on their economy and made a very good living supplying the European nations so devestated, due to the fact that so much of their own industry had been destroyed.

As for WWII being unjust, you reasoning fails me. Check the treaty out http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treat..._versailles.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm). Germany and it's allies caused a great wrong upon the world. As the old saying goes, "to the victor go the spoils of war." Remember, it was Japan that bought the USA into WWII, as Japan had allied itself with Germany. So it had nowt to do with common language. If it were not for Pearl Harbour, the USA may never have joined the allies. As for by-passing Berlin and hitting Moscow, it's what Churchill wanted, but not the USA.

Thats my correctional piece style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

Sorry BB1, gotta say your fundementally wrong. The Bias is seen in the suffix regarding the Treaty. It is UNPRECEDENTED to expect a Nation to supply the Nation it vanquished completely. Germany was disgraced by the allies in every way. The economic ruin on them made their currency worth literally nothing, the ruin caused by the strain of repaying the victor. During the Crusades, when Saladin retook Jerusalem, during a war caused by the crusaders, did he force the nations of Europe to pay him back if they wanted to live? No, because he was a just man he respected the rights of the vanquished. Germany was no terrorist nation in WWI, it was an honerable foe. So why they were treated the way they were was pure British and French reactionism. If you a abuse a people as pride as the Germans, you gotta see what happened coming.

"The terms of this so called peace agreement seem more to me like terms of perpetual war, not perpetual peace"
-Gen. Macarthur

[BritishBulldog1]

I disagree again. Not with your interpretation with the treaty. Saladin is not a good example, as he didn't conquer other nations that waged war on him. He beat them on his own soil. Having said that, when Hitler came to power in 1933 he refused to pay anymore and the allies did nothing, however, went too far when trying to reclaim land and didn't just stop at reclaiming land, did he. He went all the way and took whole countries.

Of course, you have only picked one specific area of my previous reply to you, yet make a sweeping statment that I am fundamentally wrong. Did you mean wrong in my entire explanation? Because thats how it reads and yet you only back-up that claim with the treaty.

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

First post first, I'll pick apart when I left behind.

Ok, Lets look at your comment about Japan being on the brink of surrender? Are you serious? They were indoctrinated since youth never to surrender, and half its military was based in the mainland. They would have fought even harder for their own land than conquered islands, and beach landings all over Japan would cause thousands to hundreds of thousands, to, perhaps, millions of casualties on the allies before the war would be over.

No, about the economic superiority. I disagree entirely. Before WWII, America was mostly an isolationist outcast, the "sleeping giant" analogy works fine. We had, almost religiously, followed the Monroe doctrine of not meddling with the affairs of foreign nations, that was our policy. WWII and WWI were really the first time America did something for someone abroad's sake, and the shear size of the war and our part in it is why, I beleive, America is seen as the worlds only superpower. No doubt we made a killing supplying European nations, but are we not STILL waiting for some WWII debts to be repaid, alot of it forgiven. We, through lend-lease gave the allies alot of suplies for free, and, though alot was returned, projectiles and captured arms cant be, so thats money down the drain. So, through forgiven debts and military handouts to European nations, as well as us saving their ass as many say, and all we got was this stupid "superpower" t-shirt and the title of the nation everybody loves to hate, despite our generosity. I would say Europe got the better deal, wouldnt you?

Well BB1, you are treading on uneasy ground saying Jerusalem was Saladins territory. Your giving the Arabs alot of slack saying that, seeing as the Hebrews lived there for many years too. And, the christians sure have a claim to it through its importance to the religion , and they happened to control it, so the way I see it, it was their land. But anyway, I agree, not the best analogy. Here is a better one, American Civil War. South is crushed by Union industry. Dishonered. Had better soldiers but lost because of overwhelming numerical disadvantages. Had a right cause in the opinion of alot of people at the time, and, I add, today. Sounds alot like Germany post WWI. There was NEVER a call from the Union for the South to repay all debts. Some wanted punishment, such as loss of right to vote which IMO is worse, but no one suggested the South pay for the economic and human cost to the North. That would ruin their economy and make whats left of their people fight to the death. The North had the forsight to see this and acted accordingly, the post WWI allies, or should I say England and France, did not. They caused WWII, they were damn well going to lose it, the Americans stood by them besides and won the war. All there is to it the way I look at it.

Agreement at all?

Enemy

[BritishBulldog1]

Nope, still no agreement. You are seriously wrong about the Japanese situation. Historical records show that the emperor wanted to capitulate before the bomb was dropped. The big stumbling block was the allies wanted total surrender/capitulation and the emperor to lose his "divinity." In the end, even after the two bombs were dropped, the Japanese would have continued fighting if that that clause had remained. So "unconditional" surrender was not obtained as that had called for the emperor to step down, in fact, as we all know, he remained.

USA has only recently assumed the mantle of the "only" superpower. Until the USSR broke up, there were two. On lend lease, the vast majority of repayments were made. I know they were still being paid in the very late 1960's, not sure when the actual last payment was made. With regards to lost equipment to the enemy, that is no real concern of the USA's if it was to be paid for. Nor can you say the equipment was given for "free" under lend/lease, as it still had to be paid for, albeit later. A loan is not free gratis.

Now, I do not wish to undermine the USA's importance in the war. It was vitally important and appreciated by the British as a whole, especially me. Having said that, apart from lend lease, the British held out against the the Germans virtually single handedly throughout the battle of Britain, to the extent that Hitler gave up on the idea of invading Britain. Remember also, it was the British who inflicted the first major defeat on the Germans at El Alemein, before the Russians beat them at Stalingrade. One could argue that the USA's intervention came at a time when Hitler's brain was becoming befuddled and the Germans were becoming demoralised and weakened with two severe losses. He had too many fronts and was becoming stretched to put it mildly.

Hmmm, didn't mean to imply Palestine was Saladins territory. I agree that the Jews had a longer outstanding claim to those lands. As far as your analogy with the American civil war goes, a better example, so much so that America may not have made them pay for damage inflicted BUT and it's a very big but, the South was never allowed to break away and form their own government. They were conquered and to the victor went the spoils of war. The whole of the south was indelibly incorporated into the USA, never again to be split. So, in a manner of speaking, you could say they have indeed paid for losing, they were no longer free to run the south the way that they wanted. The British and the French never ever attempted to incorporate Germany into their respective empires, unlike Russia.

BB1

[17]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kenshin Himura @ Jan 20 2004, 01:23 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I say U.S.S.R

U.S.S.R captured Hitler, not U.S

Japan vs U.S.A was another war, but it was glued in to a peice of WWII.

What do you think?
[/b][/quote]
The way ended when the US and Japanese commanders met on that battleship and made a treaty or whatever.. I dont know the details. USSR captured hitler, but that wasn't the end of the war.

[Alpha_Pasta]

They didn't capture him....he killed himself.

[BritishBulldog1]

Correct, Alpha, no one captured Hitler and as Japan and Germany were allies, the fight continued after Berlin. The Russians had success angainst the Japanese, as did the British. The USA were also faring well and the Japenese were on the retreat on all fronts before the bomb was dropped.

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

Clearly your loyalty to your country has clouded your judgement, which, though respectable is pretty foolish. If you think the UK had enough manpower and resources to storm the beaches of normandy, liberate France, Retake Japanese islands, destroy the Afrika korps, take the Japanese homeland minus the Manhattan project and then fight their way up the Italian peninsula I am going to hold no reservations in calling you clinically insane. And lest you forget, the Germans gave up on attacking England because American pilots and planes came to assist the RAF. Alone, England was a sinking ship, and any denial of that is ridiculous. I mean, England had the ***** kicked out of it so bad by the end of the war, you couldnt mantain any of your major colonies and almost all were lost within a decade.

Now, all I will say for Russia's invovlment is before we started supplying them, they couldnt beat a bunch of drunk Finnish skiers, what makes you think they could take the Third Reich? Remember that until they got on their feet, all their little toys came from the US of A.

The USSR was a figment-of-your-imagination-superpower. We used it as a weapon of fear primarily to fight communism, which is good IMO. Surveyors who went to Russia in the aftermath of the destruction of the Soviet Union proclaimed, in assurance, that 85% of Russias nuclear sites would never have fired at all. The USSR was suffering from economic decay and the republics it held were going to liberate themselves one way or another. The marx system failed, and Russia shows us why. We were the only superpower since WWII, but China is on its way to being the second.



And BB1, we arent talking about "paying for losing", which I beleive as well with the whole "The victor has the right to pose its own terms on the vanquish" doctrine. However, if you dishonor your foe and do something that you know, and have been warned (macarthur) will probably cause future problems. It was the anger of the British and French and your beligerency that caused WWII.

About the emporor, are you aware of Japanese major was about to lead a coup to prevent him from making a deal? If the military seized power from the emperor, you'd be looking at a hell of a fight.

Brits are always proud of their heritage and past actions though, something I respect alot.

Enemy

[Tizmo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(COD-RIOT-STARTER @ Feb 19 2006, 07:49 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Now, all I will say for Russia's invovlment is before we started supplying them, they couldnt beat a bunch of drunk Finnish skiers, what makes you think they could take the Third Reich? Remember that until they got on their feet, all their little toys came from the US of A.
[/b][/quote]

You do not have the right to say that they were a bunch of drunk skiers. Ok, lots were drunk, but not everyone was drunk at all. The Russians lost because they were overconfident. They came in marching uniforms, and thought said that it would be an easy win, but no. Also, the Finnish used tactics that the Russians could not fight against.

[BritishBulldog1]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(COD-RIOT-STARTER @ Feb 19 2006, 06:49 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Clearly your loyalty to your country has clouded your judgement, which, though respectable is pretty foolish. If you think the UK had enough manpower and resources to storm the beaches of normandy, liberate France, Retake Japanese islands, destroy the Afrika korps, take the Japanese homeland minus the Manhattan project and then fight their way up the Italian peninsula I am going to hold no reservations in calling you clinically insane. And lest you forget, the Germans gave up on attacking England because American pilots and planes came to assist the RAF. Alone, England was a sinking ship, and any denial of that is ridiculous. I mean, England had the ***** kicked out of it so bad by the end of the war, you couldnt mantain any of your major colonies and almost all were lost within a decade.[/b][/quote]

Now where did I ever state or imply that we could have done that? Independance was offered to those nations that helped in the war. Didn't come as quick as wanted for some, hence people like Ghandi. As far as your comments about American pilots, the claim that it was American pilots and planes that won the battle of britain (which is what your comment implies) is outlandish and historically incorrect. Both the Spitfire and Hurricane were British Planes running on Merlin engines. Then there were also the Polish, French, Australian and Canadian pilots that also assisted, but the majority of pilots were British. The Polish had such a large contingent that they had a whole squadron to themselves. The ONLY foreigners to do so.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(COD-RIOT-STARTER @ Feb 19 2006, 06:49 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>Now, all I will say for Russia's invovlment is before we started supplying them, they couldnt beat a bunch of drunk Finnish skiers, what makes you think they could take the Third Reich? Remember that until they got on their feet, all their little toys came from the US of A.

The USSR was a figment-of-your-imagination-superpower. We used it as a weapon of fear primarily to fight communism, which is good IMO. Surveyors who went to Russia in the aftermath of the destruction of the Soviet Union proclaimed, in assurance, that 85% of Russias nuclear sites would never have fired at all. The USSR was suffering from economic decay and the republics it held were going to liberate themselves one way or another. The marx system failed, and Russia shows us why. We were the only superpower since WWII, but China is on its way to being the second.[/b][/quote]

Sorry Cod, that isn't even worthy of an answer. Cuba ring any bells?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(COD-RIOT-STARTER @ Feb 19 2006, 06:49 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>And BB1, we arent talking about "paying for losing", which I beleive as well with the whole "The victor has the right to pose its own terms on the vanquish" doctrine. However, if you dishonor your foe and do something that you know, and have been warned (macarthur) will probably cause future problems. It was the anger of the British and French and your beligerency that caused WWII.[/b][/quote]

Actually, that is not entirely correct, the British were happy for a softer line, USA just wanted to walk away from it (they had no land lost or property) and the French dug their heels in.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(COD-RIOT-STARTER @ Feb 19 2006, 06:49 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>About the emporor, are you aware of Japanese major was about to lead a coup to prevent him from making a deal? If the military seized power from the emperor, you'd be looking at a hell of a fight.
[/b][/quote]

That is quite correct and the main reason why the demand for the Emperor to step down was dropped.

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Now where did I ever state or imply that we could have done that?[/b][/quote]

Answer

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>One could argue that the USA's intervention came at a time when Hitler's brain was becoming befuddled and the Germans were becoming demoralised and weakened with two severe losses[/b][/quote]

Basically, as I saw it, you were implying the Germans were in such bad shape when the U.S. entered the war, the result was already known. Then I listed all the neccesary steps to defeating Germany that occured AFTER all this, and it should be clearly understood the U.S. was the main reason for allied victory.

As for Russia, I take your lack of response as a submission to my side of the arguement on that, seeing as Cuba is and was (save for a short period of time in a tense standoff) an afterthought at best.

And as for the treaty, I guess you subscribe to "Always blame the French"

Just a question as someone with limited knowledge of the treaty, why were the French who of the Big Three (UK, US, and France) had the least to do with winning the war were allowed to ***** it up so bad when they in fact had a huge mutiny during the war that came close to costing them the war?

[BritishBulldog1]

Nope, you're putting words in my "mouth", that was not meant to be the implication. I apologise if it sounded that way. I'm just saying that the enemy had been weakened and moral had taken a knock. It was not quite so difficult once they realised they could be beaten. As for America being the main reason for winning the war, no, I cannot agree with that. Without British training the usa would have suffered more Tunisia's, which was their first attempt at attacking the Germans and they got their butts kicked, which proved the British high command correct when they convinced the USA NOT to try a Normandy landing first.

I have responded to the Russian comment, not that it is really worthy of comment, it's utter drivel.

Always blame the French? of course, why not style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif Seriously, there was a two way split between the French and the British as to what to do about Germany. The French were intransigent and the USA were not that bothered, it wasn't in their backyard, nor should you play down the part the French underground played in passing information and causing sabatage.

However you look at it, it was a combined effort, every country that participated on the side of the Allies played their part, not least of all the Canadians.

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

BB1, I think your problem in this discussion, if you have one, is that you cant see the big picture. You see individual efforts of heroism by Canadians, Brits, French etc. But fail to realize they would all be in vain minus America. Americas bomber fleet in its pre-war disrepair was larger than the lufftwaffes at its best. Americas vast size and economy practically puts us at another level than any European country. We another 0 in our defense budget than the British, the second largest spender. That should tell you something. British training? i think not. Over 5000 Training Camps/Forts were erected in America, one 2 miles from my house.

In both wars, America was the trump card. Whoever we sided with would have, with no doubt, won.

All there is to it,

Enemy

[Savage]

I would have to disagree (im australian, lol though i think British think to highly of themselves) anyway many Americans were trained in BRITAIN

[BritishBulldog1]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(COD-RIOT-STARTER @ Feb 20 2006, 02:03 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
BB1, I think your problem in this discussion, if you have one, is that you cant see the big picture. You see individual efforts of heroism by Canadians, Brits, French etc. But fail to realize they would all be in vain minus America. Americas bomber fleet in its pre-war disrepair was larger than the lufftwaffes at its best. Americas vast size and economy practically puts us at another level than any European country. We another 0 in our defense budget than the British, the second largest spender. That should tell you something. British training? i think not. Over 5000 Training Camps/Forts were erected in America, one 2 miles from my house.

In both wars, America was the trump card. Whoever we sided with would have, with no doubt, won.

All there is to it,

Enemy
[/b][/quote]

Hmmm maybe, maybe not, I don't think so. I like to think I am able to see both sides of the coin. Personally, I don't think any country on it's own would have been able to withstand the might of the German blitzkreig at it's height, including the USA. I don't disagree that the USA had lots of training camps, but if the training is not appropriate for what they are going to face, it ain't a lot of help. Again, you are very wrong if you think British training did not make the american soldier better and I agree, the American intervention was needed and very welcome. As far as the American economy is concerned, you really need to do a little more research. Prior to the 2nd world war, America was in a severe depression and the economy was in terrible shape. The war changed that - dramatically. By supplying the allies with weapons, America was able to rebuild it's economy without the knockbacks of collateral damage on it's own soil.

Seems to me that you are the person unable to see the bigger picture. Having the men, the money and the weaponry is of no benefit if the men don't know how to use the weapons effectively and haven't had the correct training. Tunisia showed that and look at the Russians. Just how many men did they lose even with American weapons?

Lets suppose Germany didn't attack Russia and didn't have an Eastern front to contend with. I rather suspect it would have been a very different view we would have now. Hitler had overstretched himself and America didn't join the fray until that was the situation.

Just for Savage. I haven't really mentioned the Australians as their theatre of war was predominantely in the far East, against Japan. Again, their input was extremely welcome.

However you look at it, no one single country won the war, but due to the lack of collateral damage, the USA reaped all the benefits for their economy.

England and Germany followed by France probably suffered the greatest collateral damage and had to spend to rebuild their countries, except Germany was rebuilt with the assistance of the allies. In conclusion and from an economic point of view, the USA came out of the war in far better shape then when they went in and being the only country big enough and with the factory production/capability, they won the war from an economic stand point, that much, I will agree with.

BB1

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

I thought we were getting somewhere, then you filled that last post with glaring half-truths. Your victories in Tunasia were fine, but Africa was not the dominant front. The allies without America could not and would not accomplish all that I mentioned. I think the problem is you dont understand America. You dont understand your country is as big as one of your states. America could easily take the Germans and Japanese. We spent years ignoring our military, yet it took us less than 2 years to do what took the germans decades. America, given its vastness of both people and resources would no doubt had gone on to victory vs Germany or Japan alone. Now, in our arrogance it is easy for us, as Americans, to ignore others contributions. But WWII was war, in my eyes, that was 2/3 America and 1/3 everyone else.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>However you look at it, no one single country won the war, but due to the lack of collateral damage, the USA reaped all the benefits for their economy.[/b][/quote]

True enough, but I would count the loss of 300,000 of our finest young men in a war we were invovled in for someone elses sake to be a pretty damned big case of "collateral damage".

Oh common BB1. The blitz of London was really the only damage the English took, and only for less than a year. I dont remember any land battles being fought on English soil.. I might be mistaken, but England wasnt in need of that much rebuilding, or at least not the same degree as your French counterparts.

Now, onto American economy. I think you need a full American history lesson, seeing as you know a lot about particular things but ignore others. My friend, America made all the money on war production. Everybody in America bought war bonds, because of rationing and increased wages, everyone had money but nothing to buy. Inflation was virtually nil, all men women and children had jobs producing the things neccesary to the war effort. As in the civil war in the North, World War II actual war production was where America made all its money, not the reconstruction. And then after the war, America had 17 million young men with good military training back in the job market, and thats why they, even today, claim the title of America's greatest generation. But i think you exgerrate the importance of the reconstruction and minimize the actual war production.

As far as the economic standpoint alone, only a fool could argue America didnt directly end the war. The war ended when Japan surrendered. America dropped the bomb that made Japan surrender. America ended the war. What else is there? All the british acocmplishments you mention are early in the war. The question is not "Who did more early in the war" because that is no doubt the UK and French. Now, who won it? America no question.

Here is another thing I failed to mention. America, unlike the UK, waged two and at one point 4 fronts in the war, with a UK max of two, one being largely from their colonies. Our importance in the war cant be denied when we were doing twice as much at any given moment than the Brits.

I easily admit that the British were crucial to allied survival at the panic hours of WWII, but who won it was the same nation who stormed the well defended beaches of normandy, not empty cliffs, fought its way through Denmark, The Netherlands, and France, took aeway German production capibility through B17 raids (Us did more effective and hazardous day raids while UK did hidden, safe, ineffective night raids), took Rome, bombed tokyo, won the race in Sicily, assisted in the defeat of the Afrika korps, took all of Japans imperial territory, developed the Manhatted project to win the war, and, above all, suplied all the other allies for much of the war. Listing accomplishments alone, BB1, not individual battles, beat that.

Enemy

[BritishBulldog1]

I stand by my previous comments. You really are not taking on board what I'm saying. Of course America made money by supplying the allies with weapons, BUT they didn't have to then spend it on rebuilding their nation. That is the point I was making, now you seem to be agreeing with me.

Now you seriously need an English WWII history lesson if you think London was the only city targeted. Sure, it got the worst and everyone talks about the blitz and thinks of London, Ignoring Coventry and the midlands and also the South Coast. No my friend, many cities were bombed to destruction.

You mention American arrogance and you are truely displaying it here, it's what turns most people against the states. As for the fronts you speak of, the Brits were in Africa long before USA joined and the far East. Do you think USA was on it's own on Scicily and be very careful with your answer, I have an uncle buried there and were they on their own in the push through Italy, no sir, my father also served (as did my father in law) there and the only thing he ever really discussed about the war, was the amount of blue on blue fire from gung ho yanks (as he put it). Now, did USA storm and take ALL of Normandy on it's own, did they hell as like. If the Canadians and British had not been there, you would have had your asses whooped. Why did the Americans have such a hard time, they didn't want the silly British inventions that cleared the barbed wire and mines, no they put tanks on inflatables and then didn't let people with sea faring experiance control them. End result, Only a couple of tanks made it, the rest sank. By strange coincidence, those that did make it, had sailing experiance. On the other hand, the brits got their contraptions on to the beaches as intended which made it it far easier for them. I sometimes think the allies won the war inspite of the USA, not because of them. (That is not true of course, but attitudes like yours do tend to cause resentment.) You demean the efforts of all the nations that took part, whilst actually knowing very little of what you are talking about. Every front you mention, also had allied nations fighting there too, so USA were NEVER on their own on ANY front.

As for Japan, the British and Australians had their own front there, in the jungles of Malaya and Burma, then of course, the Americans persuaded Russia to open up another front in Munchuria. Remember also, the war in Europe at this time had been over for several months and Russia had no need to declare war on Japan, but were persuaded to by the Americans. So America DID NOT take ALL Japans imperial territory, Russia had their slice too.

When referring to collateral damage, I am only talking about the material objects. I would not be so callous as to lump the deaths of so many allied soldiers into the term collateral damage.

edit: I forgot, the Manhattan Project. Whose "brains" were used for that? Captured German scientists who agreed to work for the states in return for their freedom. Yes, Britain and America were roughly at the same stage and were sharing the information as they both progressed toward the bomb. Until the German scientists were bought in to finish the job for the USA. Who then reneged on the deal to share the info with Britain.

Now, you really need to put the keyboard down before you put your foot in it some more.

[Tizmo]

Yes, that German scientist, Robert von Oppenheimer had the plans and calculations ready for Hitler to use, but he was was wise, so he purposely messed up on the calculations. Oppenheimer then went to the states and worked with the Yanks on the Manhattan Project. If Oppenheimer would of given the correct plans, combined with the rocket technology of von Braun, Germany would of had a clear victory.

[BritishBulldog1]

Thank you for the confirmation Tizmo.

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

It is true that the Yanks did most of the fighting, but the British were also crucial to the Normandy campaign. The 6th Airbourne did a good job in taking bridges, strongholds etc. Kind of like the yank paratroops, only on the eastern part of Normandy. Where would of the Yanks built their armada and troops if England would of not helped at all?

[BritishBulldog1]

Having lost the argument, you resort to insults, i'm disappointed in you. It was an intelligent debate and whereas I may be a little biased (as most of us are towards our own country) there are none so blind as those that do not wish to see.

BB1

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Now, you really need to put the keyboard down before you put your foot in it some more.[/b][/quote]

I see no need to glorify such an unwarranted, pompus declaration of victory and pretty much insult with any kind of thought out response. I was equally disappointed to see you resort to tactics such as the (above) and the way I see it, you are totally at fault for the direction in which this is heading.

Enemy

[Tizmo]

Ok, something got messed up here. I wanted to write a new reply, but I accidently edited riot starters reply style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif Sorry about that. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif

It is true that the Yanks did most of the fighting, but the British were also crucial to the Normandy campaign. The 6th Airbourne did a good job in taking bridges, strongholds etc. Kind of like the yank paratroops, only on the eastern part of Normandy. Where would of the Yanks built their armada and troops if England would of not helped at all?

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

You make the same mistake BB1 makes all the time. You see only one front. Operation Market Garden: US. Who made it so Normandy was possible, without a disaster? 101st Airborne. Then we go onto the fact that America placed a serious effort into Japan and Italy as well, not to mention the one frony you all seem to recognize (i guess its proximity to home perks your intrest), and an effort in North Africa. As I said before, no one did as much in WWII as America.. no one did half as much I would go out on a limb to say.

[Tizmo]

I agree with you there, that World War 2 would have been much different without the Yanks. What I was saying is that if the British would not have helped, then the Yanks could of not done Overlord how it was done. Also, if it were not the for the British at El-Alamein, then the Germans would of had much more tanks and support. I agree with you on the pacific theater, if it were not for the Yanks, the outcome would be much different.

[BritishBulldog1]

Well, it's been an interesting debate, but as i said earlier, there are none so blind as those that do not wish to see. So on that point, I think further discussion is futile. So I'm bowing out of this one before it literally becomes a name calling contest.

I have a lot of respect for you COD, but I think it wise to agree to disagree.

BB1

[pilot]

[quote name='COD-RIOT-STARTER' date='Feb 20 2006, 12:36 PM' post='85957']
You make the same mistake BB1 makes all the time. You see only one front. Operation Market Garden: US. Who made it so Normandy was possible, without a disaster? 101st Airborne. Then we go onto the fact that America placed a serious effort into Japan and Italy as well, not to mention the one frony you all seem to recognize (i guess its proximity to home perks your intrest), and an effort in North Africa. As I said before, no one did as much in WWII as America.. no one did half as much I would go out on a limb to say.
[/q

I partialy agree with last sentance, yes the U.S.A. did have a lot of fronts and the supplied many allied countries with supplies, but they dident do the most in WW2, remember that the British and Canadians were on all the fronts the U.S.A. was on North Africa, Italy, Normandy, and Market Garden. And in the pacific, the Americans may have been there in a greater force, but England and Canada were there long before the U.S.A. was. And in the Battle of Britan, the British pilots and anti-aircraft gunners defended Great Britan from the more powerful and better equipped luftwaffe with no man power from the U.S.A. at all. And in Stalingrad the Russian conscripts defeated the Germans (their first defeat) and the only thing they got from the U.S.A. was food and some weapons (not lots) So what i am trying to say is, America did NOT do the most in WW2 so please dont say that they did. Have a cookie style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cookie.gif

[COD-RIOT-STARTER]

The level of maturity and accuracy in this discussion has dropped, so I will follow BB1 out the door of this one. America did put manpower in the UK. I fail to see your train of thought.. but w/e I'm done.

[Tizmo]

I am done too.

[llama_rider]

Originally posted by jman@Jan 20 2004, 06:53 AM
another thing i thought i'd note, over here in america the british are given hardly any credit for what they did in the war. people seem to think they just sat around waiting for us to bail their asses out, which is entirely off the mark. also, i hear plenty of brits have an equally off-the-wall viewpoint, that they could've won without any help. heh, too much national pride on both fronts :P
i agree.I watched a show about montgomery today on the history channel(what would i do without it) adn now have great respect for him.i still dont give them enough credit but i am an american so i have to be patriotic.

on that note:
Hooah!!!
rangers lead the way!!!

[Enemydestate]

Oh please.. Monty was an arrogant selfish little bastard who near lost us the war.

[Alpha_Pasta]

I recall him winning the Battle of El Alemein.

I also recall him being a pivotal figure in the planning of Operation Overlord.

If you're reffering to Operation Market Garden, that was only intended to speed up the end of the war, once it was lost we had enough reserves to cover the gap.

[BritishBulldog1]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Enemydestate @ Mar 30 2006, 03:51 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Oh please.. Monty was an arrogant selfish little bastard who near lost us the war.
[/b][/quote]

Picking up on your thoroughbred status from another post enemy, he WAS indeed one of the reasons for Germany losing the war.

BB1

[Nixon1]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Krelian @ Jan 20 2004, 01:53 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
as for the european theater, i can't really say. it'd be between the us and ussr, and i think both were about even.
[/b][/quote]

Im bring that dwon from the begining cuz I wanted to comment it...

Russa should have had no big part in this war they were so poor and unable to fight..The U.S gave the USSR plains guns nades and all the suff you would need for wars.. but so the USSR people would think they were doing a good job they would put a Soviot flag over the american flag (cuz it was on there when we gave them planes) so that there citizens would think they were winning the war... Sure the soviots won the war but this may have killed the USSR

[Alliednations]

Despite that fact, the Russians did capture Berlin first and because of the russians so close to the city, hitler killed himself. if the russians didn't take part in the war, the germans would've had more troops and ammunition sent to the western front. and since hitler didn't commit suicide, america and britan's europe first policy would keep the armies fighting hitler until he was dead/defeated and then japan would fall. probably another 2 years if the Russians didn't fight.

[Nixon1]

Yah thats exactly what I was saying but russa did help but idn if they werent a big help but they did end the war so I guess that helps

[Tizmo]

*bump*

[Alpha_Pasta]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Despite that fact, the Russians did capture Berlin first and because of the russians so close to the city, hitler killed himself. if the russians didn't take part in the war, the germans would've had more troops and ammunition sent to the western front. and since hitler didn't commit suicide, america and britan's europe first policy would keep the armies fighting hitler until he was dead/defeated and then japan would fall. probably another 2 years if the Russians didn't fight.[/b][/quote]

I think maybe 3 years....

Together America and Uk would have had far more troops, it wouldve taken some time though....

[woowoo]

I agree that it took all of the allies to defeat the axis with the Americans, Soviets, and British playing the primary roles - think how it would have been different if the US hadn't entered the war, if the Soviets had fallen at Stalingrad or if the British hadn't won the Battle of Britian.

However, as information has become declassifed there is fairly new information on the Japanese surrender. Towards the end of the war, the Japanese strategy was to bleed the Americans until they could get a negotiated surrender - they didn't believe they could win but by dragging the war out by scarificing Japanese soliders and civilians they hoped to end the war without the leadership having to stand trial (they were trying to protect themselves by scarficing the Japanese people). This disregard for human life was going to be used as an advantage against the Americans who had their limits.

But then came the A-bombs. The communication within the Japanese military and government reveals that this did not deter them from their strategy as the loss of life was of little importance to the Japanese leaders. However, the A-bombs dropping had a completely different impact in the USSR. The US had been urging the USSR to join the battle against the Japanese but despite promises to do so they had not. But the Soviets now believed that the war with Japan would be over in days or weeks as the Japanese fell under a barrage of Atomic bombs (no one knew the Americans only had two). The Russians immediately invaded Japanese territory so that the Russians could get a part of Japan and be at the negotiating table so they could benefit.

With the Soviets entering the war the Japanese leadership realized that the Soviets, like the Japanese, were willing to scrafice their citizens to achieve their objectives. Since the Japanese couldn't "bleed" the Soviets this left their strategy null and void. Without the possibility of negotiations, the Japanese surrendered. Interesting how it all worked out.

[BritishBulldog1]

This is very true woowoo. I was watching a programme on military strategy the other day and they were comparing how countries prepared to counter strike when attacked. Stalin actually let the Germans advance as far as they did, as he was also watching his eastern front with the Japenese. When he got intelligence from Japan that they intended to launch their war to the south, is when he pulled his troops back from the Japenese border and proceeded to use them to spear head the counter offensive against the Germans, who at this time had started to pull back to defensive positions because of the severity of the Russian winter. However, the Germans didn't have time to set the defensive line up before the Russians attacked with their elite forces from the east. Once on the run, there was no stopping the Russian advance. In waiting till the enemy were close to Moscow, the German supply lines were overstretched and they had the time to build on their resources ready for the counter strike.

BB1

[Grimrevenger]

i haven't read all of the posts, but this is how i would summon up the war:

In the first years, we can thank the British for figthing alone agains a much stronger oponent, who won The Battle of Britan, The North Africa and the North atlantic, and for helping all thoose occupied contrys as best as they could.

Then we have the Americans, who fougth and won against the Japanese, and at the same time supplyed both the warfare in Russia and The rest of europe, and for also figthing alongside the British.

Then we have the Russians, Who sacrifist themselfs to win the war, if they haven't fougth so bravely, winning the Battle of Stalingrad, Kursk and so many others, god knowes how it would have ended.

to summon it up, i don't think the war could have been won at all, if one of the trhee were missing, they all won the war together.

I would also like to mention the Norwegian Sailors, were 30.000 men died in the war, carring supplys over the North Atlantic. without even knowing if there familys were alive back in Norway for five years.

That's all i had to say.
Grimrevenger - A Norwegian Sailor.

[BritishBulldog1]

A good, well balanced summary Grim.

BB1

[PZIV]

I can't begin to respond to this thread...

[ecllipse]

another thing i thought i'd note, over here in america the british are given hardly any credit for what they did in the war. people seem to think they just sat around waiting for us to bail their asses out, which is entirely off the mark. also, i hear plenty of brits have an equally off-the-wall viewpoint, that they could've won without any help. heh, too much national pride on both fronts :P

someone else may have said what im about to say but i only read the first page of this so bear with me. maybe where you studied you learned WWII different but where i learned it, the british are givin props for what they have done. Being able to hold off the nazis from the blitzkriegs was what made the war keep going. If britain would have been taken over the war would have been pretty much over. the U.S.S.R. would not have been able to hold off attacks from the axis powers(wouldnt even have been able to hold off germany alone) SO i think the A for the day goes to Britain.

[Savage]

Der Totenkopf;141565']I can't begin to respond to this thread...

Why because ul say how they made so many mistakes they should have won?

WW2 was too big to have one country take all the credit though the americans try to do that.

[woowoo]

Oh come on Savage - the Americans don't like to claim they won the war. They like to ride in like the calvary and save the day. If you notice, the US was preparing to go to war but the Japanese forced the US in before it would have been ready as a normal course of events. I would say most Americans believe that they didn't win the war but rather the war couldn't have been won without them and thus their side won. However, I am thankful for the Aussies help in the Pacific - a very important role.

[woowoo]

Grim -
I knew that Norway had fought well against the Germans despite the overwhelming odds - I had no idea that many sailors had paid the ultimate price. I wonder what other ally contributions like this that are not as well known.

I've found that most of the allies made the scarfices although I still wonder about France establishing the Vichy regime under German dominion. But that's a whole different discussion.

[Grimrevenger]

Grim -
I knew that Norway had fought well against the Germans despite the overwhelming odds - I had no idea that many sailors had paid the ultimate price. I wonder what other ally contributions like this that are not as well known.


That's very true. think about the Partisans that fougth in Jugoslavia, and The Finnish soldiers who fougth against the russians totaly outnumberd.

and im shure it's many more!

[Tizmo]

Yep, and the outnumbered Finns beat the Russians TWICE!!!! Maybe I should say retaliated them :D

[PZIV]

Why because ul say how they made so many mistakes they should have won?

WW2 was too big to have one country take all the credit though the americans try to do that.

Besides the fact that "Why because ul say how they made so many mistakes they should have won?" doesn't make sense...

But I'll tag along. Sure man, that's the reason. :stupido:

[DFC COL TAZZ]

I THINK RUSSIA IS THE ONES THAT BROKE HITLER?.:icon_question:

[woowoo]

By the way - I didn't vote in the poll because of the totally biased way it was written. It's like writing "Would you rather have death row inmates executed through (a) lethal injection to mask the severe pain and minimize the guilt you feel over this crime against humanity or (b) electric chair so that the criminal gets maximum pain through frying of his brain and I don't care about crimes against humanity.

All and all, it's really just propaganda.

[catman]

The poll is very biased in the fact that for the 'reason' for Britain and Canada it sarcastically states that they were sitting on their assess the whole war, which is a load of it, and the big reason for US is that they killed thousands of civilians. But what about the major amount of supplies and support they gave eachother to help win over tyranny, or the D-Day operation, or the liberation of many Nazi prison camps? Wheres all that?



Maybe Hitler himself ended the war?

[ColonelChaos007]

I'd say Hitler himself ended the war when he ingested a cyanide pill and shot himself with his PPK.

[ecllipse]

Britain had kept the war going and I would have to say if they would have surrendered, the war would have been over. Of course without Hitler, there would have been no war

[Alpha_Pasta]

Britain had kept the war going and I would have to say if they would have surrendered, the war would have been over. Of course without Hitler, there would have been no war

I think if we had surrendered, you're the right - the war would have ended. The States wouldn't have joined.

[MidnightRider]

The idea behind this question is guite silly if you ask me. If any one of the Allied powers had abstained from the war, it would have had a hugely diff outcome. It was the combined efforts of all three Allied powers that brought the Nazi war machine to a halt.

But in an effort to be true to the spirt of this question, i must say that while each country did its part, you are all forgeting one thing. There were 2 Axis powers, Germany and Japan, and while all 3 Allied powers fought German, only one had full force against Japan, and that would be the Americans, on top of pitting a very large force against the Germans along with the other 2 Allies. The battles fought over most of the tropic islands in the Pacific were some of the most bloody and hard fought of all of WWII, and all with only one of the Allies doing the fighting.

In my eyes it was the combined effort of all three Allied powers that brought WWII to an end, had the Americans not given aid in D-Day, with the combined effort of Britian to gain a foot hold on the mainland, while fighting a bitter fight against Japan, had Britian not aided in Eroupe, and Russia not fallen back into their vast homeland and starved Hitlers army, we might all be speaking German today(no offence Tizzy).

[Tizmo]

I don't find that offensive, no worries. The funny thing is, if it wasn't for Hitler, I would not be here. The reason for that is because Hitler gave Finland supplies to fight against the Soviets. The Soviets would have easily crushed Finland, if Germany would have not helped.

I also agree, in my opinion, it was not just the US that won the war. All 3 Allied powers helped to bring the war to an end. If it was not for England, the US would have not gotten a foothold in Europe. Imagine if the Germans would have actually done Operation Sea Lion. They would have invaded England, and beaten them. Where would the Allies have gone to assemble their forces? Also, if the Soviets would have been neutral, like Switzerland and Sweden, the Germans would have not needed to worry about the East and they could have concentrated all of their forces towards the West.

Also, I think Hitler's stupid mistakes also helped the Allies win. If Hitler would have approved the use of the two Panzer divisions on D-Day, then the Germans would have had a HUGE advantage on D-Day. But that was not be...

[bartuc08]

i think the Americans had a big role in the winning of the war, up until the americans came along the war was basically in a standstill with the germans in favor thou. although we didnt exactly capture Hitler, we aided in it, had we not been there a lot of the battles might not have been won, just because on person delivers the finishing blow, doesn't exactly mean they wont the war
(i didn't read any post before this..except for tizmo above me)

[ColonelChaos007]

Made the same mistake Napoleon did. Sent like 70% of his troops to invade Russia. Such loss and stupidity.

[Alpha_Pasta]

i think the Americans had a big role in the winning of the war, up until the americans came along the war was basically in a standstill with the germans in favor thou. although we didnt exactly capture Hitler, we aided in it, had we not been there a lot of the battles might not have been won, just because on person delivers the finishing blow, doesn't exactly mean they wont the war
(i didn't read any post before this..except for tizmo above me)

You definately did have a big role to play. Some argue the Russians would have turned Europe red eventually, but you forget - the USA gave many millions of dollars worth of duece and a half trucks and tanks to them.

[ColonelChaos007]

You definately did have a big role to play. Some argue the Russians would have turned Europe red eventually, but you forget - the USA gave many millions of dollars worth of duece and a half trucks and tanks to them.

WE

[Alpha_Pasta]

Certainly did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease

[PZIV]

If Hitler would have approved the use of the two Panzer divisions on D-Day, then the Germans would have had a HUGE advantage on D-Day. But that was not be...

This is a funny story, but it came from a veteran who was there. Hitler told his staff he was NEVER supposed to be awakened by 9:00 am. When Rommel realized what was happening he called and told his staff to wake him up to sign the order to move the Panzer divisions to the beaches. They said they could not wake him up!

That is not nearly one of the stupidest things Hitler did in my opinion. To name a few:

1) Stop the Luftwaffe from fighting the RAF and instead turning to terror bombing, allowing the RAF to recover and "defeat" the Luftwaffe

2) Instead of the Spring departure he waited until summer and his forces were stopped in the winter

It didn't help that the Italians sucked at everything they did, but oh well.

EDIT: And the UK was paying back the debts until this or last year too. All the vets that I talk to said that they noticed how the Russians didn't have anything and they would throw thousands up hills at German positions and die. The vets I talked to said they had to move positions from hill to hill because the stink of Russian bodies was so horrible. The vet told me once they started finding American rations and weapons from the Russian dead, they knew they could not win the war.

[Alpha_Pasta]

Der Totenkopf;146313']It didn't help that the Italians sucked at everything they did, but oh well.


Millitarily yes - but I think that they had no belief in the cause. How can you expect people who don't agree with the system to fight for it? I suspect Italian veterans would have something to say for that, it seems quite a harsh way of putting it and war has a very human face...

[BritishBulldog1]

What Alpha says is 100% spot on. Unlike Hitler, who had the backing of the people, Mussolini didn't. He was hated by the population and they did not wish to side with Germany, which is why he was hung from a lamp post at the end of the war.

The Italians had no stomach for a war they didn't believe in.

BB1

[Laz]

Also, if the Soviets would have been neutral, like Switzerland and Sweden, the Germans would have not needed to worry about the East and they could have concentrated all of their forces towards the West.



If more countries had been neutral like Sweden was Germany would have won.
I know that what Sweden did during WWII was to prevent a German invasion, but as part of their "neutrality" they shipped all their iron ore to Germany (and got well payed") escorted German supply ships through the Baltic sea, allowed German Troops to take a train through Sweden to deploy troops through Finland, escorted German troop ships through Kattegat from Germany to Norway.
Granted they did some good too, but they where very afraid that Germany would invade and acted accordingly.

By the way, most of the race ideas Hitler had came from the Swedish Racial Institute, a government founded institute that "researched" in the supremacy of the arian race...


Back to the topic though: In my opinion one of the reasons Germany did not fare well in Soviet was the fact that Mussolini's troops was rather un-intrested in the war. His attack on Greece was doing so bad that he had to send several battalions down to help, thus delaying Operation Barbarossa with as much as 2 months.

The victory was a joint effort, and while there is no doubt that all the allied nations contributed much, Soviet should have some credit for the enormous number of human lives this fight cost them.

[PZIV]

Whether they wanted to fight or not, the Italians were a military disaster that cost German troops and resources (and indirectly the war).

[bartuc08]

ugh, i might get shot for this.. but, lol

i can't remember if it was WWI, or WWII and i ca n;t remember whether it was italians or americans... but they quote din my history textbooks that (not direct quote) "one soldier actualy lifted his rifle above his head and said 'how do i load this thing?'" it was quoted from an italian general, BUT the segment was about how poorly trained the americans were in the begining.

[ColonelChaos007]

Umm. What?! I would say World War I. Educated guess cuz I wouldn't say that we were poorly trained. Ask the Russians and all of them would complain.

EDIT: Oh and about Canada "only" fighting in the war for the choices in poll, that's a pretty damned nice joke.

[ecllipse]

Der Totenkopf;146430']Whether they wanted to fight or not, the Italians were a military disaster that cost German troops and resources (and indirectly the war).

I guess Italy and France have something in common

[ColonelChaos007]

LMAO! Wow. Cold.

[Alpha_Pasta]

If more countries had been neutral like Sweden was Germany would have won.
I know that what Sweden did during WWII was to prevent a German invasion, but as part of their "neutrality" they shipped all their iron ore to Germany (and got well payed") escorted German supply ships through the Baltic sea, allowed German Troops to take a train through Sweden to deploy troops through Finland, escorted German troop ships through Kattegat from Germany to Norway.
Granted they did some good too, but they where very afraid that Germany would invade and acted accordingly.

By the way, most of the race ideas Hitler had came from the Swedish Racial Institute, a government founded institute that "researched" in the supremacy of the arian race...


Back to the topic though: In my opinion one of the reasons Germany did not fare well in Soviet was the fact that Mussolini's troops was rather un-intrested in the war. His attack on Greece was doing so bad that he had to send several battalions down to help, thus delaying Operation Barbarossa with as much as 2 months.

The victory was a joint effort, and while there is no doubt that all the allied nations contributed much, Soviet should have some credit for the enormous number of human lives this fight cost them.


You're probably right there. And the US wasn't really that neutral either - it gave us ships and loans.

[Alpha_Pasta]

I guess Italy and France have something in common

What about America? American only joined once the war had come to them, whereas the British and French joined for what they thought were the right reasons.

[bartuc08]

the americans had tried sticking to the peace treay thing that was signed after world war 1, most cpountries did to and hitler saw this as a way to bully around europe its true that we didn;t join until we were attacked but we were settingup and getting ready for the time that we would help the war.

actually one of the major reasons the americans sided with the alliance was because of all the investments we had put on them. had it not been for pearlharbour who knows which side we might have picked.

[ecllipse]

What about America? American only joined once the war had come to them, whereas the British and French joined for what they thought were the right reasons.

Look at how people look at America these days. People say they get involved in other people's business too much. If America would have joined in before Pearl Harbor, there would have been one more reason to talk smack. See, its just hypocritical saying they should have joined in WWII earlier.

[MidnightRider]

Look at how people look at America these days. People say they get involved in other people's business too much. If America would have joined in before Pearl Harbor, there would have been one more reason to talk smack. See, its just hypocritical saying they should have joined in WWII earlier.

WELL SAID. I get so tired of hearing "OMG America should stay out of our business." Really? OK np, next time you all have a major diseaster and hundreds of ppl die we will just sit back and make sure the Red Cross dont lend a hand. We make sure that our ppl dont take up donations to give relife money to your country. We wont donate food anymore to your starveing ppl. And lord oh lord then we will listen to you bitch about how we didnt come and help you. Really, ***** off. Do you want our help or not? Its not a game of "well you only help when i think you should help, but im not gonna tell you to help."

Like i said many times here, i didnt see to many countries come to our aid durning the 9/11 attacks, or when many of the coast lines got destroyed by Hurrican Katrina, Citys that are STILL in total shambles even to this day. Put it to you like this, my job is sending mail (in a nut shell) There are still ZIP codes in the areas that are not restored for ANY mail cuz the post offices just arent there. United States Government Post Offices are NOT there. So if we have yet to put a post office back in action after a storm like that, do you think those places are really fit to live in?

Any time ANY country asks for our help we give it, freely and with compasion, and in return we get, "get the ***** out of my country" !?!?!?! Sorry, but were it me, i would say no prob, ill get out your country, but dont come to me the next time you have a war, or the earth opens up under your city and sucks you into the ground.

***** me once, shame on me, ***** me twice, shame on you

Take that smack and stick it up your ass.

Ok once again ill get off my soap box.

[ecllipse]

screw me once, shame on me, screw me twice, shame on you

try switching those two words around

[MidnightRider]

yeah that too }; )>

[ColonelChaos007]

Yeah I'm sure MR would like it up there as much as I do.

[PZIV]

Have any of you seen Bush screw that line up? Oh my god, it's the funniest thing I've ever seen. He just repeats it for a while and changes it and then finally says "that's not the point..." and continues or something. Man it's funny.

[Savage]

Yeah I'm sure MR would like it up there as much as I do.


Not everyone is homosexual like you

[Goodman]

i think its the americans because we got there in time to take the nucleur weapons from the nazi so ya we won bitchs

[ecllipse]

its as if we have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again

[Tizmo]

i think its the americans because we got there in time to take the nucleur weapons from the nazi so ya we won bitchs
Btw, the US did not take the nuclear technology from the Germans, the Germans gave it to the US.

Von Oppenheimer, a leading Germans scientist, had all of the formulas etc. for making nuclear weapons. He new that Hitler was crazy and was going to use them. That is why he purposely messed up the formulas and told Hitler that it is not working. Then he fled to the US and gave them the technology, which helped Project Manhattan a LOT.

So, basically, you should thank the Germans. If it was not for them, you would have not gotten the nuclear technology for some time. Eventually yes, but not before 1945.

[ColonelChaos007]

But yeah. Allies whooped ass, there's just nothing else to say about that.

[Savage]

because hitler made alot of mistakes that could have been avoided

[bartuc08]

seriously if i were in Hitlers position i truly think i could've controlled the world in no time at all. like somone pointed out years ago "Hitler lsot the war because he never played enough RISK as a child"

(RISK is a strategy board game in which the objective is to take over the world)

[Alpha_Pasta]

seriously if i were in Hitlers position i truly think i could've controlled the world in no time at all. like somone pointed out years ago "Hitler lsot the war because he never played enough RISK as a child"

(RISK is a strategy board game in which the objective is to take over the world)

The German's problem, was that they simply did not have enough people to cover the territory - so they covered it wafer thin.

[ColonelChaos007]

LMFAO!!!1!1 "Never played RISK as a child."

Erm? RISK didn't even exist back then, am I right?

[bartuc08]

hey, i'm just repeating what the historians said. and yea, they didn't have many ropps to cover all the ground

[ecllipse]

My brother in an essay wrote he kinda looked up to Hitler. Not for killing the jews, but for his intellect. This guy was one smart son of a bitch but wasnt good when it came to war

[bartuc08]

oh yes, i say that all the time the guy was brilliant, had he been more stable in the head he would've gone far.

[ecllipse]

Was definetly one of the strongest tyrants of all time

[Alpha_Pasta]

My brother in an essay wrote he kinda looked up to Hitler. Not for killing the jews, but for his intellect. This guy was one smart son of a bitch but wasnt good when it came to war

Clever with politics, definately - i'll give him that.

[PZIV]

Yeah him and Goebbels. Man was that a political machine.

[woowoo]

Was definetly one of the strongest tyrants of all time

I'm not sure I agree - there were many rulers who rulered for much longer that Hitler.

[Tizmo]

Stalin was WAAAAAY worse than Hitler in my opinion. The amount of people that Hitler killed off is a lot less than what Stalin killed off. He killed about 60 million of his OWN ****ing people.

This thread belongs in the warzone, so that is why I am moving it there!

[ColonelChaos007]

Stalin was just pissed off at Germany, and was desperate enough to grind those fascist bastards to the ground.

[MidnightRider]

Stalin was as big or bigger mad man than Hitler. History has proven that.

[ColonelChaos007]

Yup, Whatever.

[bartuc08]

why do you support Stalin, but your sig shows a Nazi soldier?

[ecllipse]

I was thinking the same exact thing. A Communist supporter has a Nazi sig

[PZIV]

Stalin was worse in numbers, but there was one key difference. Whereas Stalin did not care about lives Hitler sought out to destroy a certain race. Let's also not forget Stalin had a lot more time than Hitler.

I do not care about numbers or anything here. Although brilliant, both are evil evil men who should burn in the pits of hell. :icon_evil:

[Laz]

And I'm sure they do. Or if the buddist wheel of life is working they are currently rolling dung balls across a desert and will be doing so for the next millennium or so.

But back to the topic. I don't think a single one of the poll answers will do. It was a combined effort and should be viewed so. Had the British not been so resilient, Hitler would have won. Had the Soviets not been so die-hard set on avenging he would have won. Had the US not been so generous in material help from the beginning he would have won. And the Canadians also made a major contribution to the win.

This might sound very politically correct, but it is true I think.

Edit: but on a pure chronological way of seeing it, the USA ended the war by dropping the A-bombs on -Japan.
Still, a lot of other nations where involved in the fighting even in the pacific.

[Königtiger101]

I say US because Japan WAS in the same war as Germany - WWII. A world war would not end until the opposing country/ies were defeated. And why would we call it the Pacific Theatre if it wasn't in the same war? It's a shame it took two bombs instead of one to silence Japan, but that did end WWII. (Not that I'm saying I even liked having one bomb dropped)

Well to make it more clear...as the above post states: September 27 1940 Japan joins axis alliance (It was just as much a part of WWII as Germany)

[Cblue]

Having read the majority of this post i have come to one major conclusion, and no offense to most people:

What you have learnt about WW2 was mostly through high school textbooks. Please before making iditioc posts like "Russia was in a stand still with the Germans untill the Americans invaded" and "90% of russia's military was cavalry" can you read a real book about the topic and not sprout random figures that you sucked out of your thumb. Two books that i think will enlighten you are Stalingrad and Armoured Fist. (Which details the rise and fall of the Panzers)

As for my opinion (and i am only talking about the european theater).

Would Germany have lost the war if the allies didn't invade France: YES
Would it have taken much longer and cost more destruction: YES

The fact of the matter is, the geopolitical and economic turning point of the war isn't as the americans so loving like to claim "D-Day" but rather the attack on Pearl Harbour. The point where Hitler declared war on America was the turning point. Economically, Germany could not match the production of the allies and soviets from that point.

The PSYCHOLOGICAL turning point of the war was Stalingrad, until that point the Germans had never lost a major engagement.

The STRATEGIC turning point was the battle of Kursk. At that point the Germans lost so much of their advantage that it was an inevitable slide to defeat.

If the Germans had defeated the Soviets and had there full attention on the western front the american and british would not have had a chance. Imagine the adrennes x10. Consider this: the allies invaded normandy with 150 000 troops. Wow. At about the same peroid, the soviets had won back ALL of the territory they have lost to the Germans from the beginning of the war and were poised to invade Germany with 6 MILLION TROOPS. That is 3x what the germans invaded russia with 3 years earlier. Numbers don't lie.

As for the Soviets having inferior equipment, that is laughable. They had arugably the best tank of the war, the T-34, produced in greater numbers than the tissue paper sherman. They had a 10x supirority in infranty and a 20x superiority in artillery. Granted the alllies had superior aircraft, but german war production INCREASED in 1944 the height of allied strategic bombing.

300 000 Germans SURRENDERED to the allies as the soviets where encirrling Berlin thus allowing the allies to get into Germany. Without the soviets they would have kept the allies at bay for months.

I believe that the allies were necessary in winning the war, but you cannot realistacally deny that without the Soviets performance on the Eastern Front we would all be speaking German right now.

[BritishBulldog1]

The PSYCHOLOGICAL turning point of the war was Stalingrad, until that point the Germans had never lost a major engagement.



So you don't think Rommels defeat at El Alemein and the Loss of North Africa counts then? This occurred just before stalingrad!

BB1

[woowoo]

Cblue - the points you make are what many academias recognize as major turning points of WWII and I agree with much of what you say.

* Stalingrad was the high water mark of the Germans in the East
* Kursk gutted the Panzer divisions removing most of the German's offensive power.
* The T-34 was one of the best tanks of its time.

However, you leave the impression that the Soviets could have won the war on their own. If Germany could have focused its full might on the Sovs, they would be speaking German right now. The battles in North Africa, Italy, Greece, and the Air Battle over Britain all drained finite resources away from the Germans' eastern offensive. These additional resources would likely have turned the tide on the Soviets. The material that the US specifically provided in the form of trucks, airplanes, food, etc was a huge advantage to the Soviets - most of it shipped via British escorted convoys.

There is no doubt that the Soviets bore the brunt of the German fighting after Poland and France were defeated until D-day. They did so through trading space for time and no concern for casualties. But I would conclude that it took all of the allies together to defeat the Germans - that without the alliance the Soviets would have been defeated and continental Europe would be German.

[BritishBulldog1]

Good post Woowoo and very accurate.

BB1

[ecllipse]

Wow, I think woo2 got the nailed for this thread

[Laz]

However, you leave the impression that the Soviets could have won the war on their own. If Germany could have focused its full might on the Sovs, they would be speaking German right now. The battles in North Africa, Italy, Greece, and the Air Battle over Britain all drained finite resources away from the Germans' eastern offensive. These additional resources would likely have turned the tide on the Soviets. .

While this is correct it is my believe that the major difference to the outcome was from the fact that Operation Barberossa was delayed a good 3 months by the operations in Greece. Because the number one force that brought Hitlers army to a grinding hold was the weather. The mud and then the cold. Had the offensive started earlier there is a great possibility that Germany would have at least gotten Moscow before the winter stopped them.
The supplies from the convoys did not make that much of a difference during the initial year I think.

Edit: no one got nailed, we are all learning here.

[Dascoo]

Look what the japanese did to all the other asian countries.

They deserved it, plus it saved more lives then ended.

[Laz]

Look what the japanese did to all the other asian countries.

They deserved it, plus it saved more lives then ended.

I guess this is in context of the nuclear bomb? I would say that no one deserves it, but I think it actually saved a lot of life's, both American and Japanese. The fire bombing of Japan was destroying and killing people by the hundred thousands. Pr attack...

[woowoo]

While this is correct it is my believe that the major difference to the outcome was from the fact that Operation Barberossa was delayed a good 3 months by the operations in Greece. Because the number one force that brought Hitlers army to a grinding hold was the weather. The mud and then the cold. Had the offensive started earlier there is a great possibility that Germany would have at least gotten Moscow before the winter stopped them.


There is much debate about the "Italian Adventure" in Greece. An overlooked fact in all this is that Hitler had already decided to delay his buildup because there was a coup in Yugoslavia - - one which the British had a major role in. Now instead of having a good ally to serve as a buffer from the south (including against Greece and the Allied troops in Africa) the government unexpectedly fell. Hitler had no choice but to shore up his southern flank to enable the attack on the Soviet Union.

The fact that the Italians invaded Greece and got repelled only made the problem worse. The Germans now had to deal with both of these situations. So I'm doubtful that the Italian situation caused the future defeat in Russia but may have played a minor role.

[ecllipse]

Edit: no one got nailed, we are all learning here.

My bad, shows what difference one word can make

I meant to say woo2 got the question nailed

[Laz]

My bad, pure misunderstanding. :)

[Murdaugh]

I think you right about that. However, I will add that they got plenty of our troops kill by leading them into an ambush (not on purpose) - Gallipoli I belive - Because at that time we still thought of britan as the other land.


Good point, but wrong war. Also, Britain has a long history of sending in her colonial troops first before her own to take the brunt of a battle.

As for Russia getting to Berlin first, the Americans and British would have gotten there first, but held back because of political reasons.

[Aardvark]

WWII must be viewed as two separate wars being fought concurrently: Europe and the Pacific.

Winning the war in Europe was a joint venture: Had the Third Reich and the United Kingdom reached an armistice after Dunkirk, I believe that the USSR would have fallen to the undivided Nazis, though it would have taken decades to pacify.

Conversely if Hitler had held to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Fortress Europe I think would have been impregnable. Though eventually I believe that either Fat Man or Little Boy would have been dropped on Germany proper (Bremen or Berlin would be my guess) to force Hitler to unconditionally surrender. Who knows if Hitler's Parkinson ravaged, methamphetamine addled mind would have even understood the implications of not surrendering at that point, but the German army would have and the war in Europe would have been over.

In the Pacific, atomic weapons did bring the war to an end. Where the bombs necessary? Through the lens of history it does not seem so. Japan was broken and being bombed around the clock. Here, three non-atomic options were open to the US. The first is accepting conditional surrender. From our vantage point in 2007 this seems acceptable when compared to killing thousands and irradiating thousands more. We cannot be so myopic. Imperial Japan had committed crimes against humanity on an epic scale: The **** of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the refusal to repatriate civilian foreign nationals, and so on. In the end Japan came to game, put down her money, tossed the dice, and lost. In 1945, conditional surrender wasn't going to happen.

The second non-atomic option was to quarantine Japan and starve her into submission. When face with the idea of millions of men, women, and children starving to death, dropping two atomic bombs seems merciful in comparison. And while America, the U.K., and Australia would have been putting a choke hold on Japan, the USSR would have been invading.

This leads us to our third option: invasion. Any invasion would have included the Soviets, and even though the short term costs of invasion would have been the countless lives lost on both sides, the long term and greater cost would have been a divided Japan. The repercussions of which would have felt up until today. If there are any in Japan who doubt this they should confer with a resident of eastern Germany on how many jobs can be found in their local economy compared to western Germany so many years after reunification.

Dropping the bombs were an evil, nearly unavoidable though. I say nearly unavoidable because I wonder if the Japanese delegation that walked out of the League of Nations in Geneva would have done so if given a glimpse of what awaited their nation and the world thirteen years later.

Don't start nuthin... won't be nuthin.

[dewisa]

what if i say Hitler stopped WW2 by commiting suicide/being shot/ hiding, he stopped the war by not doing anything, they stopped what they started.

[BritishBulldog1]

what if i say Hitler stopped WW2 by commiting suicide/being shot/ hiding, he stopped the war by not doing anything, they stopped what they started.

The war with Germany was already effectively over by the time Hitler committed suicide.

BB1

[Laz]

That would not be correct since the war kept on going after his suicide. He died April 30th 1945.

Lol, BB1 and I answered both, with totally different answers leading to the same conclusion. BB1 is right, the war was really already over in terms of who was to loose, but keept going in terms of still fighting.

[Bradley]

I say U.S.S.R

U.S.S.R captured Hitler, not U.S

Japan vs U.S.A was another war, but it was glued in to a peice of WWII.

What do you think?

Hitler committed suicide so technically he wasn't captured. If it wasn't for U.S, German HQ would've fallen back to France and regrouped and attacked again. Not to mention without the U.S, the Germans could've held Italy and France and attacked them from both sections.

Also not to mention if U.S wasn't there Hitler would've sent all German forces from Normandy to Russia, basically stopping Russia and allowing Germany to capture Moscow because from a standpoint view... German Military was highly advanced then the Russian Army.

The Germans were outnumbered. They got defeated everywhere. Seriously Japan wasn't even considered a Ally to my point and Italy is just a country that had a stupid leader. The rest of Germany's allies only fought one battle then went home. So bascially Germany was outnumbered "3-1 and counting smaller allied countries."

[Mig]

I don't know if you can say who ended the war technically, but it should probably be based on which nation was most crucial in bringing around the end.

In the end, it was probably everyone together. Certain actions by one nation, helped another in its advances.