Happy VE Day!

[Clarke]

The number of people that died is not indicative of who fought harder to win the war. 

It is when it's the enemies casualties as well, compared to the eastern the German losses seem to a fraction of the size. 

[Clarke]

Germany was already losing when they hit USSR. They made this last ditch effort to secure oil fields through the USSR and failed.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but these numbers I am looking at says the Soviets destroyed most of Germany's military.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Clarke

[James Gordon]

They couldn't, though. Without US aid, and both the US and Brits bombing Germany around the clock, Russia would have been !@#$ed, with or without the winter.

 

They could, Russia could have eventually won simply because the Germans where low on supplies and their forces where to spread out. Be it two more years or 30 years like the movie Fatherland.

 

 

The number of people that died is not indicative of who fought harder to win the war. The soviets were ill-equipped and often times the weapons they had (if they had weapons) weren't even functional. Throwing untrained, unarmed soldiers in waves against the much better equipped and blooded German lines will certainly lead to large casualties, but not necessarily greater success.

 

 

Could the USSR have won? I'm no WWII expert, but they 

 

1) Received lots of aid from the Allies, including equipment and weapons from the United States and the fact that another front was opened up for the Germans to fight on (think Africa, then Normandy). If Germany focused all of their resources and attention to simply fighting the Soviets, I don't think it would have turned out the way you think it would have.

 

2) Didn't have to fight Japan. The USSR entered the war against Japan after Germany had already surrendered, and Japan had virtually no army left. The United States fought island to island, taking very high casualties to defeat the Japanese. The majority of their naval vessels were in the North Atlantic, not the Pacific, and they didn't have any Aircraft Carriers. I seriously doubt they would've been able to take on Germany + Japan had the Allies not fought as well.

 

1) But realistically Germany was so spread out as it where it could have never put full action on the Soviets. The Soviets where more prepared for war than most countries now-a-days because of Stalin's Five Year Plan and other Economic and Military reforms.

 

2) I don't much about Japanese Military strength so I can't argue their. But what I would guess is if the USA never went in then the USSR would have simply supplied the Chinese more. Maybe even starting a Korean type of war earlier to simply hold off Japan but installing a Korean Puppet State.

 

 

okay this was to commemorate V-E day not to spur an argument...

Agreed, but we seem to have gotten into a debate. But, debates are good they prove one wrong and one right. Not saying i'm either. Always open to be wrong.

 

 

Germany was already losing when they hit USSR. They made this last ditch effort to secure oil fields through the USSR and failed.

 

To be fair, not even the US was willing to invade the Japanese mainland. And casualties do in fact play a huge factor on moral. Despite having overwhelming casualties, far greater than any participant, their moral was ever strong.

"Where there is Zhukov, there is victory!"

Agreed, Germany lost as soon as they gave up on Operation Sea Lion. Which I personally think if they kept going on Britain, Germany would have most likely won the European Theater of the War.

[Fox Fire]

He obviously doesn't remember that there were 3 major theaters and that both Britain and America fought in all 3, but no lets completely forget about the pacific and africa because !@#$ those places and all the fighting there was totally unimportant and gave nothing to the war.  And, you know, lend lease. 

Well lets also not forget that USSR took on the majority of Germanys ground forces and the vast collection of Nazi collaborators they collected during expansion. Also, the campaing against Italy was almost not even a war. The Italian troops had little interest in fighting for Mussolinis "New Roman Empire."

 

 

It doesn't matter you idiot. You are being quite insulting towards the people who fought and died. I dont care if someone fought more, a lot fought in many places and fought good and hard. Now both of you take your idiocy out the door before someone gets pissed like I did. I had a grandparent who lost two legs in WWII. Did he not fight hard or because he wasn't soviet he was a pathetic soldier? 

I had relatives in WW2 as well. That doesn't change the fact that USSR fought harder. But of course, they literally had no choice. The Nazis were on Moscows doorstep, now Washington DC's. If you want to throw the guilt card and talk about "sacrifice", you have absolutely nothing on USSR and what they had to sacrifice.

 

 

The ones who fought hard were the Germans, one man show vs the world

+ Japan

 

- Italy, lol they really don't count... 

To be fair, that's true. Germany accomplished quite an amazing feat for taking on virtually the whole planet.

 

 

They couldn't, though. Without US aid, and both the US and Brits bombing Germany around the clock, Russia would have been !@#$ed, with or without the winter.

I disagree. Germany never came close to recovering from the winter and was already losing to Britain alone, without any help from the US. Britain did a superb job of stopping their expansion.... All by themselves.

[Stannis Baratheon]

can someone make a new thread to argue about this!?

[James Gordon]

can someone make a new thread to argue about this!?

Okay. Everyone stop arguing about this. If you want to make a forum feel free but we must honor VE Day not argue how the USSR could have won without the US. 

[Kim Jong-Il]

I beg your historical knowledge.

 

 

D-Day and everything else America did was nothing compared to the Soviets. U.S. Solider Deaths: 450,000ish. Soviet Solider Deaths: Over 8 MILLION! The Soviets won WW2 not America.

 

Lel more of em died bc they weren't as good at staying alive

[Presidential]

We have our own holiday after VE (the Viridian Entente)

[Ayayay]

Lel more of em died bc they weren't as good at staying alive

Stalin caused more Soviet deaths then the Nazi's

[George W. Bush]

I disagree. Germany never came close to recovering from the winter and was already losing to Britain alone, without any help from the US. Britain did a superb job of stopping their expansion.... All by themselves.

I literally mentionned in my post that I was referring to both the Brits and the US. If the Germans concentrated all their effort on Russia and weren't at war with anyone else they would have massacred them. People forget that Hitler went full retard and didn't listen to Rommel when he told him to do a combined forces attack on the British Isles, not just try to send in Luftwaffe.

[Arthur James]

happy VE,

Can't it be both defeat the third reich of Germany?

The east front maybe broken, but the defense of the west front is still strong to break through it.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Arthur James

[Kurdanak]

Stay classy, everyone. Every thread is a debate thread on these forums.

 

Also happy birthday.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Kurdanak

[vonnorman]

Holy shit.. #1 happy birthday #2 way too much skewwed opinions on the war #3 finland fought off the russians outnumbered 1000:1 at least and WON. #4 everyone worked together to beat the germans so without any single one of the allies' contributions the world today would be totally different. #5 god bless every man and woman who contributed to the total victory over the murderers whether japanese german italian or even switzerland. #6 Save the anger, lets all settle this with missiles amd pixels shall we?

[Ayayay]

#4 everyone worked together to beat the germans so without any single one of the allies' contributions the world today would be totally different. 

Idk, Nepal and Bhutan could've not existed and everything would've been fine

[Moreau]

The soviets were stupid and commited suicide against its own people.

[Stannis Baratheon]

The soviets were stupid and commited suicide against its own people.

....

[Lu Xun]

Considering that the Nazis were planning to ethnically cleanse the Russians for being Slavs, probably not. As to whether or not the Soviets bore the brunt of the war; the Soviets were to a large degree dependent on US industrial and economic aid to keep their war machine going, and it's questionable as to whether or not they'd have been able to hold on by themselves, but it's incomprehensible to think that the Soviets did not fight harder than other people. Hitler lost his own war by moving to backstab Stalin, with which he had a strategic agreement. Britain was nearing strategic colapse after the Blitz, and if Hitler had been willing to sustain terror bombings and anti-industrial action against Britain he could have knocked Britain out and prevented the United States from having an effective foothold in the West from which to launch invasions against Nazi-controlled Europe.

 

Even if you don't consider the immense Soviet losses taken during World War 2, consider the immense Nazi deployments in World War 2 on the Eastern Front. The Germans deployed more of their troops, and more of their best troops against the Russians, even after the Normandy landings, and this can be seen in the immense casualty counts taken by the Soviets, even after they managed to turn the tide of war with the Nazis.

 

===

 

Strategically, the media coverage backs certain cynical and nihilistic perspectives about geopolitics. Much of the Ukrainian nationalist right that provoked and alarmed the Russians is comprised of Neo-Nazis. We politely overlook this fact because we are backing the Ukrainian nationalists against the Russians in Ukraine, and we are going to overlook the Russian contribution to World War 2 because they are now a strategic enemy; American military blogs have already noted the travesty taken in the name of Great Power Politics.

One of my favorite science fiction shows is "Farscape", and one of my favorite lines there is where an alien general, now a fugitive, discusses human alien invasion shows with a human adolescent, an American, and remarks that "things won't turn out like the way they do in your movies", to which the child replies "you mean not all aliens are bad aliens?" The general then replies: "No, because you won't always win".

The Anglo-Saxon world has not been brought to heel since the Norman invasions of 1066. It is a far different historical experience than most of the peoples' of the world; the French took a brutal beating during the Hundred Years' War, had German troops on their capital after Napoleon III's misstep, were "liberated" of their Jews and politicians by the Nazis during WW2, and fought a brutal blood-letting during WW1, the Germans were raped and murdered during the Thirty Years' War after the Protestant Reformation, and they suffered two losing World Wars during which their citizenry were exposed to great privation, then great slaughter, between Allied strategic bombing and Russian revenge killings as they advanced to Berlin.

The closest the British have gotten to defeat was during the Blitz, after which the Americans wouldn't let them keep their empire and actively intervened to ensure that the sun set on the British Empire, but the Americans have never lost a "real" war since the war of 1812, which was more or less a stalemate.

 

The thing about not always winning is that if you spend your time pushing bullshit on others when you're on top, others will be a lot less likely to tolerate your whines and appeals for help when you're on bottom. If, say, the United States were to collapse in 100-200 years, and foreign powers were to divvy it up between themselves (Russian control of Alaska, EU mandate in the Northeast, Chinese suzerainty in the West, Mexico retaking Texas), if other peoples have longer historical memories, why should they take pity on the American people if they remember all the little things the United States has done since its emergence to Great Power, Superpower, then Hyperpower status? 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Considering that the Nazis were planning to ethnically cleanse the Russians for being Slavs, probably not. As to whether or not the Soviets bore the brunt of the war; the Soviets were to a large degree dependent on US industrial and economic aid to keep their war machine going, and it's questionable as to whether or not they'd have been able to hold on by themselves, but it's incomprehensible to think that the Soviets did not fight harder than other people. Hitler lost his own war by moving to backstab Stalin, with which he had a strategic agreement. Britain was nearing strategic colapse after the Blitz, and if Hitler had been willing to sustain terror bombings and anti-industrial action against Britain he could have knocked Britain out and prevented the United States from having an effective foothold in the West from which to launch invasions against !@#$-controlled Europe.

 

Even if you don't consider the immense Soviet losses taken during World War 2, consider the immense !@#$ deployments in World War 2 on the Eastern Front. The Germans deployed more of their troops, and more of their best troops against the Russians, even after the Normandy landings, and this can be seen in the immense casualty counts taken by the Soviets, even after they managed to turn the tide of war with the Nazis.

 

===

 

Strategically, the media coverage backs certain cynical and nihilistic perspectives about geopolitics. Much of the Ukrainian nationalist right that provoked and alarmed the Russians is comprised of Neo-Nazis. We politely overlook this fact because we are backing the Ukrainian nationalists against the Russians in Ukraine, and we are going to overlook the Russian contribution to World War 2 because they are now a strategic enemy; American military blogs have already noted the travesty taken in the name of Great Power Politics.

 

One of my favorite science fiction shows is "Farscape", and one of my favorite lines there is where an alien general, now a fugitive, discusses human alien invasion shows with a human adolescent, an American, and remarks that "things won't turn out like the way they do in your movies", to which the child replies "you mean not all aliens are bad aliens?" The general then replies: "No, because you won't always win".

 

The Anglo-Saxon world has not been brought to heel since the Norman invasions of 1066. It is a far different historical experience than most of the peoples' of the world; the French took a brutal beating during the Hundred Years' War, had German troops on their capital after Napoleon III's misstep, were "liberated" of their Jews and politicians by the Nazis during WW2, and fought a brutal blood-letting during WW1, the Germans were raped and murdered during the Thirty Years' War after the Protestant Reformation, and they suffered two losing World Wars during which their citizenry were exposed to great privation, then great slaughter, between Allied strategic bombing and Russian revenge killings as they advanced to Berlin.

 

The closest the British have gotten to defeat was during the Blitz, after which the Americans wouldn't let them keep their empire and actively intervened to ensure that the sun set on the British Empire, but the Americans have never lost a "real" war since the war of 1812, which was more or less a stalemate.

 

The thing about not always winning is that if you spend your time pushing !@#$ on others when you're on top, others will be a lot less likely to tolerate your whines and appeals for help when you're on bottom. If, say, the United States were to collapse in 100-200 years, and foreign powers were to divvy it up between themselves (Russian control of Alaska, EU mandate in the Northeast, Chinese suzerainty in the West, Mexico retaking Texas), if other peoples have longer historical memories, why should they take pity on the American people if they remember all the little things the United States has done since its emergence to Great Power, Superpower, then Hyperpower status? 

tl;dr

[Lu Xun]

www.readspeeder.com