Defintly Russia.
People can claim that American Lend-Lease is what saved Russia all they want. But through the critical yeards of '41 and '42 there was hardly any Lend-Lease coming it. Most of Lend-Lease arrived in '44 and '45. Yes Lend-Lease quickened the war significantly but even without Lend-Lease and without the second front I believe Russia would have won eventually.
Who won the war against Germany?
No war between only the Soviets and only the Germans can be thinkable. When one would attack, the other will, of course, get either help or the opposite. Germany didn't get the strongest Allies, but still a fighting force to be reconed with - when did the Soviets start the Winter war with the Finns?
Other "allies" include people from the occupied countries fighting on the German side (an Estonian battalion, "Narwa", in the SS-Wiking, then there are the latvians, the flemish and also the dutch).
Germany would maybe have won. Think about it, the Blitzkrieg, but with a quarter more units (or how much were there?).
They went on three directions (Stalingrad with oil, Leningrad with I don't know what and Moscow with the moral blow in case of defeat), right? They could've done another direction with the new troops, for instance, through very northward, with the help of the battling Finnish, perhaps (although no Allies should've been considered) or at least the agreement of the Finns to attack through their country. There may have not been any strategically decisive spot, but at least the Soviets don't get extra troops from there and if it becomes too complicated, give the area taken from the north to the Finns. The battle of Kursk remade, no need to pull the forces out of there to Italy. And finally, of course, the time. No need to postpone because of Greece. But that's wishful thinking and even the thought doesn't seem to be logical, as Hitler had to get through Poland at first. He did and, if I'm not mistaken, then England and France declared war.
The things that happened are the only logical way to think, when you consider everything. This thread is pretty much bullshit and carries the same amount of importance as "what would the world have been like if grass would be red". Sorry.
Other "allies" include people from the occupied countries fighting on the German side (an Estonian battalion, "Narwa", in the SS-Wiking, then there are the latvians, the flemish and also the dutch).
Germany would maybe have won. Think about it, the Blitzkrieg, but with a quarter more units (or how much were there?).
They went on three directions (Stalingrad with oil, Leningrad with I don't know what and Moscow with the moral blow in case of defeat), right? They could've done another direction with the new troops, for instance, through very northward, with the help of the battling Finnish, perhaps (although no Allies should've been considered) or at least the agreement of the Finns to attack through their country. There may have not been any strategically decisive spot, but at least the Soviets don't get extra troops from there and if it becomes too complicated, give the area taken from the north to the Finns. The battle of Kursk remade, no need to pull the forces out of there to Italy. And finally, of course, the time. No need to postpone because of Greece. But that's wishful thinking and even the thought doesn't seem to be logical, as Hitler had to get through Poland at first. He did and, if I'm not mistaken, then England and France declared war.
The things that happened are the only logical way to think, when you consider everything. This thread is pretty much bullshit and carries the same amount of importance as "what would the world have been like if grass would be red". Sorry.
Last edited by houndie on 06 Jul 2002, 03:45, edited 1 time in total.
War is a matter of vital importance to the state. Hence, it is imperative that it be studied thoroughly - sun tzu
The truth of world war should be documented and it should not be treated as nazi propaganda.
The truth of world war should be documented and it should not be treated as nazi propaganda.
Its reductive to say that only one country determined victory on Germany. I would say two essential elements have been crucial in favour of the Allies:
1) Russian human potential.
2) American industrial potential.
Those were the two true real elements against which the Germans were not able to compete, and which determined their end.
ps1 According to my data 20% of Russian equipment was of american production.
ps2 Some of you have also put Italy in the list. I fiercely affirm that Italy lost the war. Italian effort of any kind after the Armistice may be considered ignorable by the great numbers. Moreover Italian Peace Treaty of 1947 punitive conditions demonstrate that the country was considered as a looser of the war, absolutely not as an ally.
Regards, F.
1) Russian human potential.
2) American industrial potential.
Those were the two true real elements against which the Germans were not able to compete, and which determined their end.
ps1 According to my data 20% of Russian equipment was of american production.
ps2 Some of you have also put Italy in the list. I fiercely affirm that Italy lost the war. Italian effort of any kind after the Armistice may be considered ignorable by the great numbers. Moreover Italian Peace Treaty of 1947 punitive conditions demonstrate that the country was considered as a looser of the war, absolutely not as an ally.
Regards, F.
-
MVSNConsolegenerale
- Member
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 23 Apr 2002, 07:34
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Italy
I put that in there because the Partisan movement in Italy was a major hinderance to the RSA and Germany in defending that area from the Allies.
I didn't really expect anyone to pick it, but it definately deserved notice. Germany never had such a large scale resistance to hitler, as Italy had to Mussolini...which is why italy was treated a LITTLE better than germany after the end of the war.
W.H.D.
I didn't really expect anyone to pick it, but it definately deserved notice. Germany never had such a large scale resistance to hitler, as Italy had to Mussolini...which is why italy was treated a LITTLE better than germany after the end of the war.
W.H.D.
Without USA and England russians did not even had a chance to beat germans. We have to remember that germans was also fighting in Africa,Italy, France. All the bombings of german citties, factories and oil fields was done by Americans and British. All the help that was sent to russia to help them. At no time germans ever had a chance to fight russians one on one. We dont even need to look at numbers to understand that. And russian numbers is still covered up by their propoganda. They just cannot let it go and admit it. They should tell thanks to USA for saving their backs!
Well aren't you a deluded lil' patriot.Roland wrote:Without USA and England russians did not even had a chance to beat germans. We have to remember that germans was also fighting in Africa,Italy, France. All the bombings of german citties, factories and oil fields was done by Americans and British. All the help that was sent to russia to help them. At no time germans ever had a chance to fight russians one on one. We dont even need to look at numbers to understand that. And russian numbers is still covered up by their propoganda. They just cannot let it go and admit it. They should tell thanks to USA for saving their backs!
-
MVSNConsolegenerale
- Member
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 23 Apr 2002, 07:34
- Location: Ontario, Canada
RE: North American Supply
Roland,
Without the NORTH AMERICAN supply, things may have turned out different. So yes, the United States and Canada definately helped Russia by sending her various resources.
But to argue that this somehow signifies NORTH AMERICA or specifically the US as being the ones who defeated germany, is over presumptuous.
You say that the germans never really fought the russians one on one. Well, when the allies tried that in 1939-40 they suffered the worst defeat in their history.
When the Americans joined the allies, the greatest land victories then following, the vast majority of the german wehrmact was tied up with the russians.
All you have to do is look at the statistics; 51.6% of all german losses occured on the eastern front, some 2 million 700 thousand. On the western front, 6.4% of the german losses occured, only about 300 thousand.
In 1945, when germany was being pillaged and overrun; some 24.1%, 1 million 200 thousand. This of course is both the allies and the ruissians, so if you split that down the line (even though I have a feeling the russians did a bit more than the allies at this point) that is roughly 62% of german losses to allies. However, this of course does not include africa, and the balkans, and italy. If we add all of these on in totality, at the maximum, the allies are responsible for 25% of the german defeats. THE MAXIMUM!
Sounds to me like it was the allies who never went one on one with the germans.
W.H.D.
P.S. I'm not arguing that North American aide was useless, but that we North Americans have a tendancy to overrate ourselves.
Without the NORTH AMERICAN supply, things may have turned out different. So yes, the United States and Canada definately helped Russia by sending her various resources.
But to argue that this somehow signifies NORTH AMERICA or specifically the US as being the ones who defeated germany, is over presumptuous.
You say that the germans never really fought the russians one on one. Well, when the allies tried that in 1939-40 they suffered the worst defeat in their history.
When the Americans joined the allies, the greatest land victories then following, the vast majority of the german wehrmact was tied up with the russians.
All you have to do is look at the statistics; 51.6% of all german losses occured on the eastern front, some 2 million 700 thousand. On the western front, 6.4% of the german losses occured, only about 300 thousand.
In 1945, when germany was being pillaged and overrun; some 24.1%, 1 million 200 thousand. This of course is both the allies and the ruissians, so if you split that down the line (even though I have a feeling the russians did a bit more than the allies at this point) that is roughly 62% of german losses to allies. However, this of course does not include africa, and the balkans, and italy. If we add all of these on in totality, at the maximum, the allies are responsible for 25% of the german defeats. THE MAXIMUM!
Sounds to me like it was the allies who never went one on one with the germans.
W.H.D.
P.S. I'm not arguing that North American aide was useless, but that we North Americans have a tendancy to overrate ourselves.
North American Supplay
I completely agree. Allies won the war. I just tried to make a point that one on one germans would have crushed russians. The russian attitude is that they alone won a war. They disrespect the rest of the world and ignore the facts. As a metter of fact, after ww2 they even editted all the documentaries, so the allied equipment could not be seen. In scools they was teaching that "american imperialists was actualy delaying defeat of the nazism"!!! They covered up their crimes against humanity. And they still dont want to admit that! I could not vote for allies, so I voted for americans, because without the help russians would have lost.
Best regards, Roland.
Best regards, Roland.
And Roland. Russians are not only ones with problem you describe. More often I have seen in in people who live in place called USA.
Yes supply from NA was useful for Russia but I truly doubt it had much to do with result. Sure aid and second front in Normandy didn't hurt Russian attack but result would have more likely been same without them. It would have just taken much longer and map of the world would be dramatically different today.
Yes supply from NA was useful for Russia but I truly doubt it had much to do with result. Sure aid and second front in Normandy didn't hurt Russian attack but result would have more likely been same without them. It would have just taken much longer and map of the world would be dramatically different today.
So first you say it had no to little result then you say it would have teken much longer and the world would be much different. I mean can not have both, for one it shortened the war saving hundreds of thousands perhaps millions.It would have just taken much longer and map of the world would be dramatically different today.
Re: Who won the war against Germany?
I have a friend who has the insane idea that ....
Dear Member,
is my poor opinion that the possiblity N. 3 of this pool is very funny.
Best Regards
Luca
Dear Member,
is my poor opinion that the possiblity N. 3 of this pool is very funny.
Best Regards
Luca