At 9/25/07 10:26 AM, 2wiceBorn wrote:

At 9/24/07 10:39 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

That's because Russia's troops were poorly trained, ill equipped and had every decision they made watched over by a Communist party member who had no knowledge of military matters. Just because more people died, doesn't mean it was more significant than the Western front. Hitler could have easily taken Russia if the U.S hadn't given it loads of gear.

Now that's NOT true... I'm a proud American who says America contributed to the war, but Hitler lost (just like Napolen) the second his troops stepped foot in Russia. NEVER INVADE RUSSIA, COMRADE! YOU WILL FREEZE YOUR ASS OFF ON THE WAY BACK!

At 9/28/07 08:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/28/07 07:18 PM, viper-xeon wrote:

Just because Australian and British forces EXISTED in the Pacific war, doesn't mean they can be credited for its victory, especially considering how little they really did in comparison to the US in bringing about victory against the Japanese.

Yeah, I mean come on people! Who dropped the fuckin' bomb anyways?! THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BITCHES!

At 9/24/07 10:54 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/24/07 10:28 PM, Snicp wrote: but the stupidest thing is that canadians saying that they did it

Yeah that's pretty stupid.

Well Canada doesn't have as much over patriotic morons who get a hard-on over their own flag. So were not going to say;"We won WW2" or "We sent more troops, therefor our country is better.". Sure, I'll admit the US with their powerful economic machine were able to supply their seemingly infinite number of troops but they were also able to help their allies. Of coarse US assistance was a major factor, with-out it, things could have turned out a lot worse. But no, you have so say;"canerduh sux, dey didnt d0 anything, lol!!111".

Give this a read, though chances are you'll dismiss it as the work of evil leftists or something stupid like that, I may as well give it a shot. However, in the end, it doesn't really matter? Do the Italians boast the fact that their ancient ancestors ruled most of their known world? No. We are free, and that is all that matters.

Here's something else to consider...

Lets talk about history... Zhen he's Treasure Fleet in the 13th century was the most massive indian ocean reconaisance in history at the time, and the chinese ships were larger and more advanced than any in history up untill then, as well as having no larger predecesors untill the late 1800's; the sheer ammount of wealth it required was beyond anything ever seen before.

Christopher columbus took 3 small carracks to the carribean and becomes a more talked about figure in history than zhen he; it's outrageous!

Actually it isn't... History isn't about BIG things are, or how different they are, it's about the things in time which influenced future generations of culture, religon, politics, economies, and so forth.

Like i said... i can sympathize with people who think that the russian efforts of ww2 are being underminded, but in terms of american history, for WW2, it would make sense to learn about the part that AMERICA took in the war; for world history, it would make sense to talk about what each general region did to influence the war; and how it effected the war itself, or the future of the world.

If your arguing about the actual events that occured in history... There's really no problem with that, but anyone on this forum who's trying to advance the idea that we need to re-write history because russians weren't talk about enough... Really needs to cool they're jets.

There are much worse things a country can do to they're history, like the chinese and the germans removing distinct time periods in the 20th century.

Its was the GREEKS, man, the fuckin' GREEKS.

Eh Are you that stupid?Orlike drunk off vodka my russian Freind?As people have pointed out it was a World war.Not a war vs germany.The bottom line is.Russia won the war with germany I may give you that.But America won the war.How?Well russia beat germany by sheer numbers as said before.But If a mass amount of japanese soliders Got into Europe then russia wold lose.Of course this didn't happen because America Dropped a bunch of nukes on them.And by the way If Russia did win world war two.Then dosen't that mean America's super-super powerfull.Or do you Not know who won the cold war?Yeah

At 9/29/07 09:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Who also almost single-handedly destroyed Japan's Army, Air Force, and Navy before the bombs were even dropped? Who almost single-handedly dislodged Japan's grip on the Pacific before the nuclear bomb was even done being developed?

The US.

What the bombs did was allow the US to avoid invading the Japanese mainland, which would have resulted in FAR more civilian casualties than occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's all true, but Gen. Eisenhower testified that nuking japan was unnecessary, their morale was low, they were defeated completely militarily on all levels and were becoming increasingly harmless to a dominating U.S force and even so Truman still decided to nuke Hiroshima, claiming it was a military base. They were in preparations for signing a surrender, they just had difficulty in signing to some conditions. In an extreme right-wing nationalistic aristocracy it'd be difficult for the Emperor to you know, sign himself over to U.S authorities.

Soviets fought decisive battles, allies took care of stragglers.

At 9/30/07 04:37 PM, kahncccp wrote: Soviets fought decisive battles, allies took care of stragglers.

The Soviets are part of the Allies.

How the fuck are people still arguing about this? NO ONE COUNTRY WON THE WAR. It was a collaborative effort on both sides. It's pointless to argue over who "won" the war for their side. All we could do is make empty speculations that can't be proven.

At 9/30/07 10:04 AM, tony4moroney wrote: They were in preparations for signing a surrender, they just had difficulty in signing to some conditions.

Yeah those parts being our government being stubborn and demanding an unconditional surrender.

In all reality, it was the Greeks who won the war. They delayed the German advance in Russia by 3 months. Guess what month the Germans invaded the USSR? August, guess how long they were there for? Until winter, utterly ruining every hope the Germans had for a successful defeat of Stalin. If the Greeks had given in to the Germans earlier, Stalin would have been sucking major Nazi cock, and the Allies would have fallen without the Eastern front to occupy the Germans from countering the D-Day invasion. And who do we have to thank for all of this?

THE GREEKS.

At 9/30/07 10:21 PM, Gwarfan wrote: THE GREEKS.

all right, since everyone just wants to be a douchebag then i have to support the Greek conclusion. end thread.

Success!

if you can't sleep at night because you can't figure out mathamatical ratio's of how much a country contributed to WW2, why not just send a request to make one to the UN, they'll jump on that in no time.

You make me laugh. You do know that the Battle of Britain was won before America entered the war.

You make me laugh. You overemphasize the Battle of Britain, which was a small-scale air war.

Oh the Battle of Britain was an important battle alright. He never said it was a large scale fight, but it did provide a major propaganda victory for Britain, not to mention setting back Hitler's definatly possible invasion plans for the future. It also lead to the blitz, which involved the bombing of factories (affecting British military production).

My Country doesn't at all owe it's existance to the US. Your incredibly sad if you think it does.

Actually it does, and you're incredibly brainwashed if you think it doesn't. See, you HAVE to lie to yourself otherwise your country couldn't have pride. Think about it subjectively: The country that defeated your Empire, and gained independence from it... later came to be your country's savior. If you Brits actually accepted this fact, you wouldn't have much room for national pride. In fact, you probably would have almost no pride.

Although the US did help us alot, you even said before that the war in Europe was a united effort. We owe part of our existence to the US because of the supplies. But we also owe part of our existence due to our governments ability to keep moral high and the defense strong. And technically, the Lend-Lease act didn't just benefit the British, it highly benefitted the US too. If Britain fell then America would never have gotten a foothold in Europe. FDR also said that the best way for the US to guarantee a safe defence would be to help Britain defend.

If the US never provided aide, and never intervened in the war, the Germans would not only have defeated the Russians, but their power over western Europe (which the British could NEVER have liberated) would have been economic benefit. The Germans would have had time to develope the newer technologies they had, they would have lost less lives on the Eastern Front, and they would have EASILY regained composure and easily have invaded and destroyed Britain.

If the US never provided aid, it would have left America open to attack and democracy in Europe would have been dead.

The Aide the US gave to Britain, helped Britain fight in nearly every Theater of the war

If only Britain actually fought in every theater of war.

If only America actually fought in every theater of war. They didn't fight any large scale battles on the Eastern front. Nor have I heard of the US fighting in the Middle Eastern Theater.

To a large extent. It didn't help Britain defend, it helped Britain attack.

Actually it helped it defend as well, because Britain is an Island, it doesn't have the resources to maintain a war, not even a defensive war. If the US didn't enter the war, the Germans would have only go stronger, and gained more and more land. The British and the Russians both would have eventually lost, especially considering how fucking advanced the stuff was the Germans were developing. Without the US providing aide and then fighting simultaneously, the Germans would have had plenty of time to keep growing their forces, and building up their weapons, especially their early jet fighters and ballistic missiles.

I find it incredibly amusing, sad little shytes like yourself who when it comes to WW2 can't say anything but, WE SUPPLIED THE WAR, THEREFORE WE WON IT.

Actually we supplied the war, and we were the only country to fight in every theater of war. The US was the single largest factor to allied victory. Not only because without the aide the US provided, both Britain and the USSR would have been raped by the Germans. But also because when the US did enter with troops, the US single handedly defeated the Japanese while simultaneously taking a more important role in Europe than the British. The US supplied and led the operation against the Germans, as the Supreme Allied Commander was an American general, and US troops did by far the most on the Western Front, and their supplies were essential on both fronts in Europe.

Althought the single largest factor, you did not fight a major battle (apart maybe from few volunteers). And I guess the reason why the US led the operation was because of more expendable troops and their home front wasn't directly affected.

Stop denying it's gigantic importance just because accepting the fact that America is your savior compromises your otherwise nonexistent British pride.

lol.

I think you guys forgot the vital role of poland.

the answer, the allies, no one power should be considered above others in winning it... surely?

You right about the allies witch sent tanks and etc to Russia, but who the one who fought and died during the battle? Who the one who get the shots and the deaths?
AND ONLY SOVIET UNION took over Berlin by themselves!

The USA won ww2. All on their own. They had no help from anyone, and not one single soldier from a country other than the USA died in WW2. We, as a planet owe our freedom and ability to speak our native tongue to the great USA, they saved us all from speaking German and eating sauerkraut.

Right Cellardoor?

At 10/2/07 10:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: The USA won ww2. All on their own. They had no help from anyone, and not one single soldier from a country other than the USA died in WW2. We, as a planet owe our freedom and ability to speak our native tongue to the great USA, they saved us all from speaking German and eating sauerkraut.

Right Cellardoor?

learn some history.

Oh the Battle of Britain was an important battle alright. He never said it was a large scale fight, but it did provide a major propaganda victory for Britain, not to mention setting back Hitler's definatly possible invasion plans for the future. It also lead to the blitz, which involved the bombing of factories (affecting British military production).

The Battle of Britain isn't what caused the ultimate defense of Britain. It was a single successful air campaign, that wouldn't have permanently deterred the Germans had the US not provided aide and eventually entered the war.

Of course not, but it's buying time, and they did not attempt another stragetic attack on Britain. If we had lost the Battle of Britain, it would leave the navy open to air attack and the Blitz could have been much worse.

Although the US did help us alot, you even said before that the war in Europe was a united effort.

Yes, but the war in Europe wasn't the entire war. Those who fought in the European theater were united mostly by the US, who was the logistical foundation of the allies, and at the same time played the most prominent role on the Western Front.

Well the USA were alot more organised and were bigger in numbers and arms than the other allies, so it's understandable that they were the foundation. But then without allies, could America have charged through Europe by themselves? Not that I doubt it, but considering they'd have to strain their troops alot more.

We owe part of our existence to the US because of the supplies.

Also by supplying the Soviets, and intervening with troops which led to the demise of the Germans. Something that wouldn't have happened if the US didn't do those things.

But we also owe part of our existence due to our governments ability to keep moral high and the defense strong. And technically, the Lend-Lease act didn't just benefit the British, it highly benefitted the US too.

Yes, but considering that aide was essential to Britains survival, and the fact that the US forgave the debt from Lend-Lease, and only a tiny fraction of that debt was ever paid back... it was far more beneficial to the British than it was to the US.

If Britain fell then America would never have gotten a foothold in Europe.

That's highly debatable. Considering how much the invasion of Europe by the allies was funded, planned, and executed by the US in comparison to the other allies, it's pretty reasonable to suggest that the US could have done it by itself. It would have been a lot more difficult and complicated, but it still could have happened.

Invading from the Atlantic would be alot more difficult than invading from the English Channel.

FDR also said that the best way for the US to guarantee a safe defence would be to help Britain defend.

Yes, and how does that act as a detriment to the US in the argument? The US both defended Britain, and played the most prominent role in the entire war at the same time, as part of a larger strategy.

If the US never provided aid, it would have left America open to attack and democracy in Europe would have been dead.

Actually, if the US never provided aide, chances are Europe would have been doomed and it wouldn't have effected the US for quite some time. Had the US never supported the British, the axis, especially Japan, wouldn't have had reason at that time to attack the US.

Hell I remember reading that at one point in time, Hitler had a favorable view of the US due to his believe that it was made up mostly of Aryans, and would have eventually become a valuable ally to Germany. Henry Ford and Hitler were peas in a pod, by the way, lol.

Yeah, he actually thought the same about Britain (Mein Kampf), classing them as the 2nd best race until they went to war.

If only America actually fought in every theater of war. They didn't fight any large scale battles on the Eastern front.

The Eastern front wasn't a theatre of war, it was a front in the European theater.

My mistake.

Althought the single largest factor, you did not fight a major battle (apart maybe from few volunteers).

Haha the US didn't fight a major battle? Actually the US fought several, including being almost entirely responsible for Operation Overlord, The battle of Normandy, and the entire Western front. Not to mention the entire operation in the Pacific that was fought almost entirely by the US against the Japanese.

Sorry, let me rephrase that, I meant that to mean they didn't fight a major battle on the Eastern Front. Awful mistake for me to make (2am in UK D:)

And I guess the reason why the US led the operation was because of more expendable troops and their home front wasn't directly affected.

No, the US led the operation because the US was the most competent, and most capable, especially considering the previous attempts by the British to land forces in western Europe that had failed miserably.

The British proved they were basically feckless at that point in the war. That is why the US took control. The reasoning was validated when, after US-led Operation Overlord until the end of the war, the first and last operation the British were allowed command over was Operation Market Garden, a complete and utter disaster due to British incompetence.

Dunkirk was a failure, true, but it was one of the first times the Brits had seen the might of the German army. It also helped Britain to realise that defending is the best option in Europe and to stick to the offensive in other theaters.

Market Garden on the other hand... yeah. That was a bit of a failure.

At 10/2/07 10:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: The USA won ww2. All on their own. They had no help from anyone, and not one single soldier from a country other than the USA died in WW2. We, as a planet owe our freedom and ability to speak our native tongue to the great USA, they saved us all from speaking German and eating sauerkraut.

Right Cellardoor?

You know, so many UK and CA users want him to stop proving facts. But you guys fuel him to do it more.

He even stated it would be difficult without help but it is possible we could of won:

At 10/1/07 10:55 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: , it's pretty reasonable to suggest that the US could have done it by itself. It would have been a lot more difficult and complicated, but it still could have happened.

If you seriously want him to stop, then stop bringing up arguments and take it to another forum where he doesn't lurk.

we did

OK.
Who won the war? Allies. Not one country
Who did the most? Who cares, but it was probably not Russia.
Who was in the war the longest? European allies... or maybe Japan.

Everyone understand?

At 9/25/07 04:51 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 9/25/07 02:41 PM, jef01 wrote: who wins?

no one,it's a war,nobody wins a war,there are only small losers and big losers

Oh really now? And why is that? Just because some n00b says so?

You are a total jerk! Are you saying that war is good? I think that Jef01 is right. He's not a n00b, he is human.

At 10/2/07 01:50 PM, CaptainChip wrote: Who did the most? Who cares, but it was probably not Russia.

it probaly was Russia.

At 9/24/07 10:28 PM, Snicp wrote:

if they were'nt opening the 2nd front in the end of 1945 no could defiet the nazis
so stupid that the history that teaching in canada is fucking WRONG

Actually, the second front wasn't opened in the end of 1945 (afterall the war ended in early August 1945). It was opened in July 1941. And the Red Army was demoralizied by Stalin's 1939 purges. The Russians were weak.

Furthermore, it was not the Russians who opened the second front but the Nazis who invaded Russia (who was cooperating with Hitler). This did draw troops and resources away from the Western Front which did help the Allies...but that was not enough to tip the balance towards the idea of Russia winning WWII. Afterall it was the Americans and English who put the strangle hold on the Nazi's oil reserves in N. Africa.

The Soviets did renounce its non-aggression pact towards Japan on 8 August 1945...one day before the US dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki effectively ending the war.

At 9/29/07 11:33 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Its was the GREEKS, man, the fuckin' GREEKS.

Lacedaemonians, PHALANX!

AHOO AHOO AHOO!

I like how the entire thread went on and y'all never answered my question about what your measurements are......

Meaning you're all trying to objectify things that you have no claim for.....

Y'all might as well measure who did the best based on which president was the most handsome.....

At 10/2/07 10:45 PM, Imperator wrote:

I like how the entire thread went on and y'all never answered my question about what your measurements are......

Meaning you're all trying to objectify things that you have no claim for.....

you cannot observe everything objectively, history doesn't work that way (as you should know). what the debate is about is how significant america's role was in WWII vs. the other allied nations and the soviet union. how can you quantify the significance of killing 100 000 people in comparison to assassinating a general for e.g? what about the dependency on u.s resources versus the soviets causing the nazis to fight on two fronts? there is no scientific measurement but what we can do is observe the outcomes and the role played in these events and what was critical to the successful outcomes of those campaigns, then we can make a determination on how/ if the u.s was the key to the allied success.

and because i like pictures...