The Gang of Five
Howdy, everyone!

The member joining awards for 2019, 2020, and 2021 have been posted. We admins would like to thank each and every one of you who have made the forum their home over these years. It is because of people like you that the forum is the welcoming place that it is. :)

The forum supporter awards for those who maintained the forum on Patreon in 2023 will also be up shortly. Again, thank you all for what you do to keep our little corner of the Internet online!

America didn't do everything in WW2

Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Granted, I myself was guilty of this view, but I now find it appalling that so many of my fellow Americans believe they did everything in the war. As most historians know and believe, the war was not fought and won in the western front, but in the east. It was the Russians who gave everything they had to defeating the Nazis. To put in perspective, while American casualties were roughly 400,000 overall, total Russian casualties, both civilian and military, were well over 25 Million! The battles that decisively turned the tide of the war, Stalingrad and Kursk, were far more decisive then the Normandy Landings or the Battle of Britain. Why do western nations not recognize the role of the red army in its defeat of the Nazis?


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41208
    • View Profile
America did a lot, but it was only through the combined efforts of the Russians, Americans, British, French and many others , that Germany, Italy and Japan were defeated.  it took everybody, not just one country. the war was fought on 3 fronts, the west and East in Europe and in the Pacifc, and the war was won on 3 fronts, not just one. success on one front was independent of situations on the other fronts. the battle of Britain was very important as it occurred BEFORE Stalingrad and Kursk, England falls, the war is over at least in the West, and Germany can turn its complete attention to the Soviets.  Soviets did make enormous sacrifices, nearly half of the dead in the second World War, were Russian. Normandy was important, because it opened up the second front that Stalin had been asking for since at least 1942. and as for your last question, the reason is the Cold war. Russia and the US became the two great world powers after the war and were at loggerheads for nearly 50 years. so naturally the significant part they played in the war was glossed over or forgotten.
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15598
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Aye, it is true that there is a very stong tendency in Hollywood movies in particular to depict the US as the single handed winner of WW2 without whom the whole world would have fallen into the abyss of fashist terror.
The truth (admittedly a truth that is easier to diagnose with the benefit of hindsight than it probably was at the time the war was going on) is that there wasn't any realistic chance for nazi Germany to defeat the Soviet Union or rather to conquer it, murder most of the population and thereby gain "Lebensraum im Osten" (space to live in the east) the way Hitler pictured in his disgusting schemes.
Many Germans underestimated the Soviet Union and its military capacities for several reasons.
First there was WW1. The revolution in Russia caused a Russian surrender at Brest Litovsk to terms Russian politicians probably would have never agreed to, but for the fact that on the one hand the German defeat was foreseeable so the terms were likely to be very temporarry and secondly because Lenin and others thought more in class rather than nationalist terms therefore attributing less priority to national interests.
Secondly there was extremely expensive Pyrrhic victory of the Soviet Union against the much smaller smaller Finnland in the winter war of 1939-1940 which contributed to the immage of utter incompetence of the Soviet military.
Last but not least the crushing Soviet defeats of Soviet troops in the first months after the German attack reinforced that image (though a good deal of these defeats is to be blamed specifically to Stalin's making the same mistake as Hitler did by issuing "don't give an inch" orders that allowed for large troop contingents to be surrounded and captured rather than draining the attackers with a prolonged fighting retreat.
Unlike in case of 1917 there was no significant opposition in Russia to launch any kind of revolution (Stalin's brutal murdering of anyone even vaguely suspected of dissenting in the 1930s had made sure of that), and moreover the genocidal war of annihilation committed by the German troops also worked to create a "do or die" kind of mindset against the invaders.
The war of annihilation launched by Germany pretty much left the Soviet population nothing to gain at all from a ceasefire or peace with Germany. Therefore even in the worst case of a capture of Moscow in late 1941 this would not necessarily have resulted in a surrender of the Soviet Union. Production facilities had been evacuated beyond the Ural (well out of reach of the German Luftwaffe that lacked any long distance bomber) and of course the weather conditions were working against the invaders too. Napoleon's capture of Moscow in 1812 was considered even back then as an example that the capturing of the capital was not such a matter of course cause for a surrender as would have been the case with most nations in Western Europe.
The Soviet Union's military and industrial capacity surpassed that of Germany by far and the quality of the arms too was (contrary to ocassional claims very good). The T34 for example was probably the best middle tank of the war, the Iljuschin Il-2 Stormovik one of the best planes for ground support (and the most frequently produced plane in history) and the Katyusha rocket launcher, in spited of limitted accuracy proved highly effective to prepare infantry and tank attacks and demoralize the opponents.
The American contribution to WW2 was important (this refers also to the lent and lease goods provided prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor), very likely shortned the war by years and certainly ensured that large parts of Western Europe were not under the controll of the Soviet Union at the end of the war.
With regard to the outcome of winning and loosing however, the American contribution was not the decicive factor. The Soviet Union would have won even without the American entry into the war. Post WW2 Europe would have been entirely different however.
With regard to the losses the Eastern Front of the European theatre of WW2 was on an entirely different level compared to the western front. The losses of all western nations combined make for less than a tenth of the losses suffered by the Soviet Union (roughly 16 times the combined losses of both sides of the American civil war) and that is (get this!) only true if one counts the military death only ignoring millions and millions of civilians murdered in a genocidal war (and German losses on the Fastern Front were more than six times as high in the East than in the west and exceeded the total losses for the entire war in the west in every single year from 1941 to 1945 in the East.
Here is a graph to illustrate the difference (again, that one does not cover the millions of civilians brutally murdered who in terms of numbers again exceed by far the military deaths of both sides in the west):

Long story short, America's entry in WW2 did not determine its outcome, but It was absolutely crucial for the political landscape of post WW2 Europe an the world.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Quote from: Nick22,Sep 23 2015 on  11:25 PM
America did a lot, but it was only through the combined efforts of the Russians, Americans, British, French and many others , that Germany, Italy and Japan were defeated.  it took everybody, not just one country. the war was fought on 3 fronts, the west and East in Europe and in the Pacifc, and the war was won on 3 fronts, not just one. success on one front was independent of situations on the other fronts. the battle of Britain was very important as it occurred BEFORE Stalingrad and Kursk, England falls, the war is over at least in the West, and Germany can turn its complete attention to the Soviets.  Soviets did make enormous sacrifices, nearly half of the dead in the second World War, were Russian. Normandy was important, because it opened up the second front that Stalin had been asking for since at least 1942. and as for your last question, the reason is the Cold war. Russia and the US became the two great world powers after the war and were at loggerheads for nearly 50 years. so naturally the significant part they played in the war was glossed over or forgotten.
Yes, America did do a lot, heck, it was second only to the soviet union in its contribution to ww2. But still, I have to say that the Russians could have, and would have eventually, defeated the Germans with or without help from the western allies. However, I doubt they would have been able to defeat all three axis powers at once. It was necessary for all the allies to fight to completely defeat the axis.


Midnight

  • Freaking Rawr!
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
    • http://icedragonnet.blogspot.com.ar/
Quote from: Chomper98,Sep 24 2015 on  07:23 PM
However, I doubt they would have been able to defeat all three axis powers at once. It was necessary for all the allies to fight to completely defeat the axis.
Although, to be honest, Italy wasn't that much of a threat at the moment (even its elite troops were inferior and could have been easily overrun by the Russians, and their tactics were inadequate to say the least). That said, the Russians would have had a horrible time fighting all those battles on their own.



The Chronicler

  • Bionicle fan of GoF
  • Member+
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 5437
    • View Profile
To add on to Nick's final point, the Cold War is definitely a good reason why the Russian contribution to WWII is largely forgotten by most western nations. After all, in America in the 1950s, people were actually arrested for nothing more than just being suspected of being a Communist sympathizer. Any American in those days who tried to teach how the Soviets helped to win the war would likely have faced similar consequences. These days, with the Cold War over, we are now more accepting to the full picture. However, so many decades have since passed, long enough for certain myths and cliches to take hold in our culture that are unlikely to go away anytime soon.

In addition, the issue of ignoring certain contributors to the war might pretty much be the exact opposite in Russia. I once read somewhere that history textbooks in Russia to this day barely even mention the D-Day invasion of Normandy (not even a full paragraph). Just as America wanted to look like they won the war, the Soviet Union wanted to view themselves as winning the war. (There's a reason they still refer to it as the "Great Patriotic War", even to this day.)

From an objective point of view, it really depends on what kind of scoring system you want to use. If you want to count how many lives were sacrificed, then there's no doubt that the Soviet Union won. If you want to go by who emerged the strongest after the war, then the clear winner would be the United States. Before the war broke out, their military strength was not even among the top ten, but by the end of the war, they had definitely established themselves as a world superpower.

"I have a right to collect anything I want. It's just junk anyway."
- Berix

My first fanfiction: Quest for the Energy Stones
My unfinished and canceled second fanfiction: Quest for the Mask of Life
My currently ongoing fanfiction series: LEGO Equestria Girls