|
Post by That English Guy on May 4, 2005 4:23:17 GMT -6
History is written by the victors, but after WWII there were two victors, each with their own version :
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on May 4, 2005 7:52:29 GMT -6
These "what if's" are pretty hard to settle.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 4, 2005 9:13:00 GMT -6
Developing the A-bomb was a pretty big part of winning WW II, and I don't believe the Russians had anything to do with that......Jake
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on May 4, 2005 9:15:40 GMT -6
These "what if's" are pretty hard to settle. You're right Tex, but it's always interesting to look back at history from a modern perspective. I do think though that this article is really asking if historians have credited our contribution to the defeat of Germany with greater importance than Russia's, and vice versa, rather than asking a lot of 'what if's'. Simon
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on May 4, 2005 9:57:39 GMT -6
Developing the A-bomb was a pretty big part of winning WW II, and I don't believe the Russians had anything to do with that......Jake How many A-bombs were dropped on Germany? In fairness, perhaps the article, and this thread, should have been entitled 'Who Defeated Germany?' rather than 'Who won World War II?'. On this side of the Atlantic mention of WWII makes us think primarily of the war in Europe and North Africa and not so much of Japan. I don't doubt that the American perspective is very different to ours. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 4, 2005 10:19:27 GMT -6
I figured somebody would ask that. Taking Japan out of the equation freed up a LOT of resources that could then be pointed at Germany, so I believe it counts.....Jake
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on May 4, 2005 11:39:16 GMT -6
Basically, we all 'lost' WWII because only the perceived enemies were defeated, not the real enemy: CANADA AKA, "The Ultimate Menace"
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on May 4, 2005 11:59:56 GMT -6
I figured somebody would ask that. Taking Japan out of the equation freed up a LOT of resources that could then be pointed at Germany, so I believe it counts.....Jake I'm not sure I understand your point Jake. The first A-Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th 1945. On August 8th the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and launched Operation August Storm, a large scale invasion of Japanese occupied Manchuria. The second A-bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th and Japan surrended on August 14th. The Soviets entered the war with Japan because Germany had already surrendered back in May. They had agreed to do this with the USA and UK at the Yalta Conference in February but are seldom credited in the west with their role in bringing about the end of the war in the Pacific after the defeat of Germany. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 4, 2005 12:07:55 GMT -6
Who won WWII?
Forget the what if's. Look at the known facts.
European Theater was won by the Allied Forces lead by the USA on the Western Front and the Russians on the Eastern Front.
They sandwiched Hitlers ass in between them and took the fight to him.
South Pacific Theater was won by the USA's use of the A-bomb. Without the two A-bomb drops that Japanese had no intent on surrendering anytime soon.
The A-bomb just speeded up the process for them.
Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 4, 2005 12:19:15 GMT -6
......Japan surrended on August 14th.....Germany had already surrendered back in May..... Oops. You're right. I flipped them in my mind! Oh well, I never claimed to be a history buff. But my point still stands: the two theaters were linked by the alliances on both sides, and anyone fighting anywhere was contributing to the overall effort, doing something that had to be done by somebody, or there would have been no victory at all......Jake
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 4, 2005 12:21:30 GMT -6
.....European Theater was won by the Allied Forces lead by the USA on the Western Front and the Russians on the Eastern Front...... If my memory serves (for a ch-ch-change), Col. Klink was much more afraid of the Russian Front!......Jake
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 4, 2005 12:32:57 GMT -6
If my memory serves (for a ch-ch-change), Col. Klink was much more afraid of the Russian Front!......Jake Yeah, because he was afraid of what the Russians would do to him if they surrendered to them, instead of the Allied Forces. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Bluejay on May 4, 2005 12:44:24 GMT -6
The Soviet Union definitely does not get the credit it deserves in our education system for the defeat of Hitler. Nor does China get enough credit for the defeat of Japan. That's primarily a result of the Cold War, where the west did not want to give the Soviet Union or China any credit for doing anything good. 8,000,000 soviet troops died, approximately double that of the *combined* total of all other allied nations. And if you subtract from the total of allied troops killed the about 1 million chinese troops that died (thereby restricting yourself to primarily the european theatre)...well...you do the math. If one looks at the number of civilians killed, well, about 10-20 million were killed in China, 15-20 million in the Soviet Union. Compare those numbers to 500-600,000 dead Japanese civilians and 4 million or so Germans (nations typically thought of as experiencing severe civilian casualties). Certainly a large part of the reason for the number of Soviet casualties was the nature of Stalin, who cared not one goddamn for the lives and welfare of his troops or his civilian population. With such a large population base to work with, he was happy to simply throw more meaningless lives into battles. There is very little question in my mind that Germany was defeated by its decision to renounce its peace treaty and invade the Soviet Union. A war on a single front would have gone far differently, I would imagine. Most 2nd world war historians that I have read have said that the war was lost for Germany on the Eastern front. And if you want to pin down a turning point in the war, it would be the battle of Stalingrad. And this turning point occured well before the Western front was reopened by the Western allies. The eventual war on two fronts was the final decisive factor that defeated a German nation that was already weakened by its adventure against Russia. Bukkake...my god, our secret is out ;D bluejay
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 4, 2005 12:50:40 GMT -6
The Soviet Union definitely does not get the credit it deserves in our education system for the defeat of Hitler. bluejay Agreed. With out the Eastern Front(Russian Front) I doubt very much if we along with the Allied Forces could have beaten Hitler. If he could have put all of his forces against one front at a time, it might have been impossible to stop him and vise a vera if it was not for the Western Front. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on May 4, 2005 19:58:15 GMT -6
Hitler ran out of oil for one thing (By mid 1944, Dallas oil man H. L. Hunt personally had more oil reserves than all of the Axis powers combined).
The US and British (& Commonwealth) forces committed to the Pacific were a greater power than the Soviet military (US Task Force 58 was the largest naval armada ever assembled) so one has to conclude that the allies could have eventually won without the Soviets, although Operation Barbarossa was one of the stupidest blunders in military history. The Soviets lost millions of lives, but dying in droves is not the hallmark of an effective military. Without materiel shipped from the US, the Soviets would almost certainly have folded up. Stalin had purged his military staff prior to the war and was making the Hitlerian mistake of fancying himself a general until he finally started listening to the advice of his able officer, Marshal Zhukov.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on May 8, 2005 6:28:37 GMT -6
Agreed. With out the Eastern Front(Russian Front) I doubt very much if we along with the Allied Forces could have beaten Hitler. If he could have put all of his forces against one front at a time, it might have been impossible to stop him and vise a vera if it was not for the Western Front. Joe. I think that without the Eastern Front (which held through absolutely hellish conditions on both the military and civilians) we would most likely be speaking German right now. Hitler's push into Northern Africa was not just a lark. He was aware of his resource issues. Without the Eastern Front tying up his military, he would have been in Arabia and Iraq in NO TIME. Once he grabbed he oil fields there it would have been almost impossible to stop him... Now consider this... If Hitler HAD grabbed the oil fields, AND without a challenge from an Eastern Front, storming Normandy could NEVER have happened, Britian most likely would have fallen, it would have given his people time to perfect the V2 rocket and within a couple years upgrade it into an intercontinental device, doubtlessly orbital capability by 1950. THAT really ch-ch-changes the equation. If the US HAD held out THAT long, fighting solo. We would have had to sue for peace, because we had NO scientific base to counter with (our entire rocket/space program originated with the Germans and V2's grabbed from German stockpiles). Germans on the moon by the early 60's would not have been out of the question. No doubt, a LOT of if's in there... but by considering the potential alternatives, there is NO QUESTION that ONLY by the Soviets resolve in ACTIVELY maintaining the Eastern Front during WWII, and pressing on that front, was the war against the Nazis won. My thoughts Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on May 8, 2005 7:46:29 GMT -6
We did beat the Germans to the atom bomb and without the eastern front, no doubt several German cities would have been nuked.
I would not concede that the Germans would have taken the middle eastern oil fields (without being drained by the eastern front). Suez was armed to the teeth. Britain had an empire then and had troops from India and other far flung places. Keep in mind also that the middle eastern fields were just beginning to develop then and that the largest oil field in the world during WW2 was still the East Texas Field.
The US was not formally in the war by early 1941, but the British military had American units (the Eagle Squadron, etc.), British pilots were training in the US (The RAF trained at their base in Terrell, Texas so as to keep the green pilots out of the combat zone), and war materiel was pouring out of US ports to destinations in the British Empire.
The British were unprepared (as we were) at the beginning of WW2. This led to a quick string of German victories at the beginning of the war. Like the Japanese, when you blindside someone, you may gain an initial advantage, but if they survive the initial blow, you may live to regret the treachery.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 8, 2005 9:10:16 GMT -6
I think that without the Eastern Front (which held through absolutely hellish conditions on both the military and civilians) we would most likely be speaking German right now. Gordon I don't think we would be speaking German right now,(at least I would hope) but many places in Europe would be. He would have gotten a strong hold on the region that no one could have removed. About the only safe place would have been England, they keep him at bay for a long time even before we became involved. Yes we did Tex, and I a damn sure several German Cities would have be nuked, but we did it with help from German Scientist. If anything had been different(I don't like what if's) I think Germany would have developed the A-Bomb before us. IMHO. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on May 8, 2005 10:38:58 GMT -6
Yes we did Tex, and I a damn sure several German Cities would have be nuked, but we did it with help from German Scientist. If anything had been different(I don't like what if's) I think Germany would have developed the A-Bomb before us. IMHO. Joe. And two A-bombs at most. Our stockpile was gone after Nagasaki, and flying over an armed to the teeth German fortress Europe would have been a VERY different trip to deliver the bombs than the mostly open water flight to Japan. Tex said But without an Eastern Front Hitler could have thrown the weight of that army into a southern front. The Brits at the Suez would have fallen, with a fight perhaps, but they could not have let down their guard protecting the homeland.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 8, 2005 11:05:51 GMT -6
And two A-bombs at most. Our stockpile was gone after Nagasaki, and flying over an armed to the teeth German fortress Europe would have been a VERY different trip to deliver the bombs than the mostly open water flight to Japan. Stockpile of two bombs at that time, and maybe a couple in the planning stage. It is a very possible that we may have decided to use them against Germany instead of Japan, since we had Japan on the run towards the end of the war. But if Germany would have had it's full force's on the Western Front, it would have been damn near impossible to deliver the bombs by aircraft. With out an Eastern Front, Hitler could have done what ever the hell he wanted to do. There wasn't a damn thing we or anyone else in the West could have done about it. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on May 8, 2005 11:39:57 GMT -6
The Germans were certainly wanting the A bomb and had they not alienated some smart Jewish scientists, it could have been a different story. I was thinking that we had enough plutonium and enriched uranium for at least five bombs and could have slowly made more..
Before we start getting teary eyed about the Soviet contribution, let's remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with its secret appendix that cut up Europe between the Soviets and the Nazis and allowed the USSR to swallow up the Baltic states. Stalin didn't want much to do with the West until Hitler betrayed him and he had no other allies. We should have let the Germans knock off the Soviets were it not for the oil fields at Baku in the Caucasus which would have given Hitler a good oil supply.
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on May 8, 2005 13:05:39 GMT -6
Before we start getting teary eyed about the Soviet contribution There was a documentary about the final days of the war on TV the other night that included interviews with German civilians, as well as former British soldiers. They recounted how, ahead of the German surrender, thousands of Berliners who were unable, or unwilling, to flee the city killed themselves rather than suffer Soviet retribution. Of those that stayed tens of thousands of women were raped by Soviet soldiers and some of them spoke on the programme about being raped, some gang raped : A former British soldier told of strolling through a park with some fellow soldiers. They saw some Soviet soldiers and joined them to smoke and chat. After a while the Soviets emptied a couple of pillow cases onto the grass to proudly show them jewellery, silver and other items they had looted from homes in the city. Seeing that the Brits did not share their enthusiasm they told them "THIS is what we fought for. You don't approve? Then maybe we fight your country next!!" The British soldiers left the Soviets and kept looking nervously over their shoulders as they walked away, genuinely fearing that they might have survived the war only to be shot in the back by their allies. Western history books may not reflect the full contribution made by the Soviet Union, but it is difficult to find much sympathy for them. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on May 8, 2005 17:28:35 GMT -6
Western history books may not reflect the full contribution made by the Soviet Union, but it is difficult to find much sympathy for them. Simon I seen a similar one to this one Simon on the History channel about 3 months ago. They did everything imaginable to the German people once they got there. Stole, raped, killed, beat them. I agree it is difficult to find much sympathy for them. One remaining Russian solider that was interviewed said that it was their right to do it. It was a way of getting even with the Germans for what they did. Two wrongs don't make a right. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on May 8, 2005 18:27:41 GMT -6
Tex
No question that the Soviet's were nothing but a bunch of thugs. Unfortunately we NEEDED that particular neighborhood bully at that particular time to help eliminate an even bigger threat.
I dont think that Allied officials counted on the Soviets rebounding from the beating that they had taken so quickly.
I dont know the validity of the stories that some in the military wanted to press on to Moscow after the the Japanese had surrendered later in '45. The allies could possibly have overthrown Stalin, but the cost would have been heavy, and a LONG period of resistance would probably have followed. HAD allied officials had any idea that the Soviets WOULD come back so quickly, AND made there own bomb in just a couple years, they might have been tempted.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 8, 2005 18:42:02 GMT -6
What??? Invade the Soviets when they didn't even have any WMDs yet? Just because they were led by a thug and MIGHT make WMDs some day? What would people think?.......Jake
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on May 9, 2005 5:01:21 GMT -6
What??? Invade the Soviets when they didn't even have any WMDs yet? Just because they were led by a thug and MIGHT make WMDs some day? What would people think?.......Jake I knew this would happen... Stalin had been our friend and ally through a war against a mutual enemy to stab him in the back would have been our biggest forgein diplomacy error ever, our allies would never had trusted us again, we had NO information they were building a bomb, the military wanted to go to Moscow, not the government, and the Red Army was just a bit bigger than the "Elite Republican Guard". But you knew it wasnt the same didnt you Jake! ;D Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Bluejay on May 9, 2005 7:47:03 GMT -6
In the theme of world war two, I recently saw the film "Downfall" (Der Untergang), and am still on an emotional high from it. It's a german film (with english subtitles) about the dying days of the third reich in Hitler's bunker and the fall of Berlin to Soviet forces. It was nominated last year for an academy award for best foreign film. Awesome, awesome film.
One of its best achievements is a (to me, at least) realistic portrayal of Adolf Hitler and his associates. So often when Hitler is portrayed on screen, it is farcical, almost a parody. Indeed, even Hitler himself (in, for example, Triumph of the Will) seems merely to be a parody of himself. Bruno Ganz explored Hitler's...dare I say it...humanity. That's what is so great about the film...it portrays Hitler as a human, rather than some supernatural manifestation of evil. Good exploration as well about the suffering of Berliners during the Soviet invasion.
If you are a fan of war films, and take an interest in WW2, you should really see this film. Funny story...we saw this film at a massive multiplex where typically only the various dumb blockbusters are shown. The person who took our tickets said to us, in a rather puzzled tone: "You realize there are *subtitles* in this film, don't you?" Man oh man, expand your horizons a little, kid. A film like this *has* to be told in German. The harsh tone of the German language makes it so much more powerful.
bluejay
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on May 9, 2005 16:44:22 GMT -6
I dont know the validity of the stories that some in the military wanted to press on to Moscow after the the Japanese had surrendered later in '45. The allies could possibly have overthrown Stalin, but the cost would have been heavy, and a LONG period of resistance would probably have followed. HAD allied officials had any idea that the Soviets WOULD come back so quickly, AND made there own bomb in just a couple years, they might have been tempted. Let me turn that on its head. I was reading up on this a while back and read somewhere that some military strategists at the time argued that the Soviets could defeat the Nazis in Germany and France WITHOUT an allied push from the west. Had their advice to save allied lives been heeded then post-war Europe would have been a very different place, with the iron curtain falling somewhere in the English Channel between France and Britain. Simon
|
|