Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who won WW2: U.S.A. or U.S.S.R.?

shaddamcorrinoIV
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 8:32:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was reading the book: The Party is Over, by Mike Lofgren, (who has a History major from the Universities of Akron and Bern), the book is about the political dysfunction in Washington and this passage caught my attention: "During my lifetime, one of the most harmful consequences of American Exceptionalism has been the myth of World War 2. Americans still lap up the Tom Brokaw fable that Americans somehow won that war single-handedly and as a result of their uniquely virtuous characters. Few Americans know, or care that Americans suffered less than 1 percent of the global casualties of the war, or that close to 90 percent of all German casualties were sustained by fighting the Soviet Union." When I read this I though: "Yes, I have heard that is true of the European theater but what about the Pacific? Didn't we come to help the battered British East Asian armies?" Then again, I remember in high school history class one of my history teachers said a possible reason Japan surrendered was that the Russians invaded Sakhalin, and the Japaneses did not want to be prisoners of Stalin. What do you think? Post in the comments below.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 12:27:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is an interesting forum. Some American's believe that they
won the war almost singlehandedly and ignore the contributions of
other countries. Other Americans incorrectly believe that they simply
played the greatest role in defeating the axis powers during WWII.
First of all, we must look at the role of the Soviet Union, who in
terms of inflicting casualties on the axis powers stands above any
other country. The USSR was probably not responsible for 90% of German
casualties during WWII. I would put it closed to 80%. Even so, the
Soviets clearly did the most to destroy the Wehrmacht. In addition to
this, 54% of the German air force was destroyed in the east. And let
us not forget, there were also Italian, Romania, Hungarian, Spanish,
French, Finnish, and Bulgarian troops. The Soviets absorbed the
biggest German offensives, fought the largest battles of WWII, and
captured Berlin. In the far east against Japan, the Soviet Union also
played a major role. In the border wars of the 1930's, Japan suffered
some 100,000 casualties fighting against the Soviet Union and in 1945,
the USSR invaded Manchuria, North Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kuril
Islands inflicting inflicting 700,000 casualties on Japan and causing
the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo to collapse. This was arguably
the largest defeat for Japan during WWII.

In the US, the Soviet contribution to the allied victory is often
downplayed. However in the Soviet Union, the contribution of the US
is also probably downplayed. American supplies provided as much as
15% of all Soviet production. And the USSR did play the most important
role in defeating Japan.

In my opinion, the Soviet contribution to the war is equivalent to that
of the United States. I think it is difficult to argue that one or the
other was more important. For example, without American supplies and
Western Allied bombings, over Germany the Soviet Union might
actually have lost the war. This is debatable but it is difficult to
decide which is more important.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:20:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 12:27:55 AM, STALIN wrote:
This is an interesting forum. Some American's believe that they
won the war almost singlehandedly and ignore the contributions of
other countries. Other Americans incorrectly believe that they simply
played the greatest role in defeating the axis powers during WWII.
First of all, we must look at the role of the Soviet Union, who in
terms of inflicting casualties on the axis powers stands above any
other country. The USSR was probably not responsible for 90% of German
casualties during WWII. I would put it closed to 80%. Even so, the
Soviets clearly did the most to destroy the Wehrmacht. In addition to
this, 54% of the German air force was destroyed in the east. And let
us not forget, there were also Italian, Romania, Hungarian, Spanish,
French, Finnish, and Bulgarian troops. The Soviets absorbed the
biggest German offensives, fought the largest battles of WWII, and
captured Berlin. In the far east against Japan, the Soviet Union also
played a major role. In the border wars of the 1930's, Japan suffered
some 100,000 casualties fighting against the Soviet Union and in 1945,
the USSR invaded Manchuria, North Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kuril
Islands inflicting inflicting 700,000 casualties on Japan and causing
the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo to collapse. This was arguably
the largest defeat for Japan during WWII.

In the US, the Soviet contribution to the allied victory is often
downplayed. However in the Soviet Union, the contribution of the US
is also probably downplayed. American supplies provided as much as
15% of all Soviet production. And the USSR did play the most important
role in defeating Japan.

In my opinion, the Soviet contribution to the war is equivalent to that
of the United States. I think it is difficult to argue that one or the
other was more important. For example, without American supplies and
Western Allied bombings, over Germany the Soviet Union might
actually have lost the war. This is debatable but it is difficult to
decide which is more important.

The US and USSR play a reverse role on the conflict of both side of the world. In Europe the Nazi were fighting the USSR but decapitate by the US. In the Pacific, the US were fighting the Japanese (or half of it anyway, the other half was fought and lost by the RoC) but it was the USSR who deliver the killing blow.
Jo2599
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:10:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Both of them. The groups who believe the US was the dominant country are incorrect. And so are the ones that believe the USSR won singlehandedly.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 8:55:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 8:32:12 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
I was reading the book: The Party is Over, by Mike Lofgren, (who has a History major from the Universities of Akron and Bern), the book is about the political dysfunction in Washington and this passage caught my attention: "During my lifetime, one of the most harmful consequences of American Exceptionalism has been the myth of World War 2. Americans still lap up the Tom Brokaw fable that Americans somehow won that war single-handedly and as a result of their uniquely virtuous characters. Few Americans know, or care that Americans suffered less than 1 percent of the global casualties of the war, or that close to 90 percent of all German casualties were sustained by fighting the Soviet Union." When I read this I though: "Yes, I have heard that is true of the European theater but what about the Pacific? Didn't we come to help the battered British East Asian armies?" Then again, I remember in high school history class one of my history teachers said a possible reason Japan surrendered was that the Russians invaded Sakhalin, and the Japaneses did not want to be prisoners of Stalin. What do you think? Post in the comments below.

I would say, from what I know, that the USSR won the European theater, they were the ones who actually did most of the fighting, as you said, and then got to occupy half of Europe for half a century. In the Pacific it would have to be the US, even without the invasion by the Red Army, Japan would have lost anyway, its air carriers were destroyed, its armaments industry had crumbled, perhaps the Russians just sped up the surrender the same way that the US and the UK did in Europe, but the Americans and British won in that theater, so I would call a tie between the US-USSR.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 5:00:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 8:55:26 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 7/24/2014 8:32:12 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
I was reading the book: The Party is Over, by Mike Lofgren, (who has a History major from the Universities of Akron and Bern), the book is about the political dysfunction in Washington and this passage caught my attention: "During my lifetime, one of the most harmful consequences of American Exceptionalism has been the myth of World War 2. Americans still lap up the Tom Brokaw fable that Americans somehow won that war single-handedly and as a result of their uniquely virtuous characters. Few Americans know, or care that Americans suffered less than 1 percent of the global casualties of the war, or that close to 90 percent of all German casualties were sustained by fighting the Soviet Union." When I read this I though: "Yes, I have heard that is true of the European theater but what about the Pacific? Didn't we come to help the battered British East Asian armies?" Then again, I remember in high school history class one of my history teachers said a possible reason Japan surrendered was that the Russians invaded Sakhalin, and the Japaneses did not want to be prisoners of Stalin. What do you think? Post in the comments below.

I would say, from what I know, that the USSR won the European theater, they were the ones who actually did most of the fighting, as you said, and then got to occupy half of Europe for half a century.

This was due in part to the fact that Hitler's forces were divided between two fronts. Without support from the US and UK, it's unlikely that Russia would have been able to defeat the full force of Hitler's army. Although the Russians did most of the fighting and most of the dying, their army was illl-equped and they ended up losing 25 million people during the war. That was close to twenty percent of Russia's population at the time. I don't think the war was won by any single country, since no single country would have won it single-handedly.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:29:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think that average Americans have indeed clearly been taught a highly mythologized version of history that dangerously bloats the national ego, makes them feel self-righteous in the midst of their nation perpetrating unrighteousness, sanctimonious in the act of sinning against other countries, and susceptible to being manipulated into active complicity in the evil of their leaders. Take, for instance, the elevation of the World War Two generation that "won the war" against fascism to mythic status; well, this is not just a matter of innocent hero worship, rather it feeds into a positive and uncritically patriotic view of the American military, a "support the troops" (who are supposedly carrying on the noble tradition of those who fought in "the good war") spirit that's used to manipulate the public into supporting this country's usually economically self-interested militarism; or at least seeing, hearing, and speaking no evil of the military, which for practical purposes translates into tacit support or the neutralization of potential opposition and anti-war activism. This use of the myth of the WWII generation as the morally larger-than-life generation that earned the U.S. military its bona fides as a heroic force for good in the world to promote good vibrations, so to speak, about our wars and warriors has of course been one of the main strategies of the establishment to culturally reorient the American public away from the anti-militarism of the Vietnam era, and back toward being obliging patriotic dupes whenever our leaders decide to launch a war. It's all a part of inculcating a worldview that makes us readily foolable and compliant with the will of the powers that be. Wake up folks, and begin to think critically.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:46:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:29:50 AM, charleslb wrote:
I think that average Americans have indeed clearly been taught a highly mythologized version of history that dangerously bloats the national ego, makes them feel self-righteous in the midst of their nation perpetrating unrighteousness, sanctimonious in the act of sinning against other countries, and susceptible to being manipulated into active complicity in the evil of their leaders. Take, for instance, the elevation of the World War Two generation that "won the war" against fascism to mythic status; well, this is not just a matter of innocent hero worship, rather it feeds into a positive and uncritically patriotic view of the American military, a "support the troops" (who are supposedly carrying on the noble tradition of those who fought in "the good war") spirit that's used to manipulate the public into supporting this country's usually economically self-interested militarism; or at least seeing, hearing, and speaking no evil of the military, which for practical purposes translates into tacit support or the neutralization of potential opposition and anti-war activism. This use of the myth of the WWII generation as the morally larger-than-life generation that earned the U.S. military its bona fides as a heroic force for good in the world to promote good vibrations, so to speak, about our wars and warriors has of course been one of the main strategies of the establishment to culturally reorient the American public away from the anti-militarism of the Vietnam era, and back toward being obliging patriotic dupes whenever our leaders decide to launch a war. It's all a part of inculcating a worldview that makes us readily foolable and compliant with the will of the powers that be. Wake up folks, and begin to think critically.

Well, certainly the Red Army and the entire Soviet people paid the steepest price in "blood, sweat, and tears", considerably steeper than the British, French, or Americans; and it was the invasion of Russia after all that turned the war into an unwinnable quagmire for Nazi Germany, therefore the Great Patriotic War, i.e. the Russian front, should indeed rightfully be central to the narrative of World War Two. But of course in the American narrative the United States and its "greatest generation" is central and gets the lion's share of the glory. This should serve to remind us that history most certainly is not merely a neutral collection of facts, but rather a biased grand narrative with indoctrinatory and political functions. Yes, historical truth, as well as social, political, moral, theological, and scientific truth is often just a narrative or paradigm that few or none of us think to question and doubt. We fail to realize this, and to recognize the ways, subtle and blatant, that narratives, propaganda, and patriotism are used to manipulate our consent and service to the agendas of the rich & powerful at our own considerable peril.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 6:20:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It was Russian military action and invasion that finalised it. The U.S had less involvement on European aspects of WW2.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 8:50:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 5:00:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/28/2014 8:55:26 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 7/24/2014 8:32:12 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
I was reading the book: The Party is Over, by Mike Lofgren, (who has a History major from the Universities of Akron and Bern), the book is about the political dysfunction in Washington and this passage caught my attention: "During my lifetime, one of the most harmful consequences of American Exceptionalism has been the myth of World War 2. Americans still lap up the Tom Brokaw fable that Americans somehow won that war single-handedly and as a result of their uniquely virtuous characters. Few Americans know, or care that Americans suffered less than 1 percent of the global casualties of the war, or that close to 90 percent of all German casualties were sustained by fighting the Soviet Union." When I read this I though: "Yes, I have heard that is true of the European theater but what about the Pacific? Didn't we come to help the battered British East Asian armies?" Then again, I remember in high school history class one of my history teachers said a possible reason Japan surrendered was that the Russians invaded Sakhalin, and the Japaneses did not want to be prisoners of Stalin. What do you think? Post in the comments below.

I would say, from what I know, that the USSR won the European theater, they were the ones who actually did most of the fighting, as you said, and then got to occupy half of Europe for half a century.

This was due in part to the fact that Hitler's forces were divided between two fronts. Without support from the US and UK, it's unlikely that Russia would have been able to defeat the full force of Hitler's army. Although the Russians did most of the fighting and most of the dying, their army was illl-equped and they ended up losing 25 million people during the war. That was close to twenty percent of Russia's population at the time. I don't think the war was won by any single country, since no single country would have won it single-handedly.


I, of course, agree with your post, but in light of what the original argument was, I would still hold the position that since Russia did most of the fighting, funded by the US & UK as you rightly point out, and then got to occupy Eastern Europe, I am going to say that they "won" that theater of the war, even if it was Pyrrhic victory. Although, now I think about it, one could argue that the group that really won the war was the politburo. You're right in the more general point that it was a concerted effort, but since it is so common in the West to hear people say that the US & the UK won the war (I guess they take their cues from video-games and films and not actual history books), I'm going to say that the Russians won the European War.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 12:13:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interestingly enough nobody has argued that the USA did more to defeat the axis powers during WWII. Everybody says either that the USSR contributed more or that both powers contributed equally. Not really many arguments in this thread.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:18:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 12:13:48 PM, STALIN wrote:
Interestingly enough nobody has argued that the USA did more to defeat the axis powers during WWII. Everybody says either that the USSR contributed more or that both powers contributed equally. Not really many arguments in this thread.

And apparently no one participating in the thread disagrees with any of the points in the two post that I've contributed to it. I'll take that as a positive sign.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 2:42:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:18:30 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:13:48 PM, STALIN wrote:
Interestingly enough nobody has argued that the USA did more to defeat the axis powers during WWII. Everybody says either that the USSR contributed more or that both powers contributed equally. Not really many arguments in this thread.

And apparently no one participating in the thread disagrees with any of the points in the two post that I've contributed to it. I'll take that as a positive sign.

I think that the USA won the war while the USSR kept the war alive if you know what I mean.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 4:31:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 2:42:02 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:18:30 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:13:48 PM, STALIN wrote:
Interestingly enough nobody has argued that the USA did more to defeat the axis powers during WWII. Everybody says either that the USSR contributed more or that both powers contributed equally. Not really many arguments in this thread.

And apparently no one participating in the thread disagrees with any of the points in the two post that I've contributed to it. I'll take that as a positive sign.

I think that the USA won the war while the USSR kept the war alive if you know what I mean.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 11:39:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 8:32:12 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
I was reading the book: The Party is Over, by Mike Lofgren, (who has a History major from the Universities of Akron and Bern), the book is about the political dysfunction in Washington and this passage caught my attention: "During my lifetime, one of the most harmful consequences of American Exceptionalism has been the myth of World War 2. Americans still lap up the Tom Brokaw fable that Americans somehow won that war single-handedly and as a result of their uniquely virtuous characters. Few Americans know, or care that Americans suffered less than 1 percent of the global casualties of the war, or that close to 90 percent of all German casualties were sustained by fighting the Soviet Union." When I read this I though: "Yes, I have heard that is true of the European theater but what about the Pacific? Didn't we come to help the battered British East Asian armies?" Then again, I remember in high school history class one of my history teachers said a possible reason Japan surrendered was that the Russians invaded Sakhalin, and the Japaneses did not want to be prisoners of Stalin. What do you think? Post in the comments below.

This is funny to say but I think the truth is actually reverse of what you mentioned here. The US is definitely a winner in Europe, not much so in the Pacific.

Winner is determined by how much you gain, not how much you actually paid (that's why it calls winning and not suffering). The US was actually received the biggest gain for absolutely minimum cost by participated in the war in Europe, you get the richest, most developed section of Nazi Europe by paying for less than 10 percent of their cost.

You suffer more in the Pacific but the only thing that prevent the Japanese from surrender to you right away is because they still have some hope that USSR might be able to help them negotiate a peace that is less than an outright occupation by the American. When Stalin broke off the treaty of non-aggression, all hopes are simply lost that's why they hanged on until then.
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 12:17:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 11:39:00 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/24/2014 8:32:12 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
I was reading the book: The Party is Over, by Mike Lofgren, (who has a History major from the Universities of Akron and Bern), the book is about the political dysfunction in Washington and this passage caught my attention: "During my lifetime, one of the most harmful consequences of American Exceptionalism has been the myth of World War 2. Americans still lap up the Tom Brokaw fable that Americans somehow won that war single-handedly and as a result of their uniquely virtuous characters. Few Americans know, or care that Americans suffered less than 1 percent of the global casualties of the war, or that close to 90 percent of all German casualties were sustained by fighting the Soviet Union." When I read this I though: "Yes, I have heard that is true of the European theater but what about the Pacific? Didn't we come to help the battered British East Asian armies?" Then again, I remember in high school history class one of my history teachers said a possible reason Japan surrendered was that the Russians invaded Sakhalin, and the Japaneses did not want to be prisoners of Stalin. What do you think? Post in the comments below.

This is funny to say but I think the truth is actually reverse of what you mentioned here. The US is definitely a winner in Europe, not much so in the Pacific.

Winner is determined by how much you gain, not how much you actually paid (that's why it calls winning and not suffering). The US was actually received the biggest gain for absolutely minimum cost by participated in the war in Europe, you get the richest, most developed section of Nazi Europe by paying for less than 10 percent of their cost.

You suffer more in the Pacific but the only thing that prevent the Japanese from surrender to you right away is because they still have some hope that USSR might be able to help them negotiate a peace that is less than an outright occupation by the American. When Stalin broke off the treaty of non-aggression, all hopes are simply lost that's why they hanged on until then.

I interpreted it as who ended the war for the Allies. Under that interpretation there is no doubt that the US won the war, even though the Soviets fought harder.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 2:33:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 12:17:31 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 11/1/2014 11:39:00 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/24/2014 8:32:12 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
I was reading the book: The Party is Over, by Mike Lofgren, (who has a History major from the Universities of Akron and Bern), the book is about the political dysfunction in Washington and this passage caught my attention: "During my lifetime, one of the most harmful consequences of American Exceptionalism has been the myth of World War 2. Americans still lap up the Tom Brokaw fable that Americans somehow won that war single-handedly and as a result of their uniquely virtuous characters. Few Americans know, or care that Americans suffered less than 1 percent of the global casualties of the war, or that close to 90 percent of all German casualties were sustained by fighting the Soviet Union." When I read this I though: "Yes, I have heard that is true of the European theater but what about the Pacific? Didn't we come to help the battered British East Asian armies?" Then again, I remember in high school history class one of my history teachers said a possible reason Japan surrendered was that the Russians invaded Sakhalin, and the Japaneses did not want to be prisoners of Stalin. What do you think? Post in the comments below.

This is funny to say but I think the truth is actually reverse of what you mentioned here. The US is definitely a winner in Europe, not much so in the Pacific.

Winner is determined by how much you gain, not how much you actually paid (that's why it calls winning and not suffering). The US was actually received the biggest gain for absolutely minimum cost by participated in the war in Europe, you get the richest, most developed section of Nazi Europe by paying for less than 10 percent of their cost.

You suffer more in the Pacific but the only thing that prevent the Japanese from surrender to you right away is because they still have some hope that USSR might be able to help them negotiate a peace that is less than an outright occupation by the American. When Stalin broke off the treaty of non-aggression, all hopes are simply lost that's why they hanged on until then.

I interpreted it as who ended the war for the Allies. Under that interpretation there is no doubt that the US won the war, even though the Soviets fought harder.

hmm.. ok, I would still say that the US involvement is the most important factor for the victory in Europe though. Military operation may be minimum but without the material support your government provided, I don't think the Soviet could survive well to the point that they started going offensive.

The Pacific is clearly your American war and is won absolutely because of American involvement . Soviet contribution is practically nothing, the Imperial Japan is ready to surrender at that point, the Soviet just make it clear there is no way out for them at the time.
erikrules
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 6:43:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 12:17:31 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 11/1/2014 11:39:00 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/24/2014 8:32:12 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
I was reading the book: The Party is Over, by Mike Lofgren, (who has a History major from the Universities of Akron and Bern), the book is about the political dysfunction in Washington and this passage caught my attention: "During my lifetime, one of the most harmful consequences of American Exceptionalism has been the myth of World War 2. Americans still lap up the Tom Brokaw fable that Americans somehow won that war single-handedly and as a result of their uniquely virtuous characters. Few Americans know, or care that Americans suffered less than 1 percent of the global casualties of the war, or that close to 90 percent of all German casualties were sustained by fighting the Soviet Union." When I read this I though: "Yes, I have heard that is true of the European theater but what about the Pacific? Didn't we come to help the battered British East Asian armies?" Then again, I remember in high school history class one of my history teachers said a possible reason Japan surrendered was that the Russians invaded Sakhalin, and the Japaneses did not want to be prisoners of Stalin. What do you think? Post in the comments below.

This is funny to say but I think the truth is actually reverse of what you mentioned here. The US is definitely a winner in Europe, not much so in the Pacific.

Winner is determined by how much you gain, not how much you actually paid (that's why it calls winning and not suffering). The US was actually received the biggest gain for absolutely minimum cost by participated in the war in Europe, you get the richest, most developed section of Nazi Europe by paying for less than 10 percent of their cost.

You suffer more in the Pacific but the only thing that prevent the Japanese from surrender to you right away is because they still have some hope that USSR might be able to help them negotiate a peace that is less than an outright occupation by the American. When Stalin broke off the treaty of non-aggression, all hopes are simply lost that's why they hanged on until then.

I interpreted it as who ended the war for the Allies. Under that interpretation there is no doubt that the US won the war, even though the Soviets fought harder.

The Soviet Union captured Berlin which ended the war in the European Theater. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, and North Korea helped to bring about the surrender of Japan even though this fact is often ignored. Therefore your argument that "under that interpretation there is no doubt that the US won the war..." doesn't exactly make sense.
erikrules
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 7:05:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
hmm.. ok, I would still say that the US involvement is the most important factor for the victory in Europe though. Military operation may be minimum but without the material support your government provided, I don't think the Soviet could survive well to the point that they started going offensive.

Perhaps the Soviet Union would have lost the war without supplies sent by the Western Allies, but the British Commonwealth probably did as much to supply the Soviet Union as the USA did. Britain invaded Iran together with the Soviet Union with the purpose of ensuring that Iran (which was sympathetic to the Nazis) would not side with Germany and to open a supply route to the Soviet Union. Aside from this, British convoys through the Arctic route also greatly aided the USSR. You seem to be under the impression that the USA was the only country supplying the USSR, which is incorrect. The question one should ask is which is more important, the Soviet Union engaging 80% of the German Wehrmacht or supplies sent to the USSR which helped it to fight the war. I personally do not see how the United States sending supplies to the USSR and expecting the Soviet Union to engage the overwhelming majority of German army was more important than the fact that the German army suffered 80% of its deaths on the eastern front.

The Pacific is clearly your American war and is won absolutely because of American involvement . Soviet contribution is practically nothing, the Imperial Japan is ready to surrender at that point, the Soviet just make it clear there is no way out for them at the time.

Clearly the USA contributed the most to defeating Japan. However your assumption that the Soviet Union did "practically nothing" is incorrect. During the Soviet-Japanese border wars of the 1930's (ending with the Japanese defeat during the battle of Khalkhin Gol), Japan suffered 100,000 casualties. Forces of the Japanes Empire possibly suffered heavier casualties during the battle of Khalkhin Gol than they did during the battle of Guadalcanal. During WWII, Japan kept hundred of thousands of troops in Manchuria to protect its vital factories and resources there. During the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other parts of the Japanese empire, some 700,000 Japanese troops were killed, wounded, or captured. These were heavier casualties than the Japanese suffered against the USA in years of fighting, however not very significant since like you stated above, this happened when the Japanese were already clearly losing the war.

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the USA didn't win the war in the Pacific singlehandedly. China and the British Commonwealth contributed greatly to this.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 11:44:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 7:05:58 PM, erikrules wrote:
hmm.. ok, I would still say that the US involvement is the most important factor for the victory in Europe though. Military operation may be minimum but without the material support your government provided, I don't think the Soviet could survive well to the point that they started going offensive.

Perhaps the Soviet Union would have lost the war without supplies sent by the Western Allies, but the British Commonwealth probably did as much to supply the Soviet Union as the USA did. Britain invaded Iran together with the Soviet Union with the purpose of ensuring that Iran (which was sympathetic to the Nazis) would not side with Germany and to open a supply route to the Soviet Union. Aside from this, British convoys through the Arctic route also greatly aided the USSR. You seem to be under the impression that the USA was the only country supplying the USSR, which is incorrect. The question one should ask is which is more important, the Soviet Union engaging 80% of the German Wehrmacht or supplies sent to the USSR which helped it to fight the war. I personally do not see how the United States sending supplies to the USSR and expecting the Soviet Union to engage the overwhelming majority of German army was more important than the fact that the German army suffered 80% of its deaths on the eastern front.

But the British was as well depend on the American for their war supplies, if they are lending in order to lend it to someone else I would still say that the net contributor to the defeat of Nazi Germany is still the American government. Don't get me wrong though, the British do contribute greatly (mainly in term of military intelligences) to the defeat of Nazi Germany as well as the Soviet Union who pay the blood prices for the German defeat, however if you ask what is the most decisive factor for the Allies victory in Europe - I would definitely say it's the US participation in the war. After all war isn't worn by blood, it's won by a gun, bullet, and food supply and it is the American bullets that allow the German to suffer so greatly in the East.

The Pacific is clearly your American war and is won absolutely because of American involvement . Soviet contribution is practically nothing, the Imperial Japan is ready to surrender at that point, the Soviet just make it clear there is no way out for them at the time.

Clearly the USA contributed the most to defeating Japan. However your assumption that the Soviet Union did "practically nothing" is incorrect. During the Soviet-Japanese border wars of the 1930's (ending with the Japanese defeat during the battle of Khalkhin Gol), Japan suffered 100,000 casualties. Forces of the Japanes Empire possibly suffered heavier casualties during the battle of Khalkhin Gol than they did during the battle of Guadalcanal. During WWII, Japan kept hundred of thousands of troops in Manchuria to protect its vital factories and resources there. During the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other parts of the Japanese empire, some 700,000 Japanese troops were killed, wounded, or captured. These were heavier casualties than the Japanese suffered against the USA in years of fighting, however not very significant since like you stated above, this happened when the Japanese were already clearly losing the war.

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the USA didn't win the war in the Pacific singlehandedly. China and the British Commonwealth contributed greatly to this.

That's not part of the Pacific War, beside the Imperial Japanese has nearly 3 million strengths, 100,000 is less than 5 percent of their total casualties inflicted in other part of the war (the Guadalcanal is mainly a naval battle, fought mainly at sea or with seaborne forces their manpower is far fewer than what they deployed at Khalkhin Gol which is a land-base battle).

In the Pacific War, the Soviet is practically do nothing but offering their bluff present which would discourage the Japanese from going North which is far more vulnerable now that most of the Soviet Far East divisions have been moved to the west, and even so that is a zero contribution to the Pacific theatre, more like a contribution to further combat the Nazi in Europe.

As for the British, I agree, the Australian, the New Zealand and the Indian contributed greatly to the Pacific front much more so than the USSR but they are still pale in comparison to the American contribution. The RoC also play a significant role in spreading the Japanese thinner than they should have be but ultimately, the IJA wasn't defeated, the IJN was and that is the major reason for their defeat.
erikrules
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 7:55:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 11:44:26 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/4/2014 7:05:58 PM, erikrules wrote:
hmm.. ok, I would still say that the US involvement is the most important factor for the victory in Europe though. Military operation may be minimum but without the material support your government provided, I don't think the Soviet could survive well to the point that they started going offensive.

Perhaps the Soviet Union would have lost the war without supplies sent by the Western Allies, but the British Commonwealth probably did as much to supply the Soviet Union as the USA did. Britain invaded Iran together with the Soviet Union with the purpose of ensuring that Iran (which was sympathetic to the Nazis) would not side with Germany and to open a supply route to the Soviet Union. Aside from this, British convoys through the Arctic route also greatly aided the USSR. You seem to be under the impression that the USA was the only country supplying the USSR, which is incorrect. The question one should ask is which is more important, the Soviet Union engaging 80% of the German Wehrmacht or supplies sent to the USSR which helped it to fight the war. I personally do not see how the United States sending supplies to the USSR and expecting the Soviet Union to engage the overwhelming majority of German army was more important than the fact that the German army suffered 80% of its deaths on the eastern front.

But the British was as well depend on the American for their war supplies, if they are lending in order to lend it to someone else I would still say that the net contributor to the defeat of Nazi Germany is still the American government. Don't get me wrong though, the British do contribute greatly (mainly in term of military intelligences) to the defeat of Nazi Germany as well as the Soviet Union who pay the blood prices for the German defeat, however if you ask what is the most decisive factor for the Allies victory in Europe - I would definitely say it's the US participation in the war. After all war isn't worn by blood, it's won by a gun, bullet, and food supply and it is the American bullets that allow the German to suffer so greatly in the East.

The Pacific is clearly your American war and is won absolutely because of American involvement . Soviet contribution is practically nothing, the Imperial Japan is ready to surrender at that point, the Soviet just make it clear there is no way out for them at the time.

Clearly the USA contributed the most to defeating Japan. However your assumption that the Soviet Union did "practically nothing" is incorrect. During the Soviet-Japanese border wars of the 1930's (ending with the Japanese defeat during the battle of Khalkhin Gol), Japan suffered 100,000 casualties. Forces of the Japanes Empire possibly suffered heavier casualties during the battle of Khalkhin Gol than they did during the battle of Guadalcanal. During WWII, Japan kept hundred of thousands of troops in Manchuria to protect its vital factories and resources there. During the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other parts of the Japanese empire, some 700,000 Japanese troops were killed, wounded, or captured. These were heavier casualties than the Japanese suffered against the USA in years of fighting, however not very significant since like you stated above, this happened when the Japanese were already clearly losing the war.

Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the USA didn't win the war in the Pacific singlehandedly. China and the British Commonwealth contributed greatly to this.

That's not part of the Pacific War, beside the Imperial Japanese has nearly 3 million strengths, 100,000 is less than 5 percent of their total casualties inflicted in other part of the war (the Guadalcanal is mainly a naval battle, fought mainly at sea or with seaborne forces their manpower is far fewer than what they deployed at Khalkhin Gol which is a land-base battle).

In the Pacific War, the Soviet is practically do nothing but offering their bluff present which would discourage the Japanese from going North which is far more vulnerable now that most of the Soviet Far East divisions have been moved to the west, and even so that is a zero contribution to the Pacific theatre, more like a contribution to further combat the Nazi in Europe.

As for the British, I agree, the Australian, the New Zealand and the Indian contributed greatly to the Pacific front much more so than the USSR but they are still pale in comparison to the American contribution. The RoC also play a significant role in spreading the Japanese thinner than they should have be but ultimately, the IJA wasn't defeated, the IJN was and that is the major reason for their defeat.

Lend lease supplies made up 15% of total Soviet production. You seem to be assuming that American supplies were all the Soviet Union used to defeat Germany. Whether British or American, 15% isn't a majority. In addition to this, supplies from other countries were not what won the major battles on the eastern front and defeated 80% of German forces. By late 1943, the USSR was producing three times as much as Germany even if you exclude American supplies. Take a look at the Soviet T-34, the most mass produced and effective tank of the war. Not a single one of these tanks was not produced in American factories.

You argue that the war on the eastern front was won by American supplies but I have shown that the Soviet Union's production had much more of an impact on the fighting on the Eastern Front than American supplies did.

"After all war isn't worn by blood, it's won by a gun, bullet, and food supply and it is the American bullets that allow the German to suffer so greatly in the East."


I agree with this, a war isn't won by blood. However supplies alone don't win battles either. Battles are won by soldiers. Yes supplies enable this, however it was not American supplies that defeated the Nazis multiple times on the Eastern Front, it was Soviet manpower. Soviet manpower that defeated the Germans at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and drove the Fascists all the way back to Berlin capturing the city in 1945.

Battles are won by men, not by 'supplies.'

"That's not part of the Pacific War, beside the Imperial Japanese has nearly 3 million strengths, 100,000 is less than 5 percent of their total casualties inflicted in other part of the war (the Guadalcanal is mainly a naval battle, fought mainly at sea or with seaborne forces their manpower is far fewer than what they deployed at Khalkhin Gol which is a land-base battle). "

Whether or not the events in Manchuria were part of the 'Pacific War,' it still effected Japan and the battle of Khalkhin Gol was a defeat for Japan.

The war on the Asian continent was won by British and Chinese troops. This amounts to millions of casualties for the Japanese.

I am running out of time and will leave it at that.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 12:09:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah, governments will say anything for nationalism sake. On the other hand, Europeans like to lie too. Their pride is at stake, and by admitting the USA's roll in ending the war, they are admitting that they couldn't do it alone.
Fiction is worshipped more than fact in the media and history books. The truth about the USA falls somewhere in the middle.
The USA was the main opposing force of Japan in the South Seas and Pacific. Brokaw didn't get that wrong. The USA, coupled with England, almost single handedly defeated Hitler in the West. Hitler had already taken most of Europe so there weren't any Allies left to help England and the USA. Canadian and Australian troops did help us, but they didn't have the big army that the USA and England had.
The reason the USA gets most of the credit was because we put 12,000,000 military personnel in the war. Couple that with the fact that most of the supplies that were used to drive Germany out of France and the rest of Europe was made by the USA. USA had most of the natural resources to do it too. We manned most of the tanks and ships and planes and supplies in the offensive against Germany. Not only that but we supplied the Russians with many tons of materials and food stuffs.
And then we dropped those A bombs on Japan. That was pretty much the end of it. Neither Italy, Germany, nor Japan wanted to fight after that.
RussiaPutinBest
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 1:12:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 12:09:06 AM, j50wells wrote:
Yeah, governments will say anything for nationalism sake. On the other hand, Europeans like to lie too. Their pride is at stake, and by admitting the USA's roll in ending the war, they are admitting that they couldn't do it alone.
Fiction is worshipped more than fact in the media and history books. The truth about the USA falls somewhere in the middle.
The USA was the main opposing force of Japan in the South Seas and Pacific. Brokaw didn't get that wrong. The USA, coupled with England, almost single handedly defeated Hitler in the West. Hitler had already taken most of Europe so there weren't any Allies left to help England and the USA. Canadian and Australian troops did help us, but they didn't have the big army that the USA and England had.
The reason the USA gets most of the credit was because we put 12,000,000 military personnel in the war. Couple that with the fact that most of the supplies that were used to drive Germany out of France and the rest of Europe was made by the USA. USA had most of the natural resources to do it too. We manned most of the tanks and ships and planes and supplies in the offensive against Germany. Not only that but we supplied the Russians with many tons of materials and food stuffs.
And then we dropped those A bombs on Japan. That was pretty much the end of it. Neither Italy, Germany, nor Japan wanted to fight after that.

Russia's role in defeating the Axis Powers was at least as great as that of the United States. Lend lease supplies made up 15% of so of total Soviet production. And note the difference between 15% and "most." Soviet production was huge (by late 1943 they were producing around 3x as much as Germany) as well as its military manpower/might which was around 25 million compared to the US 12 million (a good chunk of which never saw much action). 80% of German casualties were in the war against the Soviet Union. The other 20% or so can be divided between Britain, America, and all the other minor nations. It was Russia who halted and defeated the German offensives in the summer of 1941 (Barbarossa), 1942 (Case Blue), and 1943 (Citadel) which were by far the three biggest German offensives of WWII.

The Soviet Union also contributed to defeating Japan and just so you know, Germany had already surrendered around 3 months before the Atomic Bombs were dropped. Italy had surrendered in 1943.

If you do some careful research then you will come to the obvious conclusion that the Soviet contribution was at least as great as the American contribution. Lend lease supplies is a poor argument since paying Russia to do the main fighting doesn't count for much.
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 6:51:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 12:09:06 AM, j50wells wrote:
Yeah, governments will say anything for nationalism sake. On the other hand, Europeans like to lie too. Their pride is at stake, and by admitting the USA's roll in ending the war, they are admitting that they couldn't do it alone.
Fiction is worshipped more than fact in the media and history books. The truth about the USA falls somewhere in the middle.
The USA was the main opposing force of Japan in the South Seas and Pacific. Brokaw didn't get that wrong. The USA, coupled with England, almost single handedly defeated Hitler in the West. Hitler had already taken most of Europe so there weren't any Allies left to help England and the USA. Canadian and Australian troops did help us, but they didn't have the big army that the USA and England had.
The reason the USA gets most of the credit was because we put 12,000,000 military personnel in the war. Couple that with the fact that most of the supplies that were used to drive Germany out of France and the rest of Europe was made by the USA. USA had most of the natural resources to do it too. We manned most of the tanks and ships and planes and supplies in the offensive against Germany. Not only that but we supplied the Russians with many tons of materials and food stuffs.
And then we dropped those A bombs on Japan. That was pretty much the end of it. Neither Italy, Germany, nor Japan wanted to fight after that.

I would take a slightly different view to yours above and conclude the following --

1 - the USA virtually singlehandedly defeated Japan in WW2.

2 - Stalin virtually singlehandedly defeated Adolf in WW2.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:37:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 6:51:11 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 7/30/2015 12:09:06 AM, j50wells wrote:
Yeah, governments will say anything for nationalism sake. On the other hand, Europeans like to lie too. Their pride is at stake, and by admitting the USA's roll in ending the war, they are admitting that they couldn't do it alone.
Fiction is worshipped more than fact in the media and history books. The truth about the USA falls somewhere in the middle.
The USA was the main opposing force of Japan in the South Seas and Pacific. Brokaw didn't get that wrong. The USA, coupled with England, almost single handedly defeated Hitler in the West. Hitler had already taken most of Europe so there weren't any Allies left to help England and the USA. Canadian and Australian troops did help us, but they didn't have the big army that the USA and England had.
The reason the USA gets most of the credit was because we put 12,000,000 military personnel in the war. Couple that with the fact that most of the supplies that were used to drive Germany out of France and the rest of Europe was made by the USA. USA had most of the natural resources to do it too. We manned most of the tanks and ships and planes and supplies in the offensive against Germany. Not only that but we supplied the Russians with many tons of materials and food stuffs.
And then we dropped those A bombs on Japan. That was pretty much the end of it. Neither Italy, Germany, nor Japan wanted to fight after that.

I would take a slightly different view to yours above and conclude the following --

1 - the USA virtually singlehandedly defeated Japan in WW2.

2 - Stalin virtually singlehandedly defeated Adolf in WW2.

I agree that Stalin played the bigger part on defeating Hitler, but that was in the east. In the west it was predominately USA and England working together. But there were other things secretly going on in the east. For one, much of the military in Stalingrad was trying to decide whether to fight the Germans hard, or defect to Germany. Many of them thought they would fair better in Hitler's hands than Stalin's. The sad part is that those brave Russians who stopped Hitler were often-times thrown in prison or executed by Stalin when the war was over. Stalin was so paranoid of his troops being corrupted by Capitalism that he figured it was a better option to either execute them, imprison them, or send them to Siberia. The troops in Stalingrad knew about Stalin's harshness with veterans of wars. Many of them had decided to defect. But the supplies that the Americans kept sending them were so good that they had to win the battle.

USSR stood alone for other reasons. For one, strategically it was hard to get America soldiers into Russia. Mussolini held a great deal of the Mediterranean. The Germans held much of Africa. Bringing the troops across the Bering Straight couldn't be done because of the Japanese. Not only that, but Americans saw the meat grinder of the German army sweeping across the steppe of Russia. There was no way that our military leaders, nor president, was going to throw our troops in the way of that meat grinder. Some historians estimate that nearly 15 million people were murdered by the Germans in their race to Stalingrad.

The Russian had nowhere to go. The country was wide open prarie grass with very few hills, and almost no trees. There was nowhere to escape. Families sat in their houses, looking to the west, watching the shells get closer. First the Russians came through the towns, fleeing before the Germans. Then the Germans came to the towns and murdered the Russians like pigs. It was a terrible thing. It's hard to understand how a group of people could be so brutal. They were the Germans. They had been around since ancient times. They had a fundamental part in building the Roman Empire. They were smart, good-looking, and philosophical. So how were they turned into ravenous wolves? Maybe this should be a lesson to all of us.
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 3:29:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 10:37:03 PM, j50wells wrote:
At 8/21/2015 6:51:11 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 7/30/2015 12:09:06 AM, j50wells wrote:
Yeah, governments will say anything for nationalism sake. On the other hand, Europeans like to lie too. Their pride is at stake, and by admitting the USA's roll in ending the war, they are admitting that they couldn't do it alone.
Fiction is worshipped more than fact in the media and history books. The truth about the USA falls somewhere in the middle.
The USA was the main opposing force of Japan in the South Seas and Pacific. Brokaw didn't get that wrong. The USA, coupled with England, almost single handedly defeated Hitler in the West. Hitler had already taken most of Europe so there weren't any Allies left to help England and the USA. Canadian and Australian troops did help us, but they didn't have the big army that the USA and England had.
The reason the USA gets most of the credit was because we put 12,000,000 military personnel in the war. Couple that with the fact that most of the supplies that were used to drive Germany out of France and the rest of Europe was made by the USA. USA had most of the natural resources to do it too. We manned most of the tanks and ships and planes and supplies in the offensive against Germany. Not only that but we supplied the Russians with many tons of materials and food stuffs.
And then we dropped those A bombs on Japan. That was pretty much the end of it. Neither Italy, Germany, nor Japan wanted to fight after that.

I would take a slightly different view to yours above and conclude the following --

1 - the USA virtually singlehandedly defeated Japan in WW2.

2 - Stalin virtually singlehandedly defeated Adolf in WW2.

I agree that Stalin played the bigger part on defeating Hitler, but that was in the east. In the west it was predominately USA and England working together. But there were other things secretly going on in the east. For one, much of the military in Stalingrad was trying to decide whether to fight the Germans hard, or defect to Germany. Many of them thought they would fair better in Hitler's hands than Stalin's. The sad part is that those brave Russians who stopped Hitler were often-times thrown in prison or executed by Stalin when the war was over. Stalin was so paranoid of his troops being corrupted by Capitalism that he figured it was a better option to either execute them, imprison them, or send them to Siberia. The troops in Stalingrad knew about Stalin's harshness with veterans of wars. Many of them had decided to defect. But the supplies that the Americans kept sending them were so good that they had to win the battle.

USSR stood alone for other reasons. For one, strategically it was hard to get America soldiers into Russia. Mussolini held a great deal of the Mediterranean. The Germans held much of Africa. Bringing the troops across the Bering Straight couldn't be done because of the Japanese. Not only that, but Americans saw the meat grinder of the German army sweeping across the steppe of Russia. There was no way that our military leaders, nor president, was going to throw our troops in the way of that meat grinder. Some historians estimate that nearly 15 million people were murdered by the Germans in their race to Stalingrad.

The Russian had nowhere to go. The country was wide open prarie grass with very few hills, and almost no trees. There was nowhere to escape. Families sat in their houses, looking to the west, watching the shells get closer. First the Russians came through the towns, fleeing before the Germans. Then the Germans came to the towns and murdered the Russians like pigs. It was a terrible thing. It's hard to understand how a group of people could be so brutal. They were the Germans. They had been around since ancient times. They had a fundamental part in building the Roman Empire. They were smart, good-looking, and philosophical. So how were they turned into ravenous wolves? Maybe this should be a lesson to all of us.

Even without Ike opening a 2nd front against Adolf, Stalin would have been in Berlin before long.

Adolf would not let his generals withdraw under a scorched earth policy. He wasted them with futile stands like the WW1 western front. That's where Adolf fought and that is the only thing about war that Adolf knew.

Stalin did not need the USA or UK to beat Adolf. It was just a matter of time.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 8:55:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 3:29:23 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/21/2015 10:37:03 PM, j50wells wrote:
At 8/21/2015 6:51:11 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 7/30/2015 12:09:06 AM, j50wells wrote:
Yeah, governments will say anything for nationalism sake. On the other hand, Europeans like to lie too. Their pride is at stake, and by admitting the USA's roll in ending the war, they are admitting that they couldn't do it alone.
Fiction is worshipped more than fact in the media and history books. The truth about the USA falls somewhere in the middle.
The USA was the main opposing force of Japan in the South Seas and Pacific. Brokaw didn't get that wrong. The USA, coupled with England, almost single handedly defeated Hitler in the West. Hitler had already taken most of Europe so there weren't any Allies left to help England and the USA. Canadian and Australian troops did help us, but they didn't have the big army that the USA and England had.
The reason the USA gets most of the credit was because we put 12,000,000 military personnel in the war. Couple that with the fact that most of the supplies that were used to drive Germany out of France and the rest of Europe was made by the USA. USA had most of the natural resources to do it too. We manned most of the tanks and ships and planes and supplies in the offensive against Germany. Not only that but we supplied the Russians with many tons of materials and food stuffs.
And then we dropped those A bombs on Japan. That was pretty much the end of it. Neither Italy, Germany, nor Japan wanted to fight after that.

I would take a slightly different view to yours above and conclude the following --

1 - the USA virtually singlehandedly defeated Japan in WW2.

2 - Stalin virtually singlehandedly defeated Adolf in WW2.

I agree that Stalin played the bigger part on defeating Hitler, but that was in the east. In the west it was predominately USA and England working together. But there were other things secretly going on in the east. For one, much of the military in Stalingrad was trying to decide whether to fight the Germans hard, or defect to Germany. Many of them thought they would fair better in Hitler's hands than Stalin's. The sad part is that those brave Russians who stopped Hitler were often-times thrown in prison or executed by Stalin when the war was over. Stalin was so paranoid of his troops being corrupted by Capitalism that he figured it was a better option to either execute them, imprison them, or send them to Siberia. The troops in Stalingrad knew about Stalin's harshness with veterans of wars. Many of them had decided to defect. But the supplies that the Americans kept sending them were so good that they had to win the battle.

USSR stood alone for other reasons. For one, strategically it was hard to get America soldiers into Russia. Mussolini held a great deal of the Mediterranean. The Germans held much of Africa. Bringing the troops across the Bering Straight couldn't be done because of the Japanese. Not only that, but Americans saw the meat grinder of the German army sweeping across the steppe of Russia. There was no way that our military leaders, nor president, was going to throw our troops in the way of that meat grinder. Some historians estimate that nearly 15 million people were murdered by the Germans in their race to Stalingrad.

The Russian had nowhere to go. The country was wide open prarie grass with very few hills, and almost no trees. There was nowhere to escape. Families sat in their houses, looking to the west, watching the shells get closer. First the Russians came through the towns, fleeing before the Germans. Then the Germans came to the towns and murdered the Russians like pigs. It was a terrible thing. It's hard to understand how a group of people could be so brutal. They were the Germans. They had been around since ancient times. They had a fundamental part in building the Roman Empire. They were smart, good-looking, and philosophical. So how were they turned into ravenous wolves? Maybe this should be a lesson to all of us.

Even without Ike opening a 2nd front against Adolf, Stalin would have been in Berlin before long.

Adolf would not let his generals withdraw under a scorched earth policy. He wasted them with futile stands like the WW1 western front. That's where Adolf fought and that is the only thing about war that Adolf knew.

Stalin did not need the USA or UK to beat Adolf. It was just a matter of time.

As in all wars, there are the persons who do the fighting, and then there are the persons who make the supplies and send them down the supply line. USA was the supplier of that supply line. We had a land-lease program with Russia in which we shipped them 200 billion dollars worth of tanks, planes, food, and ammunition. That 200 billion was 7% of our total war expenditure. That's a lot. Without those supplies, Stalingrad would have been lost. Russia was a communist country. We know that communist countries don't produce as much as capitalist countries. Russia could not have defended Stalingrad without our supplies. Moreover, he pushed the Germans back to Berlin with the help of our supplies.

Germany lost because they overextended their lines. Their supply line was strong, but the armies protecting that supply line were not. The Russians found a week spot behind the main German army that was sieging Stalingrad. They attacked and split the supply lines. They then surrounded the 300,000 troops camped outside Stalingrad. Hitler sent planes to rescue the 300,000, but many didn't make it and were marched off to their deaths in Russia. This surrounding of the German army weakened the Germans resolve. It was then that Russian troops pushed them back, and finally defeated them in Berlin.

The idea that Russia did it alone is myth, just like the myth that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 11:50:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 8:55:37 PM, j50wells wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:29:23 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/21/2015 10:37:03 PM, j50wells wrote:
At 8/21/2015 6:51:11 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 7/30/2015 12:09:06 AM, j50wells wrote:
Yeah, governments will say anything for nationalism sake. On the other hand, Europeans like to lie too. Their pride is at stake, and by admitting the USA's roll in ending the war, they are admitting that they couldn't do it alone.
Fiction is worshipped more than fact in the media and history books. The truth about the USA falls somewhere in the middle.
The USA was the main opposing force of Japan in the South Seas and Pacific. Brokaw didn't get that wrong. The USA, coupled with England, almost single handedly defeated Hitler in the West. Hitler had already taken most of Europe so there weren't any Allies left to help England and the USA. Canadian and Australian troops did help us, but they didn't have the big army that the USA and England had.
The reason the USA gets most of the credit was because we put 12,000,000 military personnel in the war. Couple that with the fact that most of the supplies that were used to drive Germany out of France and the rest of Europe was made by the USA. USA had most of the natural resources to do it too. We manned most of the tanks and ships and planes and supplies in the offensive against Germany. Not only that but we supplied the Russians with many tons of materials and food stuffs.
And then we dropped those A bombs on Japan. That was pretty much the end of it. Neither Italy, Germany, nor Japan wanted to fight after that.

I would take a slightly different view to yours above and conclude the following --

1 - the USA virtually singlehandedly defeated Japan in WW2.

2 - Stalin virtually singlehandedly defeated Adolf in WW2.

I agree that Stalin played the bigger part on defeating Hitler, but that was in the east. In the west it was predominately USA and England working together. But there were other things secretly going on in the east. For one, much of the military in Stalingrad was trying to decide whether to fight the Germans hard, or defect to Germany. Many of them thought they would fair better in Hitler's hands than Stalin's. The sad part is that those brave Russians who stopped Hitler were often-times thrown in prison or executed by Stalin when the war was over. Stalin was so paranoid of his troops being corrupted by Capitalism that he figured it was a better option to either execute them, imprison them, or send them to Siberia. The troops in Stalingrad knew about Stalin's harshness with veterans of wars. Many of them had decided to defect. But the supplies that the Americans kept sending them were so good that they had to win the battle.

USSR stood alone for other reasons. For one, strategically it was hard to get America soldiers into Russia. Mussolini held a great deal of the Mediterranean. The Germans held much of Africa. Bringing the troops across the Bering Straight couldn't be done because of the Japanese. Not only that, but Americans saw the meat grinder of the German army sweeping across the steppe of Russia. There was no way that our military leaders, nor president, was going to throw our troops in the way of that meat grinder. Some historians estimate that nearly 15 million people were murdered by the Germans in their race to Stalingrad.

The Russian had nowhere to go. The country was wide open prarie grass with very few hills, and almost no trees. There was nowhere to escape. Families sat in their houses, looking to the west, watching the shells get closer. First the Russians came through the towns, fleeing before the Germans. Then the Germans came to the towns and murdered the Russians like pigs. It was a terrible thing. It's hard to understand how a group of people could be so brutal. They were the Germans. They had been around since ancient times. They had a fundamental part in building the Roman Empire. They were smart, good-looking, and philosophical. So how were they turned into ravenous wolves? Maybe this should be a lesson to all of us.

Even without Ike opening a 2nd front against Adolf, Stalin would have been in Berlin before long.

Adolf would not let his generals withdraw under a scorched earth policy. He wasted them with futile stands like the WW1 western front. That's where Adolf fought and that is the only thing about war that Adolf knew.

Stalin did not need the USA or UK to beat Adolf. It was just a matter of time.

As in all wars, there are the persons who do the fighting, and then there are the persons who make the supplies and send them down the supply line. USA was the supplier of that supply line. We had a land-lease program with Russia in which we shipped them 200 billion dollars worth of tanks, planes, food, and ammunition. That 200 billion was 7% of our total war expenditure. That's a lot. Without those supplies, Stalingrad would have been lost. Russia was a communist country. We know that communist countries don't produce as much as capitalist countries. Russia could not have defended Stalingrad without our supplies. Moreover, he pushed the Germans back to Berlin with the help of our supplies.

Germany lost because they overextended their lines. Their supply line was strong, but the armies protecting that supply line were not. The Russians found a week spot behind the main German army that was sieging Stalingrad. They attacked and split the supply lines. They then surrounded the 300,000 troops camped outside Stalingrad. Hitler sent planes to rescue the 300,000, but many didn't make it and were marched off to their deaths in Russia. This surrounding of the German army weakened the Germans resolve. It was then that Russian troops pushed them back, and finally defeated them in Berlin.

The idea that Russia did it alone is myth, just like the myth that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

I am aware why Germany lost. I have studied wars and been taught how to fight wars while I was a uniformed military officer.

The myth that Russia being able to defeat Germany alone as being a myth is a myth.

Russia would have beaten the Germans eventually with our without the USA.

Winter weather -- perhaps a pure act of God(s) -- alone assured this.

Same as in the case of Napoleon.

No one has ever invaded Russia and lived to tell about it.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 1:13:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 11:50:57 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/22/2015 8:55:37 PM, j50wells wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:29:23 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/21/2015 10:37:03 PM, j50wells wrote:
At 8/21/2015 6:51:11 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 7/30/2015 12:09:06 AM, j50wells wrote:
Yeah, governments will say anything for nationalism sake. On the other hand, Europeans like to lie too. Their pride is at stake, and by admitting the USA's roll in ending the war, they are admitting that they couldn't do it alone.
Fiction is worshipped more than fact in the media and history books. The truth about the USA falls somewhere in the middle.
The USA was the main opposing force of Japan in the South Seas and Pacific. Brokaw didn't get that wrong. The USA, coupled with England, almost single handedly defeated Hitler in the West. Hitler had already taken most of Europe so there weren't any Allies left to help England and the USA. Canadian and Australian troops did help us, but they didn't have the big army that the USA and England had.
The reason the USA gets most of the credit was because we put 12,000,000 military personnel in the war. Couple that with the fact that most of the supplies that were used to drive Germany out of France and the rest of Europe was made by the USA. USA had most of the natural resources to do it too. We manned most of the tanks and ships and planes and supplies in the offensive against Germany. Not only that but we supplied the Russians with many tons of materials and food stuffs.
And then we dropped those A bombs on Japan. That was pretty much the end of it. Neither Italy, Germany, nor Japan wanted to fight after that.

I would take a slightly different view to yours above and conclude the following --

1 - the USA virtually singlehandedly defeated Japan in WW2.

2 - Stalin virtually singlehandedly defeated Adolf in WW2.

I agree that Stalin played the bigger part on defeating Hitler, but that was in the east. In the west it was predominately USA and England working together. But there were other things secretly going on in the east. For one, much of the military in Stalingrad was trying to decide whether to fight the Germans hard, or defect to Germany. Many of them thought they would fair better in Hitler's hands than Stalin's. The sad part is that those brave Russians who stopped Hitler were often-times thrown in prison or executed by Stalin when the war was over. Stalin was so paranoid of his troops being corrupted by Capitalism that he figured it was a better option to either execute them, imprison them, or send them to Siberia. The troops in Stalingrad knew about Stalin's harshness with veterans of wars. Many of them had decided to defect. But the supplies that the Americans kept sending them were so good that they had to win the battle.

USSR stood alone for other reasons. For one, strategically it was hard to get America soldiers into Russia. Mussolini held a great deal of the Mediterranean. The Germans held much of Africa. Bringing the troops across the Bering Straight couldn't be done because of the Japanese. Not only that, but Americans saw the meat grinder of the German army sweeping across the steppe of Russia. There was no way that our military leaders, nor president, was going to throw our troops in the way of that meat grinder. Some historians estimate that nearly 15 million people were murdered by the Germans in their race to Stalingrad.

The Russian had nowhere to go. The country was wide open prarie grass with very few hills, and almost no trees. There was nowhere to escape. Families sat in their houses, looking to the west, watching the shells get closer. First the Russians came through the towns, fleeing before the Germans. Then the Germans came to the towns and murdered the Russians like pigs. It was a terrible thing. It's hard to understand how a group of people could be so brutal. They were the Germans. They had been around since ancient times. They had a fundamental part in building the Roman Empire. They were smart, good-looking, and philosophical. So how were they turned into ravenous wolves? Maybe this should be a lesson to all of us.

Even without Ike opening a 2nd front against Adolf, Stalin would have been in Berlin before long.

Adolf would not let his generals withdraw under a scorched earth policy. He wasted them with futile stands like the WW1 western front. That's where Adolf fought and that is the only thing about war that Adolf knew.

Stalin did not need the USA or UK to beat Adolf. It was just a matter of time.

As in all wars, there are the persons who do the fighting, and then there are the persons who make the supplies and send them down the supply line. USA was the supplier of that supply line. We had a land-lease program with Russia in which we shipped them 200 billion dollars worth of tanks, planes, food, and ammunition. That 200 billion was 7% of our total war expenditure. That's a lot. Without those supplies, Stalingrad would have been lost. Russia was a communist country. We know that communist countries don't produce as much as capitalist countries. Russia could not have defended Stalingrad without our supplies. Moreover, he pushed the Germans back to Berlin with the help of our supplies.

Germany lost because they overextended their lines. Their supply line was strong, but the armies protecting that supply line were not. The Russians found a week spot behind the main German army that was sieging Stalingrad. They attacked and split the supply lines. They then surrounded the 300,000 troops camped outside Stalingrad. Hitler sent planes to rescue the 300,000, but many didn't make it and were marched off to their deaths in Russia. This surrounding of the German army weakened the Germans resolve. It was then that Russian troops pushed them back, and finally defeated them in Berlin.

The idea that Russia did it alone is myth, just like the myth that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

I am aware why Germany lost. I have studied wars and been taught how to fight wars while I was a uniformed military officer.

The myth that Russia being able to defeat Germany alone as being a myth is a myth.

Russia would have beaten the Germans eventually with our without the USA.

Winter weather -- perhaps a pure act of God(s) -- alone assured this.

Same as in the case of Napoleon.

No one has ever invaded Russia and lived to tell about it.

Pushing that deep into Russia shows the mad-man drivings of Hitler. The man was obsessed with ruling the world. It's just shows what greed can do to a person. Hitler knew about Napoleon and other armies who tried to take Russia. Even the Kahn knew that there was a time to attack and a time to wait.
Hitler was risking it all. The taking of Western Europe went smoothly. Hitler believed that his army could do the same in Russia. He probably believed that he could smash through Stalingrad and move east at a high rate of speed, and then be in control before winter. That did not happen.
He also looked at his armies as part of the machine. He forgot that his armies were men with wives and kids at home, who probably wanted to abandon the attack on Russia, and just go home and live in peace. In all reality, the war cause was an unintelligent one. Racial superiority is not a good driving force in the hearts of the individuals that make up an army. I think fear and a sense of justice is a more better morale booster than racial superiority.