WINNER OF WW2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nobody's going to dispute the fact that Germany was the most dangerous of the Axis Powers. Still, Japan was a surprisingly tough adversary -- they dished out more military might than anyone thought they could. Everyone thought that China should have easily stomped the crap out of them, but it all went exactly the opposite way.
 
Aussie John you are a fool to think that USA was the winner in military and economics, for a number of reasons.

1. They barely contributed to the fronts on the French and British.

2. They were on a different continent, and if there was a way for the Germans to get to USA, its economy would be in deeper shit, and like USSR's economy, because all of USSR's major cities were destroyed, and we had to rebuild our country again from nothing. While the USA was sitting tight dropping A-bombs and said they were all that. If USA was on the European continent they would have suffered more destruction to its cities and economy.

So maybe you should go and think about what your talking about, before you say who the winner is.
 
Kirill K said:
Aussie John you are a fool to think that USA was the winner in military and economics, for a number of reasons.

1. They barely contributed to the fronts on the French and British.

2. They were on a different continent, and if there was a way for the Germans to get to USA, its economy would be in deeper shit, and like USSR's economy, because all of USSR's major cities were destroyed, and we had to rebuild our country again from nothing. While the USA was sitting tight dropping A-bombs and said they were all that. If USA was on the European continent they would have suffered more destruction to its cities and economy.

So maybe you should go and think about what your talking about, before you say who the winner is.
Click to expand...

its nice to see kids who believe in every thing their parents tell them, but don't actually learn aything them selves. This kind of thing has been going on with russians for too long.
 
Drilldownmaster you are even younger then me, what can u possibly know what ur talking about. Maybe you should go to a school that can teach you something useful because, ur lacking the logic and the facts, about Russia and USSR, and what they did. The facts are there, it's proven that USSR, was the major country that contributed 90% of its soldiers and effort to liberating all countries taking by Germany. UK and French couldnt even hold one front from Germany. And answer me this what did USA do to help the RUSSIAN's push the Germans back?
 
Kirill K said:
Drilldownmaster you are even younger then me, what can u possibly know what ur talking about. Maybe you should go to a school that can teach you something useful because, ur lacking the logic and the facts, about Russia and USSR, and what they did. The facts are there, it's proven that USSR, was the major country that contributed 90% of its soldiers and effort to liberating all countries taking by Germany. UK and French couldnt even hold one front from Germany. And answer me this what did USA do to help the RUSSIAN's push the Germans back?
Click to expand...

Ok first of all USSR contributed 90% of TROOPS, not guns, not food, not medicine, not hardware. And for a note, buddy, the USA gave the USSR huns,food,medicine,and hardware.
Zakroy svoyu past' poka nepozdno kirill
 
Kirill K said:
Drilldownmaster you are even younger then me, what can u possibly know what ur talking about. Maybe you should go to a school that can teach you something useful because, ur lacking the logic and the facts, about Russia and USSR, and what they did. The facts are there, it's proven that USSR, was the major country that contributed 90% of its soldiers and effort to liberating all countries taking by Germany. UK and French couldnt even hold one front from Germany. And answer me this what did USA do to help the RUSSIAN's push the Germans back?
Click to expand...

Locomotives, railroad tracks, radios and trucks. Without those 4 items your country would be consigned to history.
 
thats not the only thing you need in times of war. the soviets were able to go without tracks. yeas it was longer, but they made it
 
Mobility was ESSENTIAL to the Eastern Front of World War II. This is why Moscow was, by far, the most important key to the Soviet Union. The enormous distances of the Soviet Union meant that the faster you could move your forces, the more likely you were to win.

Consider that Germany vs the USSR the ultimate contest. Consider that Germany was winning at the beginning. Consider how perilously close they came to the brink of disaster despite all the Red Army could do. Throw in a little luck, Hitler redirecting Army Group Center and that 10-15% contribution the USA/UK shipped to support the Soviets --- it may have been enough to tilt the scales in the Soviet Union's favor. Most of the USSR's success on the Eastern Front, they created themselves. Nobody can deny that. But even losing the slightest advantage in '42 and '43, and the Soviet Union might not have won it. Railroad engines, raw material ... even Shermans and other equipment that they didn't like very much ... all helped the cause.

Obviously, by mid 1944 the USSR needed no help to beat Germany, but let's not forget how close they came to the brink of disaster.
 
Well when you do not have an Oficer corps what do you expect? I have told a story of a kid who was a sergeant at 15 and a 3 star general by the end of the war
 
drilldownmaster2004 said:
thats not the only thing you need in times of war. the soviets were able to go without tracks. yeas it was longer, but they made it
Click to expand...

Tracks = trucks or railroad tracks? Either way the Soviets were *not* able to go without them. The Red Army would not have been able to mobilise properly and it would have been very difficult for them to have supplied their formations in the field.

Logistics is one of the most overlooked factors in warfare and one of the most important.
 
drilldownmaster2004 said:
Well when you do not have an Oficer corps what do you expect? I have told a story of a kid who was a sergeant at 15 and a 3 star general by the end of the war
Click to expand...

I'm a great believer in the saying that if you're good enough, you're old enough.
 
most of the troops made long marches by foot. they had some vehicles and rails but most veterans i pesonaly know walked 100+ kilometers before getting a ride
 
drilldownmaster2004 said:
most of the troops made long marches by foot. they had some vehicles and rails but most veterans i pesonaly know walked 100+ kilometers before getting a ride
Click to expand...

That maybe true but without a functioning railroad system and an adequate number of trucks in the field you are NOT going to be able to move sufficient men, heavy equipment and supplies to one place for major battles to take place. Without the Lend-Lease equipment there would have been no Operation Uranus (the Soviet counter-attack at Stalingrad) and no chance whatsoever of the Soviets repelling the German attack on Kursk.
 
drilldownmaster2004 said:
But germans did destroy many russian tracks
Click to expand...

Yes they did, which is why the Soviets had to lay down new ones, getting most of them from the Lend-Lease programme. And of course they were laying them down in areas where the Germans never penetrated to. And as they finally began to advance in 1943 they continued to lay them down behind them. To give you an example of the scale on which the Red Army used railroads 500,000 wagons of supplies had to be shipped to the Kursk area so that the Red Army was a) able to fend off the German offensive and b) counterattack themselves.
 
Kirill K said:
Aussie John you are a fool to think that USA was the winner in military and economics, for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
Kirill K said:
Now thats getting real close, Kirill. If you had called me an"OLD fool" I would have screamed for Redleg and Doody to come and deal with you.

Now guys, does the topic question mean "Who was the winner from the war, that is who gained the most in a military and economic sense?" or

"Who actually contributed most to winning ww2?"
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top