Did USA won WW2? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15013544
colliric wrote:It's still important to note they got smashed primarily by the USA. It's ok to give them credit for that one.


Sure, I can say ''primarily'' too, and don't get me wrong my friend, I'm an American patriot and very proud of what the United States did from beginning to end in the war against the Empire of Japan to end their schemes of Asian conquest. But I'm also proud of the contributions of our other allies in Asia; the Chinese, the British, the Australians and New Zeelanders, and the Russians, who grandly crushed and avenged the defeats of the Russo-Japanese War some 40 years before.
User avatar
By colliric
#15013552
Politics_Observer wrote:@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.


Image

.... MacArthur had a nice office in Brisbane. Been there once or twice.
#15013554
@colliric

colliric wrote:.... MacArthur had a nice office in Brisbane. Been there once or twice.


MacArthur was a bit too arrogant for his own good. He could be brilliant sometimes, but he was a bit full of himself. His men called him "Dug-out Doug" for when he left the Philippine Islands to go to safety to Australia while his men had to surrender to the Japanese without him and be marched off on the Bataan Death March where many Americans died and were brutally treated by the Japanese soldiers. The Japanese regarded surrender as "dishonorable" and looked down on those who surrendered to them as sub-human and treated them brutally. Here is a good link to read about it here. Not sure if you are familiar with this part of World War II history or not: https://www.history.com/topics/world-wa ... eath-march
By B0ycey
#15013558
I think people over estimate the SUs hand in WW2. Perhaps even the weather was more instrumental actually. So maybe luck prevented the SUs defeat.

Nonetheless where Germany was attacking SU, it was defending Normandy. Had it not been surrounded and having to defend two sides they could have taken the SU, yet invading the UK (and certainly the US) was never even a remote possibility. So whilst we shouldn't say that the SU didn't play apart in defeating the Nazis, we should also recognise that the allies helped them out by just being a united force and moving half of Germanys army west.

As for the US, they no doubt were the difference. D-Day could never have happened without them and without D Day, the SU would never had the opportunity to move into Berlin as Germany would have more of an army to the Eastern flank as the allied forces would still be suck in Dover.
#15013559
I like to share this interview from the Bataan Death March survivor. It's important to listen to the stories told by war veterans of any nation so that we understand the follies of war. War is just stupidity and insanity and nobody wins. We were all idiots:



By Atlantis
#15013570
JohnRawls wrote: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.


Call it betrayal or call it the usual deviousness of Anglo imperialists, it pretty much amounts to the same thing. It wasn't a matter of "several years" before "relations deteriorated." The UK/US moved against the Soviets before the Nazis had even been defeated. Communists (for example in Greece) were imprisoned as soon as the British moved in. In Germany, the Americans took ship-loads full of equipment (V2 factories, etc.) before Russian soldiers were able to occupy their part of Germany. All of that isn't a sign of goodwill towards the Russian ally. The alliance with the Russians was an alliance of convenience to defeat the Nazis. As soon as that was achieved, the previous antagonism between the British (Americans) and Russians came back to the fore. But if you are from the Baltic, I can understand that your feelings towards the Russians isn't entirely free of bias.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#15013616
B0ycey wrote:I think people over estimate the SUs hand in WW2. Perhaps even the weather was more instrumental actually. So maybe luck prevented the SUs defeat.

Nonetheless where Germany was attacking SU, it was defending Normandy. Had it not been surrounded and having to defend two sides they could have taken the SU, yet invading the UK (and certainly the US) was never even a remote possibility. So whilst we shouldn't say that the SU didn't play apart in defeating the Nazis, we should also recognise that the allies helped them out by just being a united force and moving half of Germanys army west.

If anything, people in the west vastly understate the importance of the Soviet Union's role, primarily because it is currently fashionable in liberal circles to look down on Russians as beastly savages.

The Eastern front was the real centre of the war, as far as Germany was concerned, and for most of the time they were fighting in the East, we were doing bugger all in Western Europe. The difference in casualty rates alone proves the difference in the intensity of the fighting on each front.

Of course, what is overestimated, especially by PoFo's resident communists, is the extent to which the Soviet Union was fighting a principled "anti-fascist" battle against Germany. Stalin was perfectly happy to ally with Hitler at the start of the war, and communists throughout the west praised him for it right up until the start of Barbarossa.
By B0ycey
#15013621
Heisenberg wrote:If anything, people in the west vastly understate the importance of the Soviet Union's role, primarily because it is currently fashionable in liberal circles to look down on Russians as beastly savages.


Sure the West understates the SU contribution to the war - or more accurately under educate their contribution to their populous due to political narratives. But the entire West isn't writing in the forum, only a few Russianphiles. The fact of the matter is that Germany would have more likely taken Stalingrad had it not been for the weather and if they could have had more men to attack it when the weather was good. Or if Hitler waited to attack. However invading the UK was never a remote opportunity at any point in the war and certainly not invading the US in any circumstance anyway. Without Russia in the war, WW2 would have either been a stalemate or ended with a nuclear detonation over Berlin. If the allies were not in the war Russia would have more likely lost. Thinking that Russia won WW2 is borderline delusional. The defining factor was American involvement. Thinking otherwise is just naive.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#15013622
B0ycey wrote:The fact of the matter is that Germany would have more likely taken Stalingrad had it not been for the weather and if they could have had more men to attack it when the weather was good.

And Germany could have completely destroyed the British military at Dunkirk, if it weren't for some very silly command decisions.

War, by its nature, involves a lot of "what if" scenarios. The actual "fact" of the matter is that Germany didn't take Stalingrad, and the Red Army subsequently fought like hell, at a cost almost unimaginable to us, to ensure their ultimate defeat.

Of course, when Hitler declared war on America he sealed Germany's fate, but in the European theatre Russia did almost all of the heavy lifting. Like Quetzalcoatl says, the USA was essentially the (very big) straw that broke the camel's back in Europe. Its biggest contribution was in the Pacific war.

It was similar in WW1. America's entry made Germany's defeat inevitable, but to say America made the biggest contribution to the war effort in WW1 is utterly absurd.
By B0ycey
#15013628
If by heavy lifting you mean self interest defending, then sure. They did that. And if they didn't they would have lost. And I doubt their motivation for doing so was to help the UK keep their white cliffs but to keep their city. Although it does need to be said that tactical error is judgement and bad weather is fortune.

As for America being a straw. It was more than that. It was the difference between D Day being possible and not possible. And if it wasn't possible, the UK would have eventually had to accept a truce with Germany.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#15013665
B0ycey wrote:If by heavy lifting you mean self interest defending, then sure.

By heavy lifting I mean the vast majority of the actual fighting, and taking the vast, vast majority of the casualties.

As for it being about "self interest"? Of course it was in the Russians' "self interest" not to let themselves be enslaved or exterminated by the Nazis. What an asinine point.

B0ycey wrote:And I doubt their motivation for doing so was to help the UK keep their white cliffs but to keep their city.

No more than our motivation was to defend the independence of Poland, or the Americans' motivation was a principled stand against a dictatorship in Europe.

B0ycey wrote:Although it does need to be said that tactical error is judgement and bad weather is fortune.

Laying siege to a city in the Russian winter is absolutely a (terrible) judgment call. You act as though Russia isn't known for freezing cold winters. :lol:

B0ycey wrote:As for America being a straw. It was more than that. It was the difference between D Day being possible and not possible.

You are absolutely missing the point. Of course the USA was vital to D Day. D Day was only possible at all because the Soviets had the vast majority of the German army tied down in the East, and after the battle of Kursk in 1943 (almost a year before D Day!) the Soviets were driving the Germans back.

The USA's own generals calculated that without the Russian effort on the Eastern Front, they'd have had to double theirbinvasion force for D Day. The Germans had about twice as many soldiers committed in the East as they did in the west, and 80% of their casualties were on that front.

If you don't believe me, take it from US Major General JH Burns, who wrote the following memo in 1943:

In War II Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the United States are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving attention of approximately 200 German divisions. Whenever the Allies open a second front on the Continent, it will be decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia; theirs will continue to be the main effort. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe, and the position of the United Nations becomes precarious. Similarly, Russia’s post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces.

Emphasis mine.

The fundamental problem with your view of this issue is that it assumes, as far too many British people do, that the Western front on WW2 was the main one. It wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination. Hitler's major goals all lay in the East, and that is borne out quite clearly by the enormous force he committed to the Eastern front.
By B0ycey
#15013675
Heisenberg wrote:Laying siege to a city in the Russian winter is absolutely a (terrible) judgment call. You act as though Russia isn't known for freezing cold winters. :lol:


The battle of Stalingrad began in the late Summer FYI. The objective was to disrupt supply lines as the city didn't fall before winter. Had there been more troops it would have. The turning point was a harsh (even for Russia) winter. Although really this is irrelevant as you quoted me about me highlighting that the importance of Russia winning the war being over hyped. The question you should really be asking yourself is could the SU have taken Berlin had D Day not happened.

You are absolutely missing the point. Of course the USA was vital to D Day.


No you missed the point. My point has been that US involvement was the difference in WW2. Not that Russia or anyone else for that matter didn't contribute or didn't matter. Perhaps quote better than resorting to strawman.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#15013687
B0ycey wrote:The question you should really be asking yourself is could the SU have taken Berlin had D Day not happened.

No, the question that matters is whether D Day would even have been possible without Russia's efforts on the Eastern Front. The Americans, who led the D Day operation, seemed to think not, and as the memo I referenced said, they recognised the Western front was decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia.

As for whether they could have taken Berlin without D Day? Maybe not in 1945, but by the time D Day happened they were driving Germany back rapidly. By April 1944 (again, before D Day happened) they had overrun Ukraine and were halfway through Poland.

B0ycey wrote:No you missed the point. My point has been that US involvement was the difference in WW2. Not that Russia or anyone else for that matter didn't contribute or didn't matter. Perhaps quote if you are going to strawman.

I haven't made a single strawman argument. Yet again, you're claiming the Russian contribution to winning World War 2 is "over hyped". How is it over hyped? They were the only ones actively engaged in fighting for most of the war! It's like saying the role of the French army in WW1 is "over hyped" because the Americans played a decisive role in beating back the Spring Offensive in 1918, and in the Hundred Days Offensive that ended the war. It's completely meaningless.
By B0ycey
#15013691
Heisenberg wrote:No, the question that matters is whether D Day would even have been possible without Russia's efforts on the Eastern Front. The Americans, who led the D Day operation, seemed to think not, and as the memo I referenced said, they recognised the Western front was decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia.


How can that question be relevant to me as I have not said Russia involvement was irrelevant. Had D Day not happened, in all likelyhood the war would have end in stalemate - although as repeated numerous times the US involvement was the defining factor in D Day. Not that the SU wasn't a factor FYI. Nonetheless had Germany not sent troops to the Western front from the East things could have been different for Stalin. Not that this matters of course to the original quote.

As for whether they could have taken Berlin without D Day? Maybe not in 1945, but by the time D Day happened they were driving Germany back rapidly. By April 1944 (again, before D Day happened) they had overrun Ukraine and were halfway through Poland.


If the SU won the war, it would have done so without allied involvement. That isn't the case. Like the allies needed German troops sent East, the SU needed them West. Ultimately Germany lost because it was fighting both sides once the allies landed in Normandy.

I haven't made a single strawman argument. Yet again, you're claiming the Russian contribution to winning World War 2 is "over hyped". How is it over hyped?


Simple. Because the SU didn't win WW2 :roll: It was part of a coalition and had good fortune. The same could be said for the allies of course, but this has nothing to do with the original quote. So how do you conclude you are not strawmaning when at the moment you are not discussing any of my points but trying to make my argument for me?
By Code Rood
#15028921
dontwastemytime wrote:I think they did. I think that without them, Europe would have been Naziland, including Britain.

What do the euros*** think of that?


I don't know. Have you seen Paris lately? That city was probably better off under national-socialist rule.

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]