USAFAUX2004
Active member
if you guys want to discuss the profiteers of the war then i made a thread on that too
WINNER OF WW2
- Status
USAFAUX2004
Active member
redcoat said:
you are right, but the fact that the small nation of america once again kicked britain out is looked upon as the victory. No one won the war it was not even a tie
Shadowalker
Active member
america didnt kick britain out as america declared war first, and america invaded canada. The british werent originally in america anymore, the canadians defended there lands and drove the american armies back. But america did gain respect, stopped the impressment of its soldiers by the british navy and won the battle of new orleans, but the white house was burned down and they didnt get the land they wanted.
godofthunder9010
Active member
You want to discuss the War of 1812? There is a topic for that, go discuss it there. Goofy people.
fftopic: fftopic: fftopic: fftopic: fftopic:
fftopic: fftopic: fftopic: fftopic: fftopic:
USAFAUX2004
Active member
thank you, someone said it
godofthunder9010
Active member
Drilldownmaster, the underlying problem I'm seeing here is the phase, "Who won the war?" when what you really seem to be getting at is, in effect "What nation was the Most Valuable Player of the Allies in WW2?" I say that's the USSR on the European side and the USA on the Japanese side. Since Germany was so much more dangerous than Japan, that makes the USSR probably the overall MVP. Runner up would be the USA, then the UK.
That is true but people always seem to take away the D-Day factor if it wasn't for D-Day Hitler could have moved on into Russia. Though Russia did have more troops in Europe American forces let Russia get to Berlin first. UK and USA forces could have beat them thier but they chose not too.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
D-Day was planned because roosevelt and churchill both knew they could not let stalin get to france
godofthunder9010
Active member
The USSR and its people were tired by the end of it. Very tired. Stalin and the Russian people were happy to have the USA and UK create the second front after D-Day. Russia bled enough and D-Day ensured that Russia could push forward more quickly and that the end of the war would be sooner.
BTW, the fact of it is, the USA and the UK could have driven straight into Berlin for one reason only. At the end, Germany intentionally left themselves wide open to the West and threw absolutely everything at Russia. The plan? Getting the nicer allies (USA and UK) to take as much of Germany as possible, most especially Berlin. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had already agreed to the exact divying up of German long before the fact and the USA and UK upheld their end of the bargain.
BTW, the fact of it is, the USA and the UK could have driven straight into Berlin for one reason only. At the end, Germany intentionally left themselves wide open to the West and threw absolutely everything at Russia. The plan? Getting the nicer allies (USA and UK) to take as much of Germany as possible, most especially Berlin. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had already agreed to the exact divying up of German long before the fact and the USA and UK upheld their end of the bargain.
And once again, you've completely lost me. What on earth are you talking about?Dameon said:
USAFAUX2004
Active member
you seem to get lost a lot, but he saud that he believes that if britain and USA wanted they could get to Berlin before Russia
godofthunder9010
Active member
"if it wasn't for D-Day Hitler could have moved on into Russia" <--- This is the part I didn't understand. That statement is saying that Hitler would have moved into Russia if D-Day hadn't happened. I think its a goof up...
USAFAUX2004
Active member
oh isee. I guess he thinks that russia would eventually give in and loose
Doppleganger
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
Although the USSR were glad to see the Western Allies finally open up another front, it didn't really make all that much difference to them. On June 22, 1944, 3 years to the day after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviets launched Operation Bagration, which was the final decisive battle of the Ostfront. Although the Red Army's casualties were enormous, the outcome of this battle was the destruction of Armeegruppe Mitte (Army Group Centre) as a fighting force. This would have happened in any case, D-Day or not.
I'm not sure you can say that Germany intentionally left themselves open to the West - that isn't true. What did happen is that many Wehrmacht units tried to make local ceasefire agreements with Western Allied troops so that they could then head to the East and fight the Soviet juggernaut, whom they considered the real enemy. All of the Allies were attempting to reach Berlin first. All of the Allies knew, in particular Churchill, that where they ended up would determine post-war zones of influence.
Duty Honor Country
Active member
drilldownmaster2004 said:
OFF TOPIC: drilldownmaster2004, could you explain some of your posts a little more. A few quotes, dates, details or sources would go a long way to support your positions.
ON TOPIC: Churchill met with Stalin in 1942. Stalin wanted a landing in France ASAP. At the time, the Red Army was taking some serious heat on the Eastern Front. The exact planning for D-Day cannot be pinpointed. It was given the name Operation Overlord in 1943, while some sources say the plaining for a landing in France has been going on "for years in London." When Eisenhower took over allied command in JAN 1944, the only directive known for the invasion was to do it as soon as possible. Nothing was said about where, when and how at that time.
nothing I have ever read has said anything about stopping Stalin in France being the reason for D-Day. The only American Leader to openly say the Russians were bad was Patton. He paid dearly for his remarks even though he was right.
Doppleganger
Active member
Doody said:
Patton only voiced what I'm sure every Western Allied leader was thinking from 1944 onwards. Churchill was also fairly outspoken about the post-war Soviet influence. It was as well that the Western Allies did remain allied with the USSR at the time because IMO we couldn't have stopped the Red Army had they decided to carry on going after they had made contact with the Anglo-American forces.
Kick_in_the_eye
Active member
Happy I found this forum! 
Who won WWII? I'm not sure what you mean by that... But of those who participated I would say USA; they came out clearly on top with compareble little loss in casualties and material damage. SU was strong before the war and continued to grow afterwards. The war itself though, was paid a high price for. And UK, well, is there any doubt they lost much of it's power after WWII?
I also like to comment on SU as part of the allies. Back in 39 there were three major aggressors in the world - Germany, Japan and Soviet (Italy I concider as a minor, and the Imperialists were in a "slope"). SU was in no way any "better" than Germany when it comes to territorial claims, and that was what the world had to deal with back then. When SU pressed Finland for territory, there were voices raised in UK to back the finns up. The Moltov-Ribbentrop Pact could not be seen as anything but as a mutual agreement between Germany and SU, even if the diplomacy/strategy behind it meant different things to the two. So to sum it up: I don't look at SU as one of the allies, but as an independent power
And about Stalins officer purges. Yes, SU suffered from losing competent leadership, but could these purges be of any advantage? Maybe, because SU was a totalitarian dictatorship that had to rely on hard unquestionable leadership. Many of those killed might have been in vain from Stalins paranoia, but some of them might actually have caused problems during the period (41, 42) when SU was seemingly close to collaps? Just a thought...
Who won WWII? I'm not sure what you mean by that... But of those who participated I would say USA; they came out clearly on top with compareble little loss in casualties and material damage. SU was strong before the war and continued to grow afterwards. The war itself though, was paid a high price for. And UK, well, is there any doubt they lost much of it's power after WWII?
I also like to comment on SU as part of the allies. Back in 39 there were three major aggressors in the world - Germany, Japan and Soviet (Italy I concider as a minor, and the Imperialists were in a "slope"). SU was in no way any "better" than Germany when it comes to territorial claims, and that was what the world had to deal with back then. When SU pressed Finland for territory, there were voices raised in UK to back the finns up. The Moltov-Ribbentrop Pact could not be seen as anything but as a mutual agreement between Germany and SU, even if the diplomacy/strategy behind it meant different things to the two. So to sum it up: I don't look at SU as one of the allies, but as an independent power
And about Stalins officer purges. Yes, SU suffered from losing competent leadership, but could these purges be of any advantage? Maybe, because SU was a totalitarian dictatorship that had to rely on hard unquestionable leadership. Many of those killed might have been in vain from Stalins paranoia, but some of them might actually have caused problems during the period (41, 42) when SU was seemingly close to collaps? Just a thought...
godofthunder9010
Active member
Welcome to the Forums! Drop by the Welcoming Center as say hi when you get a chance, the mods prefer if you do.
I should put this gently. The Soviet Union is the unquesitoned Most Valuable Ally of World War II, but you are absolutely correct. They were an aggressor nation and they were extremely dangerous. Just like Germany, it was the leader of the nation that made it so. We are fortunate that the two most dangerous men in modern history went after each other rather than teaming up and going after the world. All by themselves, either one could have made a very successful run towards conquering the world. Finland shows that the SU was less likely to manage it, but by 1941 they had all the tools they needed and so did Germany. Because they destroyed each other, neither would have the opportunity to try the rest of the world.
In the case of Hitler, we can be very thankful that he didn't listen to his best commanders when they could have won things for him time and again. In the case of Stalin, the purging of the senior officers of the Red Army was probably the most catastrophic decapitation of an otherwise very powerful army in the History of the World! The best that can be said about it is that the Soviet Union didn't suffer the stubborness of military traditionalists and their mostly untested mass of officers got to learn modern warfare from scratch.
Minus the Stalin's purge, I think Barbarossa could have been a complete disaster for Germany.
I should put this gently. The Soviet Union is the unquesitoned Most Valuable Ally of World War II, but you are absolutely correct. They were an aggressor nation and they were extremely dangerous. Just like Germany, it was the leader of the nation that made it so. We are fortunate that the two most dangerous men in modern history went after each other rather than teaming up and going after the world. All by themselves, either one could have made a very successful run towards conquering the world. Finland shows that the SU was less likely to manage it, but by 1941 they had all the tools they needed and so did Germany. Because they destroyed each other, neither would have the opportunity to try the rest of the world.
In the case of Hitler, we can be very thankful that he didn't listen to his best commanders when they could have won things for him time and again. In the case of Stalin, the purging of the senior officers of the Red Army was probably the most catastrophic decapitation of an otherwise very powerful army in the History of the World! The best that can be said about it is that the Soviet Union didn't suffer the stubborness of military traditionalists and their mostly untested mass of officers got to learn modern warfare from scratch.
Minus the Stalin's purge, I think Barbarossa could have been a complete disaster for Germany.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
Doody said:
Ohh so you think the world would be better if Germany and America were on the same team against THE USSR?
- Status