[QUOTE=Derp_Alt;15905972][B]America basically turned the whole thing around [/B]and enabled the Russians to conquer us in the first place. There wasn't really one winner, there we're multiple winners. Hell, even we won because we got rid of that furious mad man. Only the frenchies lost as usual: They got conquered by Germany and lost all their dignity left by crying to mommeh for help.[/QUOTE]
No, we didn't. The Russians fought the two most decisive battles of the war (Kursk and Stalingrad.) While D-Day certianly helped the Russians, the Soviets were definitley winning by that point in the war. Perhaps it wasn't looking hopeless for Germany yet, but it was starting to get that way.
I think the avarage Russian was the biggest loser, for example, 80% of Soviet males born in 1923 didn't survive World War 2
[QUOTE=QwertySecond;15905830]Found a quote floating around in another thread, and I'd like to hear some peoples opinions on it.
If you ever studied World War Two in your history classes, you might have heard about the Battle of Stalingrad. In this battle, the Germans and thier Axis allies attempted to conquer Russia (or at least a bit of it).
Joseph Stalin, however, was not happy, particulary when they took the city named after him. Since he was feared more than death, the Rusians threw themselves at the Germans, and kicked the living shit out of them. By the end of the "battle" 841,000 Axis soldiers were dead. (The Russians lost just over a million, so it was something of a Phyrric victory.) Hitler's Sixth Army was wiped out.
So by the time of the D-Day landings, the Germans just didn't have enough soldiers left to properly man the beaches. Another problem was (for the Germans at least) was that Hitler was going a bit batshit. It's reckoned [B][U]that his spies did find out that the Allies were landing, but he never believed them and strung out his army across the entire coast[/U][/B]. He then failed to mobilise his Panzer division.
There's shedloads more here:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Path_to_defeat[/url]
So, for those of you who are intelligent enough not to put TL;DR, my question is:
Why does America claim it saved us during WWII? When it was mostly the Rusians, who were, in fact, communist.
PS. This is not nation-hate; this is a physcological, sociological and historical question, meant to quel my curiosity.[/QUOTE]
This is totally not true, The German high command believed that the attacks would take place else where, The British inteligence units decieved germans with a dead body carry planted false inteligence. Also on the South Eastern border of the British Isles, The British army build scale cardboard and wooden replicas of tanks, artillery batteries and planes, to fool the krautes into thinking the attack was going to be an invasion on the far North-Eastern corner of France. By the time the germans reassembled thier troops, British, Canadian and American forces were on the way to the Northern Beaches of france. They never found out that the units on the coast of Britain were decoys until the end of the war.
To the point about "Britain wouldn't have won without America", this may well be true, but America played a vital role in suppling the British troops, Germany is landlocked and could buy or steal from any country around it, Britain is an issolated island, without american supplies things could have gone alot different.
In terms of Armed forces and Warfare, I think Britain would have been able to win the war without American help, due to the mass army the British Empire had from all of it's colonies. from Britain alone over 4 million troops were fighting in North Africa and Western Europe. Had the French not have surrendered so easily, the Americans would not have needed to join.
The Pacific war is a totally different story though, In modern culture people think that it was onlt the Americans that fought the Japanese, which is completely a lie. The "Chindits" were an Elite British junge force fighting japan out of Burma. The Russians also played a big role in pushing the Japs back to their islands. Don't forget the Austrailians, Kiwi's and Indians who fought aswell. Had Britain have not lost the Battle of Singapore, the Eastern British Empire would have been a much stronger combatant.
[B]That's what I know.... :v:[/B]
I'm playing a game of "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", an old WW2 tabletop game, with my father (he's Axis, I'm Allies). While it's not a perfect source, it's far more accurate than video games are, and it's probably the only way to get a good feel for how things actually played out. These are my insights from it:
* Russia would not have won the war without help. Not military - financial. I'm literally sending about half my American resources each turn to Russia via Murmansk, just to keep them in the game.
* The defeat of Italy was important. Yes, nowadays it gets glossed over, and Rommel gets a lot of credit for the Axis side, but the British and American defeat of Italy was critical to stopping Germany.
However, history has some interesting things to say as well. There's plenty of evidence that America/Britain could have pushed in and taken Berlin quite easily. Their reasons for not doing so are unclear. It could have been generosity - just like French troops were allowed to retake Paris, Russian troops were allowed to take Berlin. It could also have been selfishness - why let our own men die when the Russians can do it?
So, ultimately, it really comes down to "all the allies won WW2". It literally could not have been done without all three of the main Allies (US, UK, and USSR).
Now, the really interesting thing is that many recent historians speculate that Germany could still have won as late as 1945. They had a lot of tech coming in that was pretty advanced, and their manufacturing was still pretty high up until the end. It's possible that they could have pushed the Soviets back, pushed the US and UK back across the Channel, and maybe eventually sued for peace and gotten it. Now that's an argument worth having.
Finland won WW2.
/Sarcasm
They kicked the Russians ass though!
[QUOTE=QwertySecond;15905830]PS. This is not nation-hate; this is a physcological, sociological and historical question, meant to quel my curiosity.[/QUOTE]
What is physcology?
Because america gave the allies alot of resources and much needed manpower at the time. Hell, the only reason the Allies won was because they could manufacture stuff faster than the axis, so you could say that we kind of "zerg rushed" them.
I promise we will try harder in WW3
America did contribute a lot in the way of supplies, and they did quite a bit with their soldiers too, it's hard to say they didn't do anything important. The allies could of won without them, sure, but it would of taken a lot longer.
Winner: Allied Powers
Loser: Axis Powers
I have no idea why this thread has lasted 7 pages...
[img]http://www.deeptruths.com/excerpts/images/truman_nuked_japan.jpg[/img]
Clearly Japan won.
Oh god the date. Look at the fucking date.
ITT: People claim [B]it's their country that won the war.[/B]
But seriously, if you take anyone out of the Allied Powers, they wouldn't win. This is a pointless thread.
[sp]Soviet Union/Russia did all the job. :trollface:[/sp]
[QUOTE=Rhodes;15905907]Winners of WW2:
Finland, Russia (won Germany, lost Finland)
The worst loser of WW2:
Germany, lost to two countries in the same war.[/QUOTE]
Finland: Possibly the only country to have fought the UK, the US, the USSR and Nazi Germany in the space of 4 years.
[editline]3rd January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=evilweazel;27180156]America did contribute a lot in the way of supplies, and they did quite a bit with their soldiers too, it's hard to say they didn't do anything important. The allies could of won without them, sure, but it would of taken a lot longer.[/QUOTE]
Without US material help, the Soviet Union would never have lasted that long.
The allied nations won WW2 together, every one helped.
There is no individual country that won the war. As many said before, joint operations. And still it's not UK, US and USSR that are the three winners because every individual battle counted and could turn the war. With that said you have to think about so many other countries like Poland (with taking over Monte Cassino and the closing of the Falaise pocket pretty much ending the war in the west europe) Australian efforts, Canadian efforts (with Juno beach, Caen) French sabouters, Bulgarian efforts and so many more.
Also have a story about a bear humping ammuniton during WW2
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_%28soldier_bear%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_%28soldier_bear%29[/URL]
He fucking ate cigarettes and drank bear, also he actually became a soldier when they signed papers for him so he could be shipped back.
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=mIg1pZgMGRk[/URL]
It's quite simple - everyone contributed equally.
And I'm not saying that just to please anyone, because it is actually true.
The UK:
I see so many people laughing off the UK's efforts in the war, and of course I have lost count of the times I have heard "lol America saved ur ass". Both are stupid. Well, ok, there is some merit to the second point, but I will get to that later. But ask the question: what would happened if the UK lost the Battle of Britain and they were successfully invaded? No one seems to think of that, and subsequently, no-one thinks of:
- Where would Operation Torch be launched from? Chances are, Gibraltar would either be under Axis control or the UK would be forced into neutrality - much like Vichy France.
- Where would Operation Husky be launched from? Africa would be in Axis hands, that is for sure.
- Where would Operation Overlord be launched from? This one is obvious.
The fact is, an invasion of Europe could not be launched from America, and all major amphibious invasions in WWII were from British territory or - in the case of Operation Husky - from territory gained as a result of a previous invasion from British territory. Consider also that, even if Germany was still be defeated by the USSR, it would leave most of the continent under Communist rule.
The USA:
I don't think I need to go into depth on this. They kept the UK afloat and contributed massively to the war effort, but - as I pointed out - successfully invading Europe without the UK would have been amazingly difficult, if not impossible.
The Commonwealth Countries:
Specifically Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I liken Canada to the USA in that they were removed geographically from any direct threat and, as a result, were able to supply the UK. I liken Australia and New Zealand to the UK due to their proximity to the enemy and their their usefulness as a base of operations from which to attack.
The USSR:
Again, I don't think I need to go too much into depth. They took a major hit for the team mid-war during Operation Barbarossa, and then managed to turn it around and drive the Germans right back to Berlin. Good show old boys.
Everyone helped, Lots of different countries fought in Italy, even Brazil sent some forces.
[QUOTE=cheezey;27178216]I think the avarage Russian was the biggest loser, for example, 80% of Soviet males born in 1923 didn't survive World War 2[/QUOTE]
"Hey guys, I can read some info in a Red Orchestra loading screen!"
[QUOTE=David29;27180953]It's quite simple - everyone contributed equally.
And I'm not saying that just to please anyone, because it is actually true.
The UK:
I see so many people laughing off the UK's efforts in the war, and of course I have lost count of the times I have heard "lol America saved ur ass". Both are stupid. Well, ok, there is some merit to the second point, but I will get to that later. But ask the question: what would happened if the UK lost the Battle of Britain and they were successfully invaded? No one seems to think of that, and subsequently, no-one thinks of:
- Where would Operation Torch be launched from? Chances are, Gibraltar would either be under Axis control or the UK would be forced into neutrality - much like Vichy France.
- Where would Operation Husky be launched from? Africa would be in Axis hands, that is for sure.
- Where would Operation Overlord be launched from? This one is obvious.
The fact is, an invasion of Europe could not be launched from America, and all major amphibious invasions in WWII were from British territory or - in the case of Operation Husky - from territory gained as a result of a previous invasion from British territory. Consider also that, even if Germany was still be defeated by the USSR, it would leave most of the continent under Communist rule.
The USA:
I don't think I need to go into depth on this. They kept the UK afloat and contributed massively to the war effort, but - as I pointed out - successfully invading Europe without the UK would have been amazingly difficult, if not impossible.
The Commonwealth Countries:
Specifically Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I liken Canada to the USA in that they were removed geographically from any direct threat and, as a result, were able to supply the UK. I liken Australia and New Zealand to the UK due to their proximity to the enemy and their their usefulness as a base of operations from which to attack.
The USSR:
Again, I don't think I need to go too much into depth. They took a major hit for the team mid-war during Operation Barbarossa, and then managed to turn it around and drive the Germans right back to Berlin. Good show old boys.[/QUOTE]
The US didn't just keep Britain in the game - they kept Russia fighting too. The Arctic convoys, the Persian corridor, and shipments via the Pacific & the Trans-siberian railroad probably accounted for as many supplies as Russia actually produced.
snip; replying to a year old comment
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27181131]The US didn't just keep Britain in the game - they kept Russia fighting too. The Arctic convoys, the Persian corridor, and shipments via the Pacific & the Trans-siberian railroad probably accounted for as many supplies as Russia actually produced.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention we gave them the T-34
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27181334]Not to mention we gave them the T-34[/QUOTE]
Ohhhhh.... you sick troll.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank#Production_history[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_tank[/url]
[quote]Christie, a race car mechanic from New Jersey, had tried unsuccessfully to convince the U.S. Army Ordnance Bureau to adopt his Christie tank design. In 1930, Soviet agents at Amtorg, ostensibly a Soviet trade organization, used their New York political contacts to persuade U.S. military and civilian officials to provide plans and specifications of the Christie tank to the Soviet Union. At least two of Christie's M1931 tanks (without turrets) were later purchased in the United States and sent to the Soviet Union under false documentation in which they were described as "agricultural tractors."[/quote]
The T-34 derived from the BT series made by Walter Christie which was handed over to the Russians during the interwar period.
Hurr hurr you ignorant kiddie.
[QUOTE=Osiris24;27177501]Only Russia won,the other allies didn't give a shit about the war.
Germany could won WW2,but it had too many enemies,trying to conquer Russia was the biggest mistake they made.[/QUOTE]
Why did you bump the thread you thick moron.
Jesus christ.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27181684][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank#Production_history[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_tank[/url]
That's like saying the British gave you the Sherman because it is based on designs found in the British WWI Mk. series of tanks.
The T-34 derived from the BT series made by Walter Christie which was handed over to the Russians during the interwar period.
Hurr hurr you ignorant kiddie.[/QUOTE]
America wins
[QUOTE=David29;27182509][/QUOTE]
Same goes for the P-51 from the British, and the Springfield rifles from Mauser.
sweden won
[sp]gave up on one phone call from germany[/sp]
[QUOTE=rosar0980;27177994]America DID win, along with Russia, England, and any other Allied country. We say we won, but most other countries take the claim too. We did win over Japan, however, without European assistance.[/QUOTE]
Actually Britain was actively engaged in the pacific war as well as australia, and not to mention the chinese imperial army, as well as korean and vietnamese revolutionary forces
Allies won, it's just the Americans being cocky and thinking they're superior in everything. They do that in a lot of subjects, not only WW2
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
