America and Soviet Union in WW2

Chomper98 · **on:** August 11, 2012, 11:28:02 PM

The last thing I dislike is based on history, where people say that it was Russia who really fought, when they say that they use the Russian death toll as an example, 28 million deaths, combined. Now I don't hate them, and I mean no offense, but all those deaths weren't from extreme determination or desperation, but because they were used as canon fodder by Stalin, simply to wear the Germans down and defeat them, he was intentionally using his own troops like barbed wire, leaving the German Panzers to drive over a soldier with a bomb. It was only that. Plus, Russia didn't enter the japanese war until the very end, trying to take the glory that rightfully belonged to the United States, who truly did do all the work in the Pacific, sacrificing many thousands to defeat the fanatical Japanese. But here is basically how I rank the participation of the Big Three in World War II:

Russia: 60% European Theatre, 10% Pacific Theatre
United States: 20% European Theatre 65%% Pacific Theatre
United Kingdom/ England: 20% European Theatre 25% Pacific Theatre

Now I again have respect for the dead in World War II, but the reason Russia lost so much wasn't from valor, from poor leadership, and a crazy leader, aswell as being used as cannon fodder, just there to wear them down.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #1 on:** August 12, 2012, 01:16:55 AM

Quote

#5.America Won the War Single-Handedly

Claimed By:

Hollywood, WWII-shooters, Cold War politics and chauvinists.

Sixty years of World War II movies, and a decade of WWII video games, have made one thing clear: If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German right now, baby! U-S-A! U-S-A!

How America fights a two-front war.

Why it's Bullshit:

Because it's like thinking that while many X-Men contributed in their own special way, defeating Magneto really came down to Iceman.

Cool party!

There are two radically different histories of WW II, the one that was actually fought, and the one where the US kicked everyone's assess. Guess which one Cold War-era classrooms were allowed to teach? Here's a hint: It's the same one Hollywood chose to film.

World War II wasn't just a clever name. It was a global conflict that included epic acts of heroism by non-Americans like the storming of Madagascar, the Battle of Westerplatte, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Kursk, the epically badass Kokoda Track, the pilots of the Polish Underground State, the details of El Alamein or the HMS Bulldog. Of course, Americans never hear about any of those unless, as in the case of the classic submarine film U 571, the characters are just straight up switched to Americans. To quote George S. Patton: "Americans love a winner," which you know because you saw Patton, the film that portrayed Field Marshal Bernard "Rommel-killer" Montgomery like a buffoon simply because he was British.

However, there is one Zangief-sized elephant in the room that America loved to leave out of conversation until the end of the Cold War: the Soviet Union. The "Great Patriotic War" as they called it was the single largest military operation in history, and home to perhaps the biggest turning-point of the war: the Battle of Stalingrad.

Understand, the Russia versus Germany part of the war wasn't just a little more important than the part the USA was involved in. It was "four times the scale" of the whole Western front, larger than all other phases of the war put together. The Soviet military suffered eight million soldiers dead, more than 20 freaking times the number of U.S. casualties.

Sounds pretty brutal for a John Wayne movie? Try figuring in another 13.7 million dead civilians.

It's tragic how many kids in the West never heard these stories growing up. One platoon leader in the Red Army named Yakov Pavlov personally rigged a Stalingrad apartment building with enough landmines, rifles and mortars to hold off half the Nazi army. The building was under fire day and night and even had some civilians in the basement, but the fortress never fell. Pavlov himself picked off one dozen tanks from the beast.

Our history books should not have been denied such awesomeness.

Chomper98 · **Reply #2 on:** August 12, 2012, 02:44:16 AM

Quote from: DarkHououmon,Aug 12 2012 on 12:16 AM

Quote
#5.America Won the War Single-Handedly

Claimed By:

Hollywood, WWII-shooters, Cold War politics and chauvinists.

Sixty years of World War II movies, and a decade of WWII video games, have made one thing clear: If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German right now, baby! U-S-A! U-S-A!

How America fights a two-front war.

Why it's Bullshit:

Because it's like thinking that while many X-Men contributed in their own special way, defeating Magneto really came down to Iceman.

Cool party!

There are two radically different histories of WW II, the one that was actually fought, and the one where the US kicked everyone's assess. Guess which one Cold War-era classrooms were allowed to teach? Here's a hint: It's the same one Hollywood chose to film.

World War II wasn't just a clever name. It was a global conflict that included epic acts of heroism by non-Americans like the storming of Madagascar, the Battle of Westerplatte, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Kursk, the epically badass Kokoda Track, the pilots of the Polish Underground State, the details of El Alamein or the HMS Bulldog. Of course, Americans never hear about any of those unless, as in the case of the classic submarine film U 571, the characters are just straight up switched to Americans. To quote George S. Patton: "Americans love a winner," which you know because you saw Patton, the film that portrayed Field Marshal Bernard "Rommel-killer" Montgomery like a buffoon simply because he was British.

However, there is one Zangief-sized elephant in the room that America loved to leave out of conversation until the end of the Cold War: the Soviet Union. The "Great Patriotic War" as they called it was the single largest military operation in history, and home to perhaps the biggest turning-point of the war: the Battle of Stalingrad.

Understand, the Russia versus Germany part of the war wasn't just a little more important than the part the USA was involved in. It was "four times the scale" of the whole Western front, larger than all other phases of the war put together. The Soviet military suffered eight million soldiers dead, more than 20 freaking times the number of U.S. casualties.

Sounds pretty brutal for a John Wayne movie? Try figuring in another 13.7 million dead civilians.

It's tragic how many kids in the West never heard these stories growing up. One platoon leader in the Red Army named Yakov Pavlov personally rigged a Stalingrad apartment building with enough landmines, rifles and mortars to hold off half the Nazi army. The building was under fire day and night and even had some civilians in the basement, but the fortress never fell. Pavlov himself picked off one dozen tanks from the beast.

Our history books should not have been denied such awesomeness.

Sources listed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKuym66LIr4#t=0m15s
http://www.designer-daily.com/examples-of-...propaganda-2918
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chauvinists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Westerplatte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_moscow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_campaign
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid...trained&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid...trained&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Underground_State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Alamein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bulldog_%28H91%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_%28film...garding_content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montg...Popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front...r_II%29#Results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#ref_US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_...Civilian_losses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlov%27s_House

It's not about "taking glory away from the US", Chomper98. It's about getting the facts straight. There is no glory in war.

I wasn't talking about taking the glory, I was stating that I hate it when people say it was either Russia or the United States who did all the work, not the glory, I mostly hate this because of a bully who was russian and did everything he could to make my life miserable, then gloating about Russia and how powerful it is, and bashing America, plus I am just very patriotic, so there for its kind of hard to accept it when people bash America, but had the Russians been better led, then they may have lost less people, but America still contributed hugely to the Allies, because last time I checked, Britain lost most of its heavy weapons at Dunkirk, and Russia took massive casualties in the 1st few months, and only at Stalingrad did the Russians turn the tables, and the reasons they won was because of massive manpower, determination, and the enemy's crazy commander, who could have won if they just went for Moscow, and Germany lost to Britain because of simply focusing on Cities, and not the Airfields, Factories, and naval bases, so while Russia did most of the fighting in the east, it couldn't have done so without American weapons, via the Lend-Lease, which saved both Britain and Russia from getting defeated early on, but once Russia regained the initiative, it quickly was the main force in defeating Germany, but it just piggybacked on America in the pacific, where America was the backbone, even heart of the Allies' pacific victory. I know Russia did a lot of the work, but a fireman cannot put out a fire without water. Russia was the fireman, America was the water.

I know Russia did so much, but so did America, it was a combined effort, with America and Russia the most important, each in their seperate fronts, Russia was Europe, America was the Pacific. Without either, Britain would have been crushed eventually.

I also am a history buff, and know almost everything about that conflict, aswell as all the others, so I know alot about it, and I have got my facts straight, I was just saying I hate it when people say Russia did everything. Casualties doesn't mean a country did the most in a war, it was how many numbers the enemy killed, and before you say most of the German deaths were on the eastern front, yet America took more prisoners, and I don't believe tortured their prisoners, which Russia did, and American soldiers didn't rape as many women and girls as Russian soldiers did, and Russia was just piggybacking in the pacific war. Yes, I know it wasn't about glory, but still, I hate it when a single country is said as doing it all, and the allies were forced into it, and poor Britain was forced to fight from summer 1940 to the summer of 1941, an entire year of resisting bombings, fighting alone, and hunting down the Bismarck(which was a major turning point in the war at sea), while Russia had to fight on its own for five months to prevent it from falling. I know that Russia did alot of the work, but people seem to disregard America's help in Europe, where it's lend leases and great assistance allowed the Allies to win, while Russia was unneeded in Japan, America would have eventually defeated Japan without Russia, its entry just speeded up the defeat.

I don't want this to turn into a Russian vs. American involvement in WWII, just stating that every country did its part, and did it D*** well! Plus, America took the heaviest losses at Normandy, more then twice that of Canada and Britain combined, the troops at Omaha were caught in a bloody battle, yet American heroism won Omaha, against all the odds, and America assisted greatly in the capture of Germany, and the liberation of Dachau, while Britain did the same with Belsen, and Russia at Auschwitz. Also, the Canadians led the liberation of Holland. So I know of the massive contribution of Russia to the allies, but it also was originally Germany's ally, it did much the same thing to the poles that Germany did. So Russia, while it contributed greatly, it's actions should not overshadow those of America, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, and China. I may have looked like I was simply supporting America, but I was also saying that all the other western allies contributed greatly. And Russia didn't liberate the east, it SUBJUGATED them, it forced Communist governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, while it never gave the Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians independence until 1991, so the west actually liberated their countries, Russia enslaved them.

Chomper98 · **Reply #3 on:** August 12, 2012, 04:46:33 AM

Why is it everytime I post a reply in After Midnight, either Darkhououmon or Malte279 go after me, as if I'm saying racist comments, and I have to explain myself over and over and over? I really am starting to think that you two just feel the need to try to disprove everything I say, and that I feel that I am being forced into long and lengthly discussions about these kinds of stuff. I know you have opinions, but is it necessary to simply look into other's posts and thinking up ways to piss them off, like what your doing with me? This is getting annoying and is really starting to infuriate me, and even considering not posting anything new, because one or both of you will simply force me into another long argument. I have my opinion, and I know my facts on this, but I am done doing this! I am not going to reply to anything either of you add, because you won't respect my opinion, and feel that I am getting targeted specifically for this, do you do this others? NO! Why do I feel like I'm a punching bag?

Malte279 · **Reply #4 on:** August 12, 2012, 05:23:17 AM

Hey Chomper, nobody is going after you. Kacie had quoted one article from elswhere and listed a number of articles. All she wrote by herself was

Quote

It's not about "taking glory away from the US", Chomper98. It's about getting the facts straight. There is no glory in war.

and I don't think anything you had written disagreed with that.
I did separate the posts and gave them an own thread, but that is not "targetting" you. Quite the contrary, I found the topic too interesting to leave it in the "things you hate" thread, which indeed could have become a basis for misunderstandings.
I am rather interested in history myself and I like seeing history threads started. As a matter of fact I refrained from posting myself when I made this an own thread because I was hoping for more contributions and didn't want to deter anyone from posting by writing something lengthy myself.

There are no discussions if everyone just agrees with everything everyone else says. Disagreeing about an opinion is not a personal attack of any sort. Nobody but yourself ever even brought up anything at all about racisim when talking to you. Please grow a little more thickskinned and understand that disagreeing on something is not some kind of personal attack.

jansenov · **Reply #5 on:** August 12, 2012, 06:24:49 AM

It's debatable how much Lend Lease contributed to the Soviet war effort in 1941/early 1942, when the Soviet Union needed aid most. Only later on Lend Lease did significantly increase the capabilities of the Red Army, especially by contributing seemingly less important, but actually crucial items such as trucks and boots (the Soviet economy at the time was far too centralised and structured for weapons production to take care of such "trivialities"). In short, the Soviet Union would have survived without Lend Lease, but it would suffer heavier casualties and the war would be longer.

Also, must correct you on Yugoslavia. Yugoslavian anti-fascist resistance was a homegrown movement, and the only such sucessful movement in Europe in WW2. Only at the Tehran Conference was it officialy recognised and supported by the Allies. In 1944 the movement had effective control over most of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbia was liberated the same year with the help of the Red Army, but the Red Army withdrew after the end of the war in Europe. The Soviet Union never had effective control over (all of) Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia was the first communist country to part ways with the Soviet Union, in 1948.

Throughout the Cold War, Yugoslavia was netral and considered both the Warsaw Pact and NATO as its enemies. At the same time it cooperated with both blocks economically, and was the only communist country to allow its citizens to freely leave the country (which many did in the 1960s, and left mostly for West Germany), as well as allow foreigners to freely enter it (foreigners mostly visited Croatia, which was touristically the most attractive part of Yugoslavia).

Nevertheless, the Yugoslav communist regime commited atrocities against its population just like other such regimes, and its economic model ultimately failed, and Yugoslavia fell apart in 1991.

Also, the West didn't liberate Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1991. They fought for thier independence themselves, and succeded because the Soviet government made a conscious decision to withdraw from Central Europe (the Sinatra Doctrine)
and ultimately to dissolve the Soviet Union and let each consistuent republic go her way, without a bloody war.

I agree with the rest of what you're saying, Chomper98.

Mirumoto_Kenjiro · **Reply #6 on:** August 12, 2012, 07:26:31 AM

^ The reason the Lend Lease effect for the Soviet Union in the early part of the war was the difficulties of supply routes to them. Taking the north route over Scandinavia where they could easily be raided, or the secret route through the Persian Gulf where they must not draw any attention of their enemies.

I think I understand what you're coming from, Chomper. Usually these yaps about whether one country or the other is better is the result of over-zealous national pride or ego trips, although the facts prove otherwise, as described by everyone here. I myself could never see victory in the war mentioned as achieved by one country alone, and far be it that either the US or Russia was running the show from start to finish. Russia had a pact with Germany at the start of the war and helped in the invasion of Poland, and did not change to the allies until Hitler ordered the invasion against them, committing atrocities along the way. And the US did not officially enter the war until 1942 (even though they've been supplying Britain since 1940), entering combat in 1943 and suffering defeats easily in their first battles. As I see in their roles of the war, Russia makes a massive fighting force and second front against the Nazis, and the United States makes a great supplier of equipment to the Allied Forces and could never really be stopped thanks to it being oceans away from their adversaries.

I my opinion, the outcome of the war in both theaters were contributed by all members of the Allied forces, from countries that have been occupied to where armies in exile continue to fight under other flags and the use of resistance fighters, to others that have been fighting the Axis even before 1939, like China and Korea.

All the flak you've been hearing from are mainly from those who are too short-minded to see the big picture of the event.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2012, 09:40:41 AM

My main issue is not who contributed more to the end of World War 2 (as I see no real victory either), but the fact that it seems that one part of the war was more or less neglected (I don't recall being taught this stuff in school) in schools. It would be one thing if it were just a very small, minor part of the war, but the Soviet Union portion was huge. Regardless if you feel the Soviet Union did more work than the US or not, I think it would still be fair to have that taught in history classes, if they still aren't that is.

The point of the article I quoted is that the USA did not win the war single-handedly. The US did not march to enemy countries and beat them into submission. Other countries were fighting in the war as well, including Russia. It's ridiculous to think WW2 was just a giant "GO USA! GO USA!" marathon.

I don't mind if you want to believe that the US was the turning point of the war so long as you acknowledge that other countries also played a role in helping to stop the war. It was not entirely the US.

Also keep in mind what Malte said, Chomper98. Disagreeing with you is not a "Let's all get Chomper98!" declaration. Don't feel like you're being attacked here. People all have differing opinions and have a right to them. You cannot expect everyone to drop their beliefs to agree with you.

So please just relax. You are not obligated to agree with anyone if you don't want to. And no one is obligated to agree with you if they don't want to.

f-22 "raptor" ace · **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2012, 10:55:32 AM

In a way the Soviet Union did do most of the work as far as the war in europe goes. And as for Germany going for Moscow instead of Stalingrad,it may have turned out the same way. The battles in Russia such as Kursk and Stalingrad destroyed much of the German army.

Chomper98 · **Reply #9 on:** August 12, 2012, 03:06:25 PM

Quote from: Malte279,Aug 12 2012 on 04:23 AM

Hey Chomper, nobody is going after you. Kacie had quoted one article from elswhere and listed a number of articles. All she wrote by herself was
Quote
It's not about "taking glory away from the US", Chomper98. It's about getting the facts straight. There is no glory in war.
and I don't think anything you had written disagreed with that.
I did separate the posts and gave them an own thread, but that is not "targetting" you. Quite the contrary, I found the topic too interesting to leave it in the "things you hate" thread, which indeed could have become a basis for misunderstandings.
I am rather interested in history myself and I like seeing history threads started. As a matter of fact I refrained from posting myself when I made this an own thread because I was hoping for more contributions and didn't want to deter anyone from posting by writing something lengthy myself.

There are no discussions if everyone just agrees with everything everyone else says. Disagreeing about an opinion is not a personal attack of any sort. Nobody but yourself ever even brought up anything at all about racisim when talking to you. Please grow a little more thickskinned and understand that disagreeing on something is not some kind of personal attack.

I don't take it asa personal attack, I was just a little annoyed about getting into arguments, not taking personal attacks, and I have the utmost respect for those who died in World War II, World War I, the American Civil War, and all the others, I am sorry if I came off as being racist. but I'm not, and when I posted about America doing a lot in WWII, I was also talking about the rest of the west, Like England or Canada, and I admire Britain's determination in fighting Germany, aswell as Russia, but I don't have a very high opinion of what Russia was at the time, and while it did do like 85 percent of the work, it still didn't liberate the east, it forced Communist governments on them, and used them as human shields should Germany have invaded again, while the west really did liberate France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Italy after it surrendered. I am just clarifying that while Russia was the most decisive in defeating the Nazis, it actually was an ally with them from 1939 to 1941, and it split Poland with them, and massacred many poles, and seized the Baltics, and invaded Finland, so Russia wasn't all that good at that time, it used its troops as cannon fodder, wearing down the Panzers and Soldiers, and continued this until they defeated the Germans at Stalingrad, where the decisive blow came, then Russia began advancing east, while the Western Allies closed in from the west. Here's how I think the big three contributed to the war effort:

America used industry, which produced the Armanents to give Britain and Russia the power they needed.
Russia used the military to push back the Germans to Berlin.
Britain used sea power and determination to hold out in 1940 and to sink the Bismarck and Tirpitz.

So yes, all three contributed hugely, just in different areas, and if you took one away, you would lose, the west couldn't have won with out Russia's vast military. Russia couldn't have won without America's industry and Britain's convoys. Britain couldn't have won without American industry or the Russian military, so it was a combined effort, which won the war.

Chomper98 · **Reply #10 on:** September 02, 2012, 05:46:59 PM

Something I would like to add is that America suffered the most casualties in the Battle of the Bulge, 89,000 dead, missing, or injured soldiers while the british suffered 1,400 combined casualties, massive difference. America did alot in the war, but so did Britain, they sank the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gniesanau, all of Germany's capital ships, they pushed the Italians out of Greece, they did alot to, here's how I think the Allies contributed to the war against Germany.

Russia

America

Britain

Canada

Australia

Norway

France

Poland

Greece

Yugoslavia

Denmark

France did nothing compared to Britain, America, Russia. Even Canada, and Australia did more. France simply thought they could dig in and wait, like they did in WWI, and(this goes to Britain to), they assumed Germany wouldn't learn from its mistakes. Norway fell in 3 months, France in six weeks. I don't mean to attack the French for their involvement, but it was really the Free French Forces and French resistance that did most of France's work. Sadly, Denmark was defeated in a day, but they did something else, they smuggled many Jews into Sweden to protect them, the only I believe to do so. Also, I think this thread should, if it can, be renamed "Allied involvement in World War II".

Malte279 · **Reply #11 on:** September 02, 2012, 07:01:01 PM

I'm glad that you mentioned the bravery of the Danish who saved most of their Jewish population by smuggling them to Sweden when the order for the murdering of the Jewish population in Denmark was impending. It is important to acknowledge the acts of heroism not conducted with a gun, but saving the lives of others. I'm not sure how much sense a ranking to war contribution makes (it ought to consider population and industrial capacity of a given country in any case when such comparisons are necessary. Also one mustn't overlook the suffering of civilian population from bombing attacks and genocidal terror), but then again I admit I generally have a hard time when it comes to rankings.

Malte279 · **Reply #12 on:** September 02, 2012, 07:16:25 PM

Recently I read a WW2 story which included mention of the rivalry between bomber pilots of the British bomber command and the US Air Force. Throughout WW2 the British did primarily carpet bombing of towns during the night while strategic bombing of specific targets in daylight was mostly done by the US Air Force. As a result some American pilots accused the British of cowardice and hiding in the night. What was overlooked was that the British night time casualties were significantly higher than the American daytime casualties (According to Wikipedia which I acknowledge to be a souce of varying reliability 55 573 of about 125 000 aircrew members of the British bomber command were killed making up for more than 44% casualties and in addition to that more than 8400 were wounded and more than 9800 became POWs. The article claims for US daylight raid losses to have been about 26 000 killed and 23 000 POWs out of about 350 000 aircrew members total).
Today neo-nazis in Germany claim for the bombing attacks to have been genocide and calling it a "bomb holocaust". The destruction and suffering from the bomb war were horrible and I have been talking to people who lived to tell the tale. What neo-nazis do not mention is that Germany did bomb towns like Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, and Coventry (to name just a few of the early examples) before the allied mass bombing of Germany began. The debate about the necessity of some attacks in the final days of the war is continued over here, but I do hope that it is not conducted with a spirit of accusation and abuse on behalf of nazi ideologies.

Chomper98 · **Reply #13 on:** September 02, 2012, 07:58:39 PM

Quote from: Malte279,Sep 2 2012 on 06:16 PM

Recently I read a WW2 story which included mention of the rivalry between bomber pilots of the British bomber command and the US Air Force. Throughout WW2 the British did primarily carpet bombing of towns during the night while strategic bombing of specific targets in daylight was mostly done by the US Air Force. As a result some American pilots accused the British of cowardice and hiding in the night. What was overlooked was that the British night time casualties were significantly higher than the American daytime casualties (According to Wikipedia which I acknowledge to be a souce of varying reliability 55 573 of about 125 000 aircrew members of the British bomber command were killed making up for more than 44% casualties and in addition to that more than 8400 were wounded and more than 9800 became POWs. The article claims for US daylight raid losses to have been about 26 000 killed and 23 000 POWs out of about 350 000 aircrew members total).
Today neo-nazis in Germany claim for the bombing attacks to have been genocide and calling it a "bomb holocaust". The destruction and suffering from the bomb war were horrible and I have been talking to people who lived to tell the tale. What neo-nazis do not mention is that Germany did bomb towns like Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, and Coventry (to name just a few of the early examples) before the allied mass bombing of Germany began. The debate about the necessity of some attacks in the final days of the war is continued over here, but I do hope that it is not conducted with a spirit of accusation and abuse on behalf of nazi ideologies.

Don't forget the Blitz, that was probably one of the hardest, if not the hardest, event England ever went through, and I greatly admire their resolve to fight on when the odds were stacked like a tower against them. I am not criticizing anything on behalf of the nazis, I just like to analyze alot of stuff in history, and I made that list based on military contribution. A list on all contributions would be impossible, for each country did good in the war against the nazis, whether militarily like the Soviets, industrially like the Americans, or compassion for those Hitler targeted, like the Danes. If any nation should be truly criticised for its involvement in World War II, its Russia. I'm not arguing against its military involvement and its instrumental role in the war, but its actions during the war. Before June 22, 1941, Russia was a de-facto ally of Germany, and committed horrible atrocities against Poland, who was still a Soviet satellite until 1989. The most horrible atrocity against the Poles' was in the revolt of Warsaw, where Stalin actually convinced the Polish Home army to revolt, under the pretense that the Russians would aid them, yet when they did, Russia did nothing, and the few who escaped were hunted down and murdered by the Russians. I am quite sorry if what I was writing made me sound like a neo-nazi, which I am most certainly not. I was writing the first post with a combination of nationalism, patriotism, and anger at Russia's treatment of Eastern Europe before and after the war.

Chomper98 · **Reply #14 on:** September 11, 2012, 09:18:20 PM

I know this is disputed, but in reality, America DID do the most in WW2, not by fighting, but by supplying, feeding, and lending Britain and Russia almost everything they needed. America saved Britain in 1940 due to the convoys, they kept Britain alive. Every documentary I've seen says that. America also supplied Russia, with ALOT of stuff, including Tanks, oil, and other commodities, to keep the massive Russian war machine on its feet. If America never got involved, Germany would have likely won, as would Japan. America did the most industrially. Infact, Germany could never defeat America. In a one on one scenario, it would have been a stalemate. Germany would have to transport large amounts of troops across the Atlantic, where the ships would be cut down by the massive United States navy. Also, America could never attack Germany unless capturing, and holding on to, occupied Britain. They would likely be forced to send massive amounts of their own troops to Britain, all the while against relentless German bombings. But in the end, America would never win D-day on its own. But still, America would have likely still entered the war if the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor even if Russia never entered. The war would have lasted until 1951 at the earliest, but America and Britain would have won. America was the greatest industrial power, and by 1945 it was finishing a single ship in 7 days, and its navy reached 6,421.

jansenov · **Reply #15 on:** September 11, 2012, 09:44:51 PM

^The USA was indeed by far the greatest and most advanced industrial power back then (accounting for over 40% of the world's warmaking potential in 1937, sustaining little damage on its home territory, nuclear weapons and long-range bombers in 1945), probably capable not only of defeating the Axis on its own, but even continuing the war against the USSR and winning, should it have the political will and military morale to do so.

But the fact remains that most of this American potential remained unrealised, because the USA (un)fortunately never mobilised all available resources and manpower. This helped establish the USA as the world's dominant economy, alone accounting for 50% of the world's GDP
50% of the world's GDP in 1945.

Nick22 · **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2012, 10:28:32 PM

ww2 was not a war a single counntry could win on its own chomper. while the us was the arsenal of democracy, we have to remember that at the start of the war the us's army was tiny, less than 100000 men. torev up production to parity with germany and the axius powers, in just over a year ws incredible. but war is about timning, Us did not enter the war until dec 1941, and before that both russia ands britian were very much on the ropes, indeed when france fell in june 1940, england came very close to being defeated and the war ended without the us being able to intervene. Russia was not invaded until June 1941, in 1940 it was the britrish against germany and her alies, by itself. britian was practically bankrupt, in order to pay for lendlease they gave the us 99 year leases on based like those in Greenland. fdr , remember insisted that germany or japan declare war on us first, for domestic consumption. He did not want to be the agressor. russia paid an incrdibly heavy toll, in lives, part of that was due to incompetence on stalins part, remember he had purged most of his top generals and other perceived enemies during the 30s, and did not trust those who gave him forewarning of ther German Attack. Rather that toot ones own horn, one musr recognize the cpollective effort. without the combined foicrces of the US Russia, Britian and the other Allies Germany Italy and Japan could not have been defeated. The US , would, if it had been alone against the combined forces of Germany Italy and Japan in say early 1942, would have faced long odds in gaining victory. time, and space was what counted, time to build up its naval land and air capabilities. money was not a consideration, the US spent about 3 trillion in todays dollars on the war the national dent quintupled from 40 billion before the war to 240 billion afterwards, even with top tax rates at 90% and the US on a war footing. The Us lost 406000 soldiers, which was the most it had lost in any way save the Civil War where both sides were Americans and the toll was around 620000. but that was nothing compared to many of the other combatants, england, germany poland china and Russia, who lost millions, tens of millions in Russias case and in germanys as well, depending on how you count casualities. The US was very lucky in many regards. Apart from pearl harbor and a Japanese invasion of the remore Aleutian islands in 1942, , both of which were territories at the tiume, and not full states, the US did nopt suffer invasion.