[dontwastemytime]

I think they did. I think that without them, Europe would have been Naziland, including Britain.

What do the euros*** think of that?

[Unthinking Majority]

Russia was more instrumental than any other country in defeating the Germans. The UK, US, Canada etc only made a big push with D-day in 1944 towards the end of the war after Germany wasn't looking so hot after being brutalized by the Russians especially due to the winters there.

The US obviously defeated Japan, ending WW2. So i guess in that sense the "won it". The US was also by far the most well-off when the war ended since their territory was left virtually unscathed unlike the now former great powers like Britain, France, Germany, and then Russia had suffered massive casualties and had to rebuild. So in that sense you could say the US "won" WW2 since they jumped over war-torn countries like Britain, France, Germany etc to become a global superpower.

Certainly no country benefited from WW2 more than the USA, other than European and Asian-controlled colonies that gained their independence following WW2, ie: India, since the colonies were just too costly for the European/Asian empires to maintain as they had to rebuild domestically.

[fuser]

Germany didn't had the capacity to win a total against either British Empire or USSR completely on its own. May be without US, post war world would had been a little different, but Europe becoming a naziland is just fantasy.

[dontwastemytime]

Russia was more instrumental than any other country in defeating the Germans.

Oh really Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation? Hmm. Where was this instrumental Russia you speak off when the US was invading nations and slaughtering millions? In fact, where was Europe when the US was doing all this since you are the ones who are most vocal about it?

[dontwastemytime]

May be without US, post war world would had been a little different, but Europe becoming a naziland is just fantasy.

Nah, I don't think so. I think you are angry because it wasn't you who won the war and today you are no more than worthless nations.

[fuser]

Oh shit for a moment I thought this was suposed to be a serious topic.

[SSDR]

The Soviet Union won the Second World War. The United States just wanted to come in to establish their capitalist markets so that they can get more rich. People fell for it by getting brainwashed by their corrupt, shitty Zionist culture. The Zionist agenda that Americans were promoting is what really destroyed everything.

The Yanks then tried to destroy the Soviet Union and its allies. Once that happened, human trafficking, prostitution, social chaos, and Zionist ways of life made all of Eastern Europe a wasteland. That's Americana for you.

There is shitty food like "soda." There are fast food places. People wear lots of jeans and have tattoos. People party like animals. Crime is higher. It's getting more ghetto. That's Americana. That's pax Judaica.

[ThirdTerm]

The Nazi Empire in Europe would have survived, if he had not attacked the Soviet Union. The Germans were outnumbered 1 to 10 by the Soviets in the Russian theater. Stalin enlisted millions of Russian soldiers to win the war. He had some 5 million men available immediately and a total of 23,000 tanks. The Germans had no satisfactory long-term plan for the invasion. Hitler wrongly had assumed that 'We have only to kick in the front door and the whole rotten edifice will come tumbling down'. The D-Day invasions further weakened Nazi Germany which was forced to fight a two-front war. It was the US which emerged as the ultimate winner after the demise of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the British Empire. The new world order was created and managed by Washington in the post-war era (i.e. the UN, the IMF). Britain was on the winning side but she lost the empire to Churchill's chagrin. Probably the world has become a better place without colonialism and communism.

[quetzalcoatl]

The US role was most pivotal in the Pacific war. In Europe, Russia was, by circumstance, forced to hold the line for years. France was defeated, and England was desperately holding on. It took the US the better part of two years to fully ramp up war production. The US role in Europe could be described as the straw that broke the camel's back (although it was a pretty big straw, to be fair).

[JohnRawls]

I think they did. I think that without them, Europe would have been Naziland, including Britain.

What do the euros*** think of that?

Retaking Europe would not be possible under any circumstances even with the nuclear bomb if the USSR was not part of the war. So in a sense, USSR did do the majority of the heavy lifting during WW2 against the Germans, Italians and other allies of Germany in Europe.

Britain or US would not be able to land anywhere if the USSR did not send forces of Germany and its Allies through a meat grinder for 4 years. Nazis would have won in Africa and all of Northern Africa along with Turkey would be under them also. Heck they would probably be rolling in to India by 1942 if it wasn't for the USSR. Instead of 2 Panzer Divisions in North Africa there would be 5 with additional 5 infantry ones. And a lot more U-boats and Bissmarks.

There is no way to make even a landing in Europe if the Germans simply have their 20 Panzer divisions and 20/30 Mechanized divisions in reserve on top of the tens of thousands of planes that would not be deployed in the USSR. And the number of those planes and panzer divisions would just grow since the Soviets would not be killing them. And the final factor is that if the NAzis and USSR weren't at war then that would mean they would be trading with each other like in 39. I would say this is on the same level or larger than land lease that the US sent to the allies during WW2.

Having said that it doesn't mean that the USSR could have won alone. I do not think that the USSR could have won alone without the UK and the US. Would UK and USSR be enough? Perhaps but we will never find out. USSR and the US would definitely be enough though. As for UK and US, again i think still not enough because there is no place to launch any offensive in to Europe. Its stalemate scenario.

[Atlantis]

As for UK and US, again i think still not enough because there is no place to launch any offensive in to Europe.

The UK/US could never have won a land war on the continent on their own. They wouldn't even have tried. The Russians were obviously indispensable for defeating the Nazis. And as soon as the Nazis were defeated, the Western allies turned around to betray the Russians for their effort.

[JohnRawls]

The UK/US could never have won a land war on the continent on their own. They wouldn't even have tried. The Russians were obviously indispensable for defeating the Nazis. And as soon as the Nazis were defeated, the Western allies turned around to betray the Russians for their effort.

No, the Allies did not betray the USSR. US for example fulfilled all of the promises regarding land lease even after the war. Portraying the Allies as betrayers is wrong and factually incorrect. Only couple of years after the war the relationship deteriorated and both sides were responsible for it. It is not a story of good and evil.

[Rich]

The Soviet Union won the Second World War. The United States just wanted to come in to establish their capitalist markets so that they can get more rich. People fell for it by getting brainwashed by their corrupt, shitty Zionist culture. The Zionist agenda that Americans were promoting is what really destroyed everything.

The Soviet Union backed Israel. it was the Czechs at Stalin's directions that bailed out the Zionist war effort. Stalin backed the Jews against the Muslims, because he thought the Jews were winners and the Muslims losers.

The Soviets and the Nazis were allies. Hitler was only able to get his victories in the West because of Soviet oil and other resources of which Germany had a desperate shortage. Hitler was only able to build up and supply his huge Barbarossa invasion force because Stalin stupidly continued to supply him oil. The reason for the short period planned to knock out the Soviet Union was not due to any military analysis of the likely time needed to ensure Soviet collapse, but was the tailored to fit the predicted exhaustion of German fuel reserves. By the Autumn of 41 Germany was already having to curtail military operations. From 1942 the Germans engaged in large scale de-motorisation.

In the pathetic Communist fantasy the German army was bled white at Stalingrad. In fact casualty levels inside the city were lower than the preceding fighting outside. The Germans just did not commit the supplies or the replacements to the battle inside Stalingrad. Partly because of Halder's idiotic obsession on Moscow, but largely because of the huge logistical difficulties. Even the failure of Goering's airlift after 6th Army was surrounded was not due to lack of transport planes, but lack of fuel. The lack of oil compromised every facet of the German war effort. The Germans knocked out the allied forces in France and the low countries in a matter of weeks. This was lucky for them, because they lacked both the fuel and the ammunition reserves to sustain continued offensive operations.

[SSDR]

@Rich,

Yes you are correct on how the Soviet Union backed up Israel. When Israel formed in 1948, the Soviet Union originally supported it. One of the reasons why the Soviet Union wanted a Zionist state to form was so there was a cover up excuse to have many Jews in the Soviet Union to leave. I am not a Stalinist, nor am I follower of him. One of the main reasons why I dislike Stalinist politics is because it is Zionist leaning.

The Soviet Union had to be friends with fascist Germany because the Soviet Union needed to gain some time to build its industry, military, and defense lines. The longer the Soviet Union was friends with the fascists, the more time there was to build up its strength.

[JohnRawls]

:lol: The Soviet Union backed Israel. it was the Czechs at Stalin's directions that bailed out the Zionist war effort. Stalin backed the Jews against the Muslims, because he thought the Jews were winners and the Muslims losers.

The Soviets and the Nazis were allies. Hitler was only able to get his victories in the West because of Soviet oil and other resources of which Germany had a desperate shortage. Hitler was only able to build up and supply his huge Barbarossa invasion force because Stalin stupidly continued to supply him oil. The reason for the short period planned to knock out the Soviet Union was not due to any military analysis of the likely time needed to ensure Soviet collapse, but was the tailored to fit the predicted exhaustion of German fuel reserves. By the Autumn of 41 Germany was already having to curtail military operations. From 1942 the Germans engaged in large scale de-motorisation.

In the pathetic Communist fantasy the German army was bled white at Stalingrad. In fact casualty levels inside the city were lower than the preceding fighting outside. The Germans just did not commit the supplies or the replacements to the battle inside Stalingrad. Partly because of Halder's idiotic obsession Moscow, but largely because of the huge logistical difficulties. Even the failure of Goering's airlift after 6th Army was surrounded was not due to lack of transport planes, but lack of fuel. The lack of oil compromised every facet of the German war effort. The Germans knocked out the allied forces in France and the low countries in a matter of weeks. This was lucky for them, because they lacked both the fuel and the ammunition reserves to sustain continued offensive operations.

Okay, some of this is correct but some is not.

After World War 2 ended, historians and military leaders had a lot of time to do their research and rethink some stuff especially after 1990s and 2000s. So what you are saying is correct in regard that the Germans really needed oil and Stalin basically weaponized them by supplying the raw materials. People just don't understand how oil starved they were durring WW2. Germany produced around 1/3-1/4 of what was needed for the territory they controlled. (This includes Romanian reserves and any other reserves in their territory)

People do not understand that basically 70% of world Oil production was concentrated in 2 places: USA and USSR. Venezuela and Romania were 2nd tier of sorts.

Here is a map from 1939 for oil production:



When the war started, Oil deliveries to Germany were hampered. It was blockaded or in active fighting phase against major producers. They simply couldn't get it anywhere besides synthetics which was not enough.

This did not necessarily mean that they could not conduct military operations. Germans stockpiled a lot of oil before the war which they could happily live of for some time. As Rich said 1942 was the year when the military started really feeling the oil shortage but it is a bit more complicated then that. They did have to de-motorise from around late 1943? because they simply couldn't find enough oil for all the planes, ships, submarines etc.

The Soviets didn't win because of that though. It sure helped but the problem was a bit more severe. Germans thought that the Soviets will be defeated within 4-5 months. I mean why wouldn't they? They defeated Poland and France very fast. France was the problem durring WW1 and the USSR/RUssia was a weaker opponent in WW1. It didn't help that they didn't have clear inteligence about the USSR. Heck, as much as i understand they didn't even know who was fully in charge in the USSRs army and who the commanders were much less divisions.

They simply thought that Germans will need 150 Divisions against the Soviet 150 Divisions + 50 reserve divisions. This was wrong on so many levels. The reality was that Stalin had around 400 Divisions at the start of Barbarossa. Not all of them were near the Soviet - German border but that should give you the picture. Also note that German Divisions or not of the same size as the Soviet ones. Soviet divisions are 2 times smaller. So for simplicity sake 2 soviet divisions = 1 german one. So it was not unreasonable to think that the Germans would win easily by outnumbering the Soviets 2 to 1. The reality is that the Germans were actually outnumbered at the start of Barbarossa. Since the germans were slowed down then it also meant things like logistics had to be taken in to account which the German logisticians pointed out but were overruled because you know "We gonna steam roll them". But it happened pretty much a long the lines of what German logisticians said. You gonna advance 400 miles and then run out of oil, spare parts, food and will have to stop. This is exactly what actually happened.

When people think of Stalingrad or Moscow then they forget that German logistical lines were a nightmare. You can't put infinite amount of divisions in 1 place and then hope they will be supplied. The attack on Stalingrad and the Caucuses was important because of the oil but they couldn't commit more forces simply because the logistical lines couldn't handle shipping more resources. I mean do not forget that the Soviets pretty much went full scorched earth as soon as they understood the situation after the initial shock of the attack. This bought them time to reorganise and fight back.

Hitler was 100% correct at supporting the Caucuses approach. Germany really badly needed the oil and if the Caucuses would have been taken then they would simple process and ship oil from the Caucuses which was closer and easier to deliver from to their units. It also would have denied almost 80% of Soviet oil. That would help their oil and supply situation tremendiously.

Hitler wasn't stupid. It is easy to blame Hitler for every bad decision but now we understand that Hitler usually did the right decisions for the Nazis. He supported Caucuses attack instead of Moscow or Stalingrad for example.(Most of the German generals thought that taking Moscow would end the war. Would it really?) Even the order to stand and defend cities when Soviets were attacking was more or less correct. They learned this lesson from the Soviets. When the Soviets were retreating they also did the same thing and the reality of this was that it slowed down the Germans in the initial year greatly. It might look dumb on the surface but if the Soviets had better coordination at the start of the war then those troops might not have even been surrounded. The decision by itself was correct. If big cities don't fall then you don't have logistics because most logistical lines of any sort run through those cities. Most of the mistakes are put on Hitler but reality is that he agreed with the generals 80%? 90%? of the time. And the times when he didn't usually meant that he actually did correct dicisions compared to the generals. (Caucuses priority over Moscow, Nazis no step back order etc)

As for the end of the war. Well the Soviet just reorganised and learned to fight really well. They basically destroyed the Nazi army in the field because they became on par or better and had more resources in general. So when you hear those bullshit stories that German generals say that they were outnumbered 20 to 1 then take it with a Grain of Salt. The Soviets outnumbered the Germans basically 1.7 to 1 from 1940 till late 1944. The only reason the Soviets outnumbered them 20 to 1 in some places is because they really perfected deception, camouflage and maskirovka. It is the German generals fault that they did not understand this. Even after 1944 the soviets didn't reach 3 to 1 ratio of forces. The mistakes that the Soviets did were also the same mistakes that the French, US, UK did versus the Germans. The difference is that USSR actually had the depth to retreat, learn and reorganise but had to fight constantly during that time compared to the rest. I do not think that any of the Allies would fare better than the Soviets actually did under the circumstances.

[annatar1914]

Oh cry me a river you miserable euroc***.

Wow, you sound like a real charmer. I figure that if you aren't just someone else's sock account, you probably won't be around for all the trolling and personal attacks. So, why do you disagree with Atlantis's statement, exactly?

[colliric]

The Allied forces won.

No need to be too specific.

The USA beat Japan up then dropped two atomic bombs on them. So yes they did win the Pacific Theatre. But Europe was more of a team effort. I do think Russia can take more credit for that. Stalingrad was a roust.

You are all stupidly focused on the European theatre, but the US punched Japan to a pulp almost singlehandedly. Some help from the British forces and Australians, but yes they can claim the Pacific as their victory. And that obviously ended later than Europe did.

[annatar1914]

The Allied forces won.

No need to be too specific.

The USA beat Japan up then dropped two atomic bombs on them. So yes they did win the Pacific Theatre. But Europe was more of a team effort. I do think Russia can take more credit for that. Stalingrad was a roust.

You are all stupidly focused on the European theatre, but the US punched Japan to a pulp almost singlehandedly. Some help from the British forces and Australians, but yes they can claim the Pacific as their victory. And that obviously ended later than Europe did.

@colliric ,

Most of the Imperial Japanese Army was in Manchuria, while the Imperial Japanese Navy and Marines were the majority of Fascist forces faced by the US the rest of the Anglo contingents. And in the last month of the war in 1945, Soviet forces gave the Japanese the most crushing defeat in their military history as a people. Between that and facing ruin on the home front via atomic weaponry and other incindiary devices, the Emperor surrendered somewhat unconditionally.

[colliric]

@colliric ,

Most of the Imperial Japanese Army was in Manchuria, while the Imperial Japanese Navy and Marines were the majority of Fascist forces faced by the US the rest of the Anglo contingents. And in the last month of the war in 1945, Soviet forces gave the Japanese the most crushing defeat in their military history as a people. Between that and facing ruin on the home front via atomic weaponry and other incindiary devices, the Emperor surrendered somewhat unconditionally.

It's still important to note they got smashed primarily by the USA. It's ok to give them credit for that one.

[Politics_Observer]

@colliric

I think we were also very fortunate to have great allies like Australia who helped tremendously in the Pacific. The Australians have excellent soldiers who are particularly well trained for jungle warfare. It's very important to show appreciation and gratitude to our Australian allies as they were there with us and fought very well. The US can never be a success without it's allies and we owe some of our success to great allies like Australia. While serving in the US Army overseas in the recent wars, I have seen the tremendous work and sacrifices our allies have made helping us out. And it's important that our allies are appreciated and recognized and treated with the respect they deserve.