why wont people learn......don't mess with the russians....the russian winter has beaten the best armies in the world.......hitler was mostly defeated by the russians, but i admit us (who only joined the war because they were threatened of attack by hitler adn were attacked by the japs) and the allies helped, the japs was kicking ass in china before russia help fight them off, napoleon's army was destoried by the russia winter, which lead to his down fall.....Russia has always followed Peter the Great's strategy: of retreating and burning the crops and cities before the enemy can get to them. then, after the winter comes, the enemy will have no suppies and be forced to turn around. the russians would then pick of the weak army as they retreat home....
2) I actualy agree with that.....hitler had control but he let his anger get the best of him and he started going after cities instead resources. then, radar was invented. bye bye nazis....also british still had navy power, so really the germans only had land.lowing wrote:
1. The weather was a MAJOR factor in the stopping of the momentum that Germany had built up in its battles with Russia.sergeriver wrote:
1-Stalin was worse than any cold weather.lowing wrote:
Again, we are not talking about THEATERS OF WAR, we are talking about the WHOLE DAMN THING, as per your little article.
1. I asked the question you tell me.
2. just fine, since all of their resources were bombed out it was only a matter of time.
3. I doubt the Soviets would have won if the US continued the war to including defeating the Soviets at that time.
4.Might have been a turning point in the European Theater, WW2 was a pretty big war
2-You are making assumptions, since you can't know because all of the war would have been different. Nazis outnumbered US troops 3:1 and you still think you would have defeated them alone in their own continent?
3-So, you think you would have won against Hitler and Stalin?
4-Indeed.
2. NOT an assumption........Germanies resources WERE bombed out day and night by allied bombing, IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME. When Germany lost air superiority, their war was lost.
3. Yup I do, Germany was beaten, and Russia about out of EVERYTHING.
4. SO to say Russia really WON the war is pretty damn inaccurate, since it was fought all over the world and Russia only fought on the one front.
The Eastern front was nothing more than a black hole for German manpower and resources. The Soviets had no navy and no offensive air power. They did have millions of poorly trained conscript soldiers, the willpower to waste as many lives as necessary, and a lot of luck with the weather. And even with all that manpower, the ruskies were pushed back to Stalingrad before gaining any footing on their own soil.
If the japanese were smart, they would have ignored the US and invaded the Soviets from the South and East and probably met Hitler in the middle.
The US alone, beat Japan with about 30% of its war making capacity. The US and GB knocked Germany out of Africa, knocked Germany out of the Atlantic, knocked Germany out of the skies, Finished Italy, and was bombing the Fatherland while the Commies were still cutting and running on their own turf.
And all the while, the US was supplying all the allies with war materials. The soviets drove to Berlin in Dodge Power Wagons.
If the japanese were smart, they would have ignored the US and invaded the Soviets from the South and East and probably met Hitler in the middle.
The US alone, beat Japan with about 30% of its war making capacity. The US and GB knocked Germany out of Africa, knocked Germany out of the Atlantic, knocked Germany out of the skies, Finished Italy, and was bombing the Fatherland while the Commies were still cutting and running on their own turf.
And all the while, the US was supplying all the allies with war materials. The soviets drove to Berlin in Dodge Power Wagons.
1-The weather was a Major factor of course, and Hitler knew that, or he should know at least. But Soviets had to deal with that weather too, and they were the MOST important factor in the Nazis defeat not a cold weather. Napoleon had been there before, so Hitler knew.lowing wrote:
1. The weather was a MAJOR factor in the stopping of the momentum that Germany had built up in its battles with Russia.sergeriver wrote:
1-Stalin was worse than any cold weather.lowing wrote:
Again, we are not talking about THEATERS OF WAR, we are talking about the WHOLE DAMN THING, as per your little article.
1. I asked the question you tell me.
2. just fine, since all of their resources were bombed out it was only a matter of time.
3. I doubt the Soviets would have won if the US continued the war to including defeating the Soviets at that time.
4.Might have been a turning point in the European Theater, WW2 was a pretty big war
2-You are making assumptions, since you can't know because all of the war would have been different. Nazis outnumbered US troops 3:1 and you still think you would have defeated them alone in their own continent?
3-So, you think you would have won against Hitler and Stalin?
4-Indeed.
2. NOT an assumption........Germanies resources WERE bombed out day and night by allied bombing, IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME. When Germany lost air superiority, their war was lost.
3. Yup I do, Germany was beaten, and Russia about out of EVERYTHING.
4. SO to say Russia really WON the war is pretty damn inaccurate, since it was fought all over the world and Russia only fought on the one front.
2-You still didn't answer how could US/UK defeat alone an army 3 times larger, despite the bombings, they were bombing too.
3-Well, you are wrong there. I doubt US/UK could have defeated Hitler alone, but you assume you could have defeated both Hitler and Stalin.
4-Davies said that the biggest contribution to defeat the Axis was done by the Russians, all the Allies won, but Russia never got the credit they deserve.
Sorry to tell you lowing but the bombing of Germany was pretty ineffective, all that happened just like in England was civilians got bombed and barely any factories were hit.lowing wrote:
1. The weather was a MAJOR factor in the stopping of the momentum that Germany had built up in its battles with Russia.sergeriver wrote:
1-Stalin was worse than any cold weather.lowing wrote:
Again, we are not talking about THEATERS OF WAR, we are talking about the WHOLE DAMN THING, as per your little article.
1. I asked the question you tell me.
2. just fine, since all of their resources were bombed out it was only a matter of time.
3. I doubt the Soviets would have won if the US continued the war to including defeating the Soviets at that time.
4.Might have been a turning point in the European Theater, WW2 was a pretty big war
2-You are making assumptions, since you can't know because all of the war would have been different. Nazis outnumbered US troops 3:1 and you still think you would have defeated them alone in their own continent?
3-So, you think you would have won against Hitler and Stalin?
4-Indeed.
2. NOT an assumption........Germanies resources WERE bombed out day and night by allied bombing, IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME. When Germany lost air superiority, their war was lost.
3. Yup I do, Germany was beaten, and Russia about out of EVERYTHING.
4. SO to say Russia really WON the war is pretty damn inaccurate, since it was fought all over the world and Russia only fought on the one front.
1. The Soviets DIDN'T have to deal with it, THEY were not the one's mobilized far from home ill prepared for it.sergeriver wrote:
1-The weather was a Major factor of course, and Hitler knew that, or he should know at least. But Soviets had to deal with that weather too, and they were the MOST important factor in the Nazis defeat not a cold weather. Napoleon had been there before, so Hitler knew.lowing wrote:
1. The weather was a MAJOR factor in the stopping of the momentum that Germany had built up in its battles with Russia.sergeriver wrote:
1-Stalin was worse than any cold weather.
2-You are making assumptions, since you can't know because all of the war would have been different. Nazis outnumbered US troops 3:1 and you still think you would have defeated them alone in their own continent?
3-So, you think you would have won against Hitler and Stalin?
4-Indeed.
2. NOT an assumption........Germany's resources WERE bombed out day and night by allied bombing, IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME. When Germany lost air superiority, their war was lost.
3. Yup I do, Germany was beaten, and Russia about out of EVERYTHING.
4. SO to say Russia really WON the war is pretty damn inaccurate, since it was fought all over the world and Russia only fought on the one front.
2-You still didn't answer how could US/UK defeat alone an army 3 times larger, despite the bombings, they were bombing too.
3-Well, you are wrong there. I doubt US/UK could have defeated Hitler alone, but you assume you could have defeated both Hitler and Stalin.
4-Davies said that the biggest contribution to defeat the Axis was done by the Russians, all the Allies won, but Russia never got the credit they deserve.
2.Germany WASN'T bombing shit after the loss of the Battle of Britain, they had NO air superiority. With that, the allies kept the Germans down, in every way that a nation could be kept down. The war was lost when Germany lost air superiority.
3. Still do, if the war had drug on into 46/47, all of the latest and greatest US technology would have been introduced into it. Falling back on air superiority, Russia would have succumbed. Japan succumbed because of the air superiority that allowed 2 planes in their airspace, why wouldn't Russia? The US being the only nation with the atomic bomb in 1945 and you don't think we COULD have defeated Russia, if we really wanted to?? Better rethink that one, sergeriver.
4.NO, according to your little paragraph, the biggest contribution to win the WAR was Russia, not to mention the axis was Japan, Germany AND ITALY......I don't think Russia fought in Italy, Africa, the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Aleutians etc.....and since we agree that they did NOT defeat Germany alone, and that is they only place they fought, then they hardly made the greatest contribution to winning the war.
IF you wanna argue that they made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany, fine, make your arguments, but saying they did so to win the whole war, is pure bullshit.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-07 04:06:26)
The US agreed to Japan's surrender, in Augt '45, it was offical in Sept.Longbow wrote:
As far as I remember there were 3 war theaters : Pacific , European ( which can be devided into Eastern , Western & Mediteranian theaters ) & African . If you want I may loose my own time to find out the direct numbers of troops from each sides in both 3 theaters and compare them .lowing wrote:
You mean other that the Pacific theater which ONLY includes HALF THE WORLD!!??
I'd say US wins Pacific theater themself , without any help from other Allies .
African theater were won by US & UK
But European were won mostly by USSR , because even without drop in Italy in 1943' & Normandia in 1944' USSR should have won . It was only a question of time . Drop in Normandia was necessary in 1942' , when our army was suffering from german offence on the whole front .Wikipedia says Japan surrenders on the 2nd of September , 1945'lowing wrote:
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria began on August 8th, in between the first bomb dropped on Japan on August 6th, and the second bomb dropped on August 9th. Japan surrenders on August 12th. Gimme a fuckin' break..I get your point of view . I'd say the WWII were win by Allies , but the major contribution in this war did USSR . The turning point of the war was in Europe , in Stalingrad ( winter 1943' ) and Kursk ( summer 1943' )lowing wrote:
We are not talking about winning theaters, the author says the winning of the WAR is mostly due to the Soviets. NOT the winning of European Theater.More time & victims in army / civilians . The only threat USSR couldn't defeat was Japan Navy .But again please address my points on how the Soviets would have done without the rest of the allied efforts over Berlin and the Western Front.
1-Using the weather as their ally was part of their strategy, if Hitler was a dumb ass it's not Soviets' fault.lowing wrote:
1. The Soviets DIDN'T have to deal with it, THEY were not the one's mobilized far from home ill prepared for it.sergeriver wrote:
1-The weather was a Major factor of course, and Hitler knew that, or he should know at least. But Soviets had to deal with that weather too, and they were the MOST important factor in the Nazis defeat not a cold weather. Napoleon had been there before, so Hitler knew.lowing wrote:
1. The weather was a MAJOR factor in the stopping of the momentum that Germany had built up in its battles with Russia.
2. NOT an assumption........Germany's resources WERE bombed out day and night by allied bombing, IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME. When Germany lost air superiority, their war was lost.
3. Yup I do, Germany was beaten, and Russia about out of EVERYTHING.
4. SO to say Russia really WON the war is pretty damn inaccurate, since it was fought all over the world and Russia only fought on the one front.
2-You still didn't answer how could US/UK defeat alone an army 3 times larger, despite the bombings, they were bombing too.
3-Well, you are wrong there. I doubt US/UK could have defeated Hitler alone, but you assume you could have defeated both Hitler and Stalin.
4-Davies said that the biggest contribution to defeat the Axis was done by the Russians, all the Allies won, but Russia never got the credit they deserve.
2.Germany WASN'T bombing shit after the loss of the Battle of Britain, they had NO air superiority. With that, the allies kept the Germans down, in every way that a nation could be kept down. The war was lost when Germany lost air superiority.
3. Still do, if the war had drug on into 46/47, all of the latest and greatest US technology would have been introduced into it. Falling back on air superiority, Russia would have succumbed. Japan succumbed because of the air superiority that allowed 2 planes in their airspace, why wouldn't Russia? The US being the only nation with the atomic bomb in 1945 and you don't think we COULD have defeated Russia, if we really wanted to?? Better rethink that one, sergeriver.
4.NO, according to your little paragraph, the biggest contribution to win the WAR was Russia, not to mention the axis was Japan, Germany AND ITALY......I don't think Russia fought in Italy, Africa, the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Aleutians etc.....and since we agree that they did NOT defeat Germany alone, and that is they only place they fought, then they hardly made the greatest contribution to winning the war.
IF you wanna argue that they made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany, fine, make your arguments, but saying they did so to win the whole war, is pure bullshit.
2-You still are forgetting the Nazis had 80% or more of their forces fighting the Eastern front. So, US/UK had air superiority to 15% of the Luftwaffe? Of course.
3-You are wrong again. If the war would have continued til 46 or 47, the Germans would have developed atomic bombs. So, how could the Allies have defeated Hitler without Russia, and Germany having atomic bombs?
4-Why do you always make that kind of comment, "your little paragraph, your little article...". Grow up and discuss like an adult. The "little paragraph" says Russia was the major factor to defeat Hitler. Prove it wrong. Hitler focused 80% or more of his troops in the Eastern front, more than 80% of German casualties were inflicted by Russia. So, where is it wrong to say that Russia mostly defeated Hitler. Davies never said Russia won WWII, he said Russia was the main factor to defeat Hitler.
1. Weathersergeriver wrote:
1-Using the weather as their ally was part of their strategy, if Hitler was a dumb ass it's not Soviets' fault.lowing wrote:
1. The Soviets DIDN'T have to deal with it, THEY were not the one's mobilized far from home ill prepared for it.sergeriver wrote:
1-The weather was a Major factor of course, and Hitler knew that, or he should know at least. But Soviets had to deal with that weather too, and they were the MOST important factor in the Nazis defeat not a cold weather. Napoleon had been there before, so Hitler knew.
2-You still didn't answer how could US/UK defeat alone an army 3 times larger, despite the bombings, they were bombing too.
3-Well, you are wrong there. I doubt US/UK could have defeated Hitler alone, but you assume you could have defeated both Hitler and Stalin.
4-Davies said that the biggest contribution to defeat the Axis was done by the Russians, all the Allies won, but Russia never got the credit they deserve.
2.Germany WASN'T bombing shit after the loss of the Battle of Britain, they had NO air superiority. With that, the allies kept the Germans down, in every way that a nation could be kept down. The war was lost when Germany lost air superiority.
3. Still do, if the war had drug on into 46/47, all of the latest and greatest US technology would have been introduced into it. Falling back on air superiority, Russia would have succumbed. Japan succumbed because of the air superiority that allowed 2 planes in their airspace, why wouldn't Russia? The US being the only nation with the atomic bomb in 1945 and you don't think we COULD have defeated Russia, if we really wanted to?? Better rethink that one, sergeriver.
4.NO, according to your little paragraph, the biggest contribution to win the WAR was Russia, not to mention the axis was Japan, Germany AND ITALY......I don't think Russia fought in Italy, Africa, the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Aleutians etc.....and since we agree that they did NOT defeat Germany alone, and that is they only place they fought, then they hardly made the greatest contribution to winning the war.
IF you wanna argue that they made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany, fine, make your arguments, but saying they did so to win the whole war, is pure bullshit.
2-You still are forgetting the Nazis had 80% or more of their forces fighting the Eastern front. So, US/UK had air superiority to 15% of the Luftwaffe? Of course.
3-You are wrong again. If the war would have continued til 46 or 47, the Germans would have developed atomic bombs. So, how could the Allies have defeated Hitler without Russia, and Germany having atomic bombs?
4-Why do you always make that kind of comment, "your little paragraph, your little article...". Grow up and discuss like an adult. The "little paragraph" says Russia was the major factor to defeat Hitler. Prove it wrong. Hitler focused 80% or more of his troops in the Eastern front, more than 80% of German casualties were inflicted by Russia. So, where is it wrong to say that Russia mostly defeated Hitler. Davies never said Russia won WWII, he said Russia was the main factor to defeat Hitler.
2. Air Superiority alone isn't the issue but the dammage done by strategic bombing that ruined the Germans ability to sustain their armor in the field.
3. This is a good thread idea but we got off topic going there. The question is really in what year, if the Russians pulled out of WWII, would the remaining allies be able to still defeat the Axis. If 1939 the allies are toast. If late 1944 the Axis still falls so when?
You make a good point. If Russia was not at war with Germany during the time of the D-Day landings, I don't believe they would have been successful. In fact I'm not sure they would even have been attempted.OpsChief wrote:
1. Weathersergeriver wrote:
1-Using the weather as their ally was part of their strategy, if Hitler was a dumb ass it's not Soviets' fault.lowing wrote:
1. The Soviets DIDN'T have to deal with it, THEY were not the one's mobilized far from home ill prepared for it.
2.Germany WASN'T bombing shit after the loss of the Battle of Britain, they had NO air superiority. With that, the allies kept the Germans down, in every way that a nation could be kept down. The war was lost when Germany lost air superiority.
3. Still do, if the war had drug on into 46/47, all of the latest and greatest US technology would have been introduced into it. Falling back on air superiority, Russia would have succumbed. Japan succumbed because of the air superiority that allowed 2 planes in their airspace, why wouldn't Russia? The US being the only nation with the atomic bomb in 1945 and you don't think we COULD have defeated Russia, if we really wanted to?? Better rethink that one, sergeriver.
4.NO, according to your little paragraph, the biggest contribution to win the WAR was Russia, not to mention the axis was Japan, Germany AND ITALY......I don't think Russia fought in Italy, Africa, the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Aleutians etc.....and since we agree that they did NOT defeat Germany alone, and that is they only place they fought, then they hardly made the greatest contribution to winning the war.
IF you wanna argue that they made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany, fine, make your arguments, but saying they did so to win the whole war, is pure bullshit.
2-You still are forgetting the Nazis had 80% or more of their forces fighting the Eastern front. So, US/UK had air superiority to 15% of the Luftwaffe? Of course.
3-You are wrong again. If the war would have continued til 46 or 47, the Germans would have developed atomic bombs. So, how could the Allies have defeated Hitler without Russia, and Germany having atomic bombs?
4-Why do you always make that kind of comment, "your little paragraph, your little article...". Grow up and discuss like an adult. The "little paragraph" says Russia was the major factor to defeat Hitler. Prove it wrong. Hitler focused 80% or more of his troops in the Eastern front, more than 80% of German casualties were inflicted by Russia. So, where is it wrong to say that Russia mostly defeated Hitler. Davies never said Russia won WWII, he said Russia was the main factor to defeat Hitler.
2. Air Superiority alone isn't the issue but the dammage done by strategic bombing that ruined the Germans ability to sustain their armor in the field.
3. This is a good thread idea but we got off topic going there. The question is really in what year, if the Russians pulled out of WWII, would the remaining allies be able to still defeat the Axis. If 1939 the allies are toast. If late 1944 the Axis still falls so when?
well i'll just bring this up, and i don't know if anyone's said it yet (because i'm not reading 14 pages). but was Britain not asking the US when we were gonna help?
The U.S. had been helping the whole time in terms of supplies. In terms of troops, I don't know. I guess the U.S. was hoping to not have to go there.silentsin wrote:
well i'll just bring this up, and i don't know if anyone's said it yet (because i'm not reading 14 pages). but was Britain not asking the US when we were gonna help?
More than asking, Britain had an intricate propaganda machine attempting to 'convince' America to enter WWII. Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen (and in many ways provoked) to sway the American populace into a war they hadn't wanted to enter into beforehand. Without British propaganda the America may never have entered the war.silentsin wrote:
well i'll just bring this up, and i don't know if anyone's said it yet (because i'm not reading 14 pages). but was Britain not asking the US when we were gonna help?
No, the US were looking for a reason to join in.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
The U.S. had been helping the whole time in terms of supplies. In terms of troops, I don't know. I guess the U.S. was hoping to not have to go there.silentsin wrote:
well i'll just bring this up, and i don't know if anyone's said it yet (because i'm not reading 14 pages). but was Britain not asking the US when we were gonna help?
Public opinion in the US was totally against them entering the war. So the government allowed the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbour to suceed. Not conspiracy theory, fact (since '94 when the offical documents were released anyway).
1.So we agree if NOT for the weather Germany would probably have defeated the Soviets in Staligrad.sergeriver wrote:
1-Using the weather as their ally was part of their strategy, if Hitler was a dumb ass it's not Soviets' fault.lowing wrote:
1. The Soviets DIDN'T have to deal with it, THEY were not the one's mobilized far from home ill prepared for it.sergeriver wrote:
1-The weather was a Major factor of course, and Hitler knew that, or he should know at least. But Soviets had to deal with that weather too, and they were the MOST important factor in the Nazis defeat not a cold weather. Napoleon had been there before, so Hitler knew.
2-You still didn't answer how could US/UK defeat alone an army 3 times larger, despite the bombings, they were bombing too.
3-Well, you are wrong there. I doubt US/UK could have defeated Hitler alone, but you assume you could have defeated both Hitler and Stalin.
4-Davies said that the biggest contribution to defeat the Axis was done by the Russians, all the Allies won, but Russia never got the credit they deserve.
2.Germany WASN'T bombing shit after the loss of the Battle of Britain, they had NO air superiority. With that, the allies kept the Germans down, in every way that a nation could be kept down. The war was lost when Germany lost air superiority.
3. Still do, if the war had drug on into 46/47, all of the latest and greatest US technology would have been introduced into it. Falling back on air superiority, Russia would have succumbed. Japan succumbed because of the air superiority that allowed 2 planes in their airspace, why wouldn't Russia? The US being the only nation with the atomic bomb in 1945 and you don't think we COULD have defeated Russia, if we really wanted to?? Better rethink that one, sergeriver.
4.NO, according to your little paragraph, the biggest contribution to win the WAR was Russia, not to mention the axis was Japan, Germany AND ITALY......I don't think Russia fought in Italy, Africa, the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Aleutians etc.....and since we agree that they did NOT defeat Germany alone, and that is they only place they fought, then they hardly made the greatest contribution to winning the war.
IF you wanna argue that they made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany, fine, make your arguments, but saying they did so to win the whole war, is pure bullshit.
2-You still are forgetting the Nazis had 80% or more of their forces fighting the Eastern front. So, US/UK had air superiority to 15% of the Luftwaffe? Of course.
3-You are wrong again. If the war would have continued til 46 or 47, the Germans would have developed atomic bombs. So, how could the Allies have defeated Hitler without Russia, and Germany having atomic bombs?
4-Why do you always make that kind of comment, "your little paragraph, your little article...". Grow up and discuss like an adult. The "little paragraph" says Russia was the major factor to defeat Hitler. Prove it wrong. Hitler focused 80% or more of his troops in the Eastern front, more than 80% of German casualties were inflicted by Russia. So, where is it wrong to say that Russia mostly defeated Hitler. Davies never said Russia won WWII, he said Russia was the main factor to defeat Hitler.
2. The Lufwaffe was all but whipped out, even if the planes were there, there were hardly any experienced pilots left to fly them. The allies had COMPLETE Air Superiority.
3. Germany wanted to surrender months earlier, his own people tried to assinate him months before they actually surrendered. Once Germany was finished, the US COULD have EASILY taken out the Soviets. WHich was exactly your question. Bottom line. THe US would have won a war against the Soviets in the summer of 45. and NOT ONE soldier would have had to enter Moscow to do it. JUST LIKE JAPAN.
4. AGAIN, You might have an argument for the Soviets mainly defeating Germany. BUt your article doen't say that. It says the Soviets mainly won the WAR. THAT isn't true.
Yer wrong slick...GB bombed the shit out of Germany's cites at night, and the US Air Forces conducted STRATEGIC DAYLIGHT PRECISION BOMBING on economic and strategic targets.Vilham wrote:
Sorry to tell you lowing but the bombing of Germany was pretty ineffective, all that happened just like in England was civilians got bombed and barely any factories were hit.lowing wrote:
1. The weather was a MAJOR factor in the stopping of the momentum that Germany had built up in its battles with Russia.sergeriver wrote:
1-Stalin was worse than any cold weather.
2-You are making assumptions, since you can't know because all of the war would have been different. Nazis outnumbered US troops 3:1 and you still think you would have defeated them alone in their own continent?
3-So, you think you would have won against Hitler and Stalin?
4-Indeed.
2. NOT an assumption........Germanies resources WERE bombed out day and night by allied bombing, IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME. When Germany lost air superiority, their war was lost.
3. Yup I do, Germany was beaten, and Russia about out of EVERYTHING.
4. SO to say Russia really WON the war is pretty damn inaccurate, since it was fought all over the world and Russia only fought on the one front.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-07 16:41:36)
No one nation could have taken the Germans down alone.
The British and us Canadians took the city of Caen.Vilham wrote:
lol, just a question but did Canada do anything other than land on JunoCanadianloser wrote:
I'm Pretty sure that Canada basically did everything while the U.k.,U.s.a., and the russians sat on their asses drinking lemonade.
For those who didn't catch what I was saying:
/sarcastic
Our forces moved along the coast heading North aswell.
A little bit off topic, but still something good to discuss...ReTox wrote:
It's also totally plausible that Hitler would have won the war and invaded and conquered Britain.
What if Hitler's "Operation Sealion" (The invading of the UK) went through?
There are so many parts in the war where if _____ happened instead of _____, the war would have been taken in a whole different direction.
NO the OP claims that the Soviet Union was MOSTLY responsible for winning the WAR, and it isn't true.
(Sorry for getting off topic a little again, but)lowing wrote:
...2. The Lufwaffe was all but whipped out, even if the planes were there, there were hardly any experienced pilots left to fly them. The allies had COMPLETE Air Superiority.
A German ace, I believe his name was "Eric Hartmann" made over 300 confirmed 'kills' in his ME-109.
There were a few others in Russia aswell, but Eric had been all over.
Anyways, he got shot down twice. And on the second time, he was captured by the Russians.
He was in a POW camp until the end of the war. But after the war ended, the Russian officials imprisoned him for 10 years. The reason? Because of all of his kills, his missed rounds had to have hit at least one Russian Civilian.
Crazy eh?
Last edited by Heavy_Guns_91 (2006-12-07 16:53:02)
More responsible than any other single nation.lowing wrote:
NO the OP claims that the Soviet Union was MOSTLY responsible for winning the WAR, and it isn't true.
The OP doesn't say that exactly anyway. Just look at the thread title (or in the OP the carefull use of the word Nazis). Hitler, not the Axis powers, was defeated primarily by the Russians.
Eric Cartman?Heavy_Guns_91 wrote:
(Sorry for getting off topic a little again, but)lowing wrote:
...2. The Lufwaffe was all but whipped out, even if the planes were there, there were hardly any experienced pilots left to fly them. The allies had COMPLETE Air Superiority.
A German ace, I believe his name was "Eric Hartmann" made over 300 comfirmed 'kills' in his ME-109.
There were a few others in Russia aswell, but Eric had been all over.
Anyways, he got shot down twice. And on the second time, he was captured by the Russians.
He was in a POW camp until the end of the war. But after the war ended, the Russian officials inprisoned him for 10 years. The reason? Because of all of his kills, his missed rounds had to have hit at least one Russian Civilian.
Crazy eh?
Nazi fighter pilot, never.....
From the articleBertster7 wrote:
More responsible than any other single nation.lowing wrote:
NO the OP claims that the Soviet Union was MOSTLY responsible for winning the WAR, and it isn't true.
The OP doesn't say that exactly anyway. Just look at the thread title (or in the OP the carefull use of the word Nazis). Hitler, not the Axis powers, was defeated primarily by the Russians.
"Both the British and the American public have long been told that “we won the war” .
Ok, I have explaine my opinion how there is no way the Soviets did more than any other nation to win the WHOLE WAR. So, other than just saying so, why don't you explain how the Soviets won the war for us. Please if you can, be a little more specific than just stating they defeated Germany, we have been over that.
Remember the WHOLE WAR, not just Germany.
WWII is really two wars, the Pacific and the Eurpean halves. Russia invaded germany, and won that war.lowing wrote:
From the articleBertster7 wrote:
More responsible than any other single nation.lowing wrote:
NO the OP claims that the Soviet Union was MOSTLY responsible for winning the WAR, and it isn't true.
The OP doesn't say that exactly anyway. Just look at the thread title (or in the OP the carefull use of the word Nazis). Hitler, not the Axis powers, was defeated primarily by the Russians.
"Both the British and the American public have long been told that “we won the war” .
Ok, I have explaine my opinion how there is no way the Soviets did more than any other nation to win the WHOLE WAR. So, other than just saying so, why don't you explain how the Soviets won the war for us. Please if you can, be a little more specific than just stating they defeated Germany, we have been over that.
Remember the WHOLE WAR, not just Germany.
The US bombed Japan, and won that war.