BF2S Forums June 6th

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

i'm nor trying to argue anything. ussr was THE most important nation in the war with nazies. fact. everybody else had either rolled over, supported hitler, was sitting on the side, or tried to profit from that war.

Russia was certainly important, but it's very doubtful you could've defeated the Nazies without our help or that of the rest of the Allied Forces.

as i said, thanks usa, your stuff had come in handy, we will pay you back eventually.

Ah...   well, if it's any consolation, we would've lost a lot more men and supplies if we didn't have you or the other Allies by our side.  Without our friends, we probably would've arranged a truce with the Nazies allowing them to hold most of continental Europe.

Where America really provided most of the firepower was in the Pacific.  Without us, Japan would basically own all of Oceania (except for Australia and probably New Zealand).

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-12 23:44:35)

Reciprocity wrote:

Shahter wrote:

we will pay you back eventually.

I'll take my payment in the form of one of the 1/2 ton Dodge Power Wagons we gave you.

sorry, nazied destroyed it. ask them to pay you back - i heard they are getting back on in those butthurt baltics and eastern europe countries.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-06-13 00:29:46)

Shahter wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Shahter wrote:

we will pay you back eventually.

I'll take my payment in the form of one of the 1/2 ton Dodge Power Wagons we gave you.

sorry, nazied destroyed it. ask them to pay you back - i heard they are getting back on in those butthurt baltics and eastern europe countries.

you're so funny.. Butthurt.. Oh the irony

JohnG@lt wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

ussr only fought nazi germany because they were attacked by them. they probably would have fought national socialism some day, but not in the near future and not for altruistic reasons. you know, ussr and germany worked pretty well together before the 22nd june 1941: economic agreements both sides benefited from, non-aggression-pact, dividing eastern europe in german and soviet spheres of interest, attacking and dividing poland

north africa (since febr 1941; usa entered that theater in nov 1942), sicily (july 43), italy (sept 43), normandy (june 44) and southern france (august 44) were important "second" fronts, though definitely not as important as the eastern front

Ya know, I always wondered... Why didn't France and GB declare war on the USSR when they invaded Poland? Was the defensive pact specifically triggered by a German invasion or did they simply decide to choose one over the other to declare on?

1. the red army kind of operated in the slipstream of nazi germany

2. gb and f believed (or wanted to believe) in stalins justifications (east poland was inhabited by lots of belarussians and ukrainians, stalin said it was for their protection + german-sovietrussian dmz was in the western countries widely seen as poland's appropriate "ethnic" eastern border), especially since they obliged their interests

3. germany was the main enemy for the western allies. declaring war on soviet russia, too, would have massively exceeded their capabilities/resources

4. churchill hoped to win the ussr as an ally one day

5. defensive pact only referred to a german invasion

Shahter wrote:

BALTINS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

sorry, nazied destroyed it. ask them to pay you back - i heard they are getting back on in those butthurt baltics and eastern europe countries.

you're so funny.. Butthurt.. Oh the irony

dude, you might as well stop it. i don't give a fuck about you barking there. you have yet to make a single point worth replying in this thread - everything you post simply makes you look... well... yes, butthurt.

well sorry that i don't agree with the soviets being the heroes. Okay, yes, they were very important in the outcome of the war, but that doesnt justify all the shit that they did.

Shahter wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The Russians can't claim much in the way of moral high ground, since they only switched sides when they were attacked

nobody "switched sides". there is and can only be one side for a nation - the side of its own national interests. everybody, including britain and usa, was trying to profit from nazies. that, eventually, backfired. the point is there isn't and never was any "moral side" in this, it was always purely pragmatic.

Bertster7 wrote:

but without that second front - the Allies would've had much bigger problems.

"second front"? there wasn't any first, second or any such front in the war with nazi germany, there was only one - the eastern one. britain may have diverted some attention by sitting like a cat in the tree, yeah, but that was about it. the war was won by soviet union, period.

Look, almost everyone who has studied the war agrees that the USSR did most of the fighting in Europe.  Without that, the course of the war would have been MUCH different.  That does not mean they were the ONLY ones who counted. 

The war was won by a variety of factors.  If you cannot see this, you need to study more.

Shahter wrote:

"second front"? there wasn't any first, second or any such front in the war with nazi germany, there was only one - the eastern one. britain may have diverted some attention by sitting like a cat in the tree, yeah, but that was about it. the war was won by soviet union, period.

Shahter wrote:

nobody's saying that only ussr counted in that war.

Which is it?

Shahter wrote:

"second front"? there wasn't any first, second or any such front in the war with nazi germany, there was only one - the eastern one. britain may have diverted some attention by sitting like a cat in the tree, yeah, but that was about it. the war was won by soviet union, period.

Shahter wrote:

nobody's saying that only ussr counted in that war.

Shahter, please don't take this the wrong way, but leave patriotism out of this for a second. Firstly, the USSR was the biggest factor. That we can agree on. However, if the US hadn't been a problem, there is no doubt Japan might have eventually moved north after dominating the pacific. Secondly, the D-Day landings were crucial, done by Britain, Canada, and the US. Also, you're right, Britain diverted lots of attention. Aactually, if Britain didn't fight back as hard as they did, Hitler wouldn't have gotten fed up and would've conquered Britain eventually, which would've taken a while. And if Britain was conquered, the USSR would have had more time to build up an army, but Germany would have a hell of a lot more resources, possibly crushing russia. However, as it turned out, Hitler got fed up and initiated Barbarossa, where you soviets promptly kcicked his ass at Stalingrad, although there was an unfortunately large amount of casualties on the Russian side. Russia did have the biggest grievance against Germany, for sure. But the other factors helped to win the war. I'm not saying that you said the USSR single-handedly won the war, nor debating your point, just saying that, the USSR adapted to their situation in a very effective manner and weakened Germany enough to allow the Allies to gain the upper hand. Stalingrad and Kursk were crucial battles, the first one turning the tide on Germany, and the second one, The battle of Kursk, preventing the Wehrmacht from renewing their assault. So Russia played their part incredibly well.

And just to clear the air about my earlier "I support everyone who fought in ww2 except nazi's" comment, I meant I support anyone who fights to defend their country and for their countrymen. However, I support the allies, definitely. My granparents fought on both sides. Well, my grandparent on the Allied side was a pilot, though he did cargo and transport missions, and if he was in combat, he wasn't fighting. My other grandparent fought in the Hungarian army throughout the war, which as you know, was axis. He fought for his country, not the Nazi's. He even liked comunism and capitalism. In his words, if you're back from a day long march and on leave in your hometown, if you go to a random house, a communist will share his bread and water with you. A capitalist will shoo you off. (I'm capitalist though)

What I'm trying to say is, don't insult me because you don't like my comment, Shahter. Read the backstory, though sorry if the comment came across as offensive.

Last edited by pace51 (2010-06-14 07:23:21)

Varegg wrote:

As mentioned before ... all 3 major contributors was vital for allied victory ...

Like in most cases a threesome is the best choice

While Britain was flirting with Germany, Germany got fed up because the foreplay took to long. Russia was winkin' though, so Germany jumped at the chance. 10 minutes later, they were in Russia. Britain and the allies took advantage of this and went in Germany from behind. Then they gave Germany Syphilis.