In your opinion what country do you think is the most importaint country to the cause of WWII.

Heres another good Topic for you guys.

1. Was it the British who won the war with help from US and USSR

2 Was it the Americans with help from Britain and USSR

3. Was it the USSR with help from US and Britian.

For example... I think that without the British holding off the German advance we would not have been able to win the war as fast or at all for that matter. The British over zealous defensive actions to hold on during the battle of britian allowed for a land base and a base of operations for the US and other allies. Of course even if the British lost it would still be a battle for the BOMB and the country that held that would have won but I really feel that the war might not have ended for another 10 years with out the British.

Please make your posts clear and well thought out.

I think all three played a large part, and without one the others would have failed.

Although my biased viewpoint would lead me to believe that it was in fact America that had the biggest impact. Mainly because they played a huge part not only in the Pacific, but as well as in Europe.

None, it was a joint effort by all Allied nations. All played a part.

In Europe: Britian, though they would have lost without the others.
I the Pacific: America.

Germany. If she didn't lose, we wouldn't have won.

Italy! If they would have done their job right Germany would have won.

Adler

The United States was the most important; it did most of the fighting in the Pacific theater, and lots of fighting in the European. The Russians did do more fighting than the US in Europe, but they were getting lots of supplies from the US. The UK is next, for holding out against the Germans, and contributing quite a bit to the war effort on all fronts. And finally, I say Canada, Australia, & New Zealand all did a hell of a lot considering how small their populations were.

What a question... Russia for sure! Anybody who says something else is wrong ;). No seriously: Actualy I even think that Russia would have won the war without D-DAY (but thats an other topic!). The big part of the war was fought in Russia, most people died there and the biggest battles were fought there.

Britain. For quite some time they stood alone against the germans, and the world is thankful for that.

Of course it is Canada ;)

Britain for being able to hold out which still kept the war alive in western Europe if Britain had surrendered or asked for Peace then Hitler would have concentrated on attacking the USSR which could have lead to a very diffrent world

Every Ally did his own part, but if Britain didn't resist... (when Stalin was sleeping on Ribbentropp-Molotov pact...)
I say USA.
However it's always a "what if?...". :)

@adler17:
you're not original (always speaking about Italian errors), and quite boring.
Next time I expect you'll speak about italiani-pizza-mandolino-mafia... Compliments.
I really don't understand what's your matter with Italy. I've no problem with German.
However, following your mind (???): Lutwaffe failed his job, too, in England skies 1940.
Perhaps Italy's best job was rest out of the war (it wasn't our war, but Mussolini was wrong); the second best: try to stop NaziGerman, even risking to be invaded.
But perhaps you'd prefer NAZI German won the wwII...

Would Russia and Britain have been able to stay in the war without lend-lease material from the United States?

No sngle country was most important in winning.

Britain for being able to hold out which still kept the war alive in western Europe if Britain had surrendered or asked for Peace then Hitler would have concentrated on attacking the USSR which could have lead to a very diffrent world

So you say if Britain made peace, the world would fall (be different)? What ould have happened if Hitler didn´t attack USSR? I know that Hitlers entire polititc was about defeating the evil communists, but just imagine, what if.

If you say: "If UK falls Hitler wins", you will have to say "If USSR falls Hitler wins even more"

I think it was a real unified effort. The original "Coalition of the Willing".

It was a real unified effort, but I think the Soviet Union contributed a lot to crushing Nazi Germany, and even played a small part in the Pacific.

However, I heard a saying that goes along the lines of

"The war was won by British balls, American logistics, and Russian blood".
I think this is very true.

It was a real unified effort, but I think the Soviet Union contributed a lot to crushing Nazi Germany, and even played a small part in the Pacific.

I was under the impression that they didn't bother declaring war until the Americans were already in spitting distance of Tokyo..

I think it was a real unified effort. The original "Coalition of the Willing".

Hmm, two of whom had to be attacked first to be willing though :lol: ;)

I'd say that none was more important than the other. Britain gets a bit of stick, the old "you'd be speaking german" stuff, but considering what the UK did and achieved in WWII, plus it's geographically vital position, it ranks easily alongside the other countries. Plus, realistically, the resistance elements of occupied western europe and so on relied almost entirely on British support, not US support. US for it's supplies and numbers, which whilst not as many as Russia did enable the western front to exist. Russia for the wiping out of more tanks infantry and so on of the German forces than any other.

As for Adler... old habits die hard, everyone's to blame for WWII but the germans :lol:

I was under the impression that they didn't bother declaring war until the Americans were already in spitting distance of Tokyo..

Not quite. Had the Soviet Union not declared war on Japan, the Korean war would never have happened.

Germany. It was Hitler's poor decisions and incompetence at the later stages of the war which allowed the Allies to win.

I heard a good analogy about this somewhere, can't remember where exactly. Anyway:

Think of the Allied war effort as a three legged stool; if one leg is removed, the stool will fall down.

That sums it up pretty well.

They all played a role, american was supplying with thir huge production. Russia smash germany, before d-day.

Britain, however, didnt do a lot of thing, it was the british commonwealth that hold the ground in egypt, india and prtty much anywere else. Great-britain was bombed and it took a long time before they was able to rpoduce anything bigger than machinegun!

Britain, however, didnt do a lot of thing, it was the british commonwealth that hold the ground in egypt, india and prtty much anywere else. Great-britain was bombed and it took a long time before they was able to rpoduce anything bigger than machinegun!

Uhmm, what history of WWII do you read? Or alternatively, can I have some of what you're smoking? :rolleyes:

That has to be one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever had the mispleasure of reading. I'd discuss it, but frankly I'd appreciate some sort of proof of your claims before I bother. :crazyeye:

Put it this way, do some research into the units in the NW europe campaign and how many of them were British compared to the commenwealth. Or lets take Alamien as an example: There to my reccolection there was 7 full British divisions (8th Armoured, 51st Highland, 50th Northumberland, 44th Home Counties, 7th Armoured, 1st Armoured and 10th Armoured) to 4 Commenwealth divisions. (9th Australians, 2nd New Zealand, 1st South African and 4th Indian) That's 7 British, 4 Commonwealth, not counting misc formations, which were admitedly many, but were both British and non-British.

(source for that here (http://www.orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/8tharmyatelalamein.html))

Yeah, we did nothing there or in Africa at all :rolleyes:

BTW, ever heard of a spitfire or a Hurricane? IIRC they were bigger than a machine gun...

Unlike you though I do recognise the vital role of the commonwealth, but to say that the British did almost nothing is totally Farcical. :rolleyes: The simplest contribution made by the UK was it's position. Without the UK to prepare the invasion of europe from, it may never have happened. Europe may have been doomed to remain under either Russian or German hegemony, and to be frank the difference was little to the persecuted...

I heard a good analogy about this somewhere, can't remember where exactly. Anyway:

Think of the Allied war effort as a three legged stool; if one leg is removed, the stool will fall down.

That sums it up pretty well.

I dont think you could have been more wrong with that analogy. Although Britians fighting was detramential in order to win the war in the amount of time. I belive that even if the Germans had conqured the Soviets the allies would have still won. You have to remember that we still came up with the bomb first, now i dont really think we would have used it in Germany as fast as we did in Japan (if you no your history then you know why) however if Britan or the US felt in real danger we wouldnt even blink and those nazis would be glowing ;) . But If Great Britan fell Lostknight we wouldnt have a foot hold on the European fortress which Hitler controled. The US and the Brits were the most importaint, US for making the bomb which changed the world and the Brits for holding on so we could get a real foot hold in europe. Thats my story and im sticking to it. :)

None, it was a joint effort by all Allied nations. All played a part.

They all played a part but which one was more importaint.
P.S. I like the way you think privatehudson

I think Russia did have an equal role in ensuring the outcome we got, namely unconditional surrender and also tying down the millions of Germans on the eastern front that would have made fighting through the western front almost impossible. If you add that a good proportion of Germany's vetrans of 1939-40 probably fell in fighting in the east also the forces the allies would have faced in the west would have been, IMO impossible to overthrow.

The nuclear bomb theory has merit, but it would not have been an option that I would have liked to have seen. So whilst I agree that in the respect of the point you are making, Russia was not absolutely essential to victory, I do believe she was essential to the level and kind of victory that we won. A scenario without Russia that ended in say Berlin being nuked is a victory of lesser worth to me.

O of course. I dont think that the war would have ended for even 10 more years if russia had fallen. remember at the time we could only build 2 bombs and who knows how long it would have taken under war time conditons and who knows maybe the Germans would ahve made a bomb.

India if Japan took India it would suck for the allies. When Japan invaded India 80,000 Indian and British soliders defeated them and the Indian Expedinatary forces played a key part in liberatinig Burma and they also fought on the Pacific islands and on other fronts.



Also USSR was real important even without Brits or American Russia probaly could have won the war.

India if Japan took India it would suck for the allies. When Japan invaded India 80,000 Indian and British soliders defeated them and the Indian Expedinatary forces played a key part in liberatinig Burma and they also fought on the Pacific islands and on other fronts.


Not even you can believe that India was the most important country in defeating the Axis. It was NOT the most important, NOT the second most important, NOT the third most importand and so on. India had a secondary role, just like many other nations.

Silver 2039: I doubt that, Russia struggled as it was prior to 1943 or so. Without the allied bombing campaigns and drawing off much of the Wermacht from 1943-45 (though less than the russians faced, the western wermacht was still enough to make a difference, especially without lend-lease to Russia) they would have severely struggled to defeat the Germans.

But I have to disagree about India being more important, morally loosing India would have been a blow, geographically it would have been a pain in the butt, but it would hardly have lead to the fall of any of the main allied powers or a enormous dent in the allied cause. Yes they fought in many areas and where important, but so where any one of a number of other nations including France which no-one has yet mentioned. France for example contributed heavily to the Italian and NW europe fronts in 1944-45.

In Europe Russia certainly did the bulk of the fighting. They payed a heavier price than anybody for victory.

America comes close in 2nd. The U.S. spent $48,500,000,000 and supplied slightly more troops than Russia or anyother country in the war. I think it was 11,500,000 compared to Russia's 11,300,000.

Britain was important for D-Day and their intelligance and comando operations were extremely valuble.

In the Pacific, America almost was souly responsible for defeating Japan.

The U.S. spent $48,500,000,000,000

48.5 trillion dollars?

The GDP of the world in the year 2004 is LESS then 48.5 trillion dollars(It's something around U$36 trillions), and so it's completely impossible that the US spent any ammount even close to the one you stated.

The Allies could not have won without the British because if Germany had won against/not had to fight the U.K. then they definitely could have become powerful enough in population, territory, military technology, military, and territory to be stopped unless both the U.S. and Soviet Union fought a fercious battle together (an unlikely scenario to occur because both would not have wanted to fight until it was too late).

The U.S. was probably a necessity to winning the war so I would rate it second. I think it had the most effective armed forces of any country during WW II and definitely had the largest economy of the countries fighting so it contributed vital power to winning.

The Soviet Union seriously pulled the odds into the Allies' favor however I think if the U.K. and U.S. had to fight Germany alone they could have won without the Soviet Union although it would have been extremely difficult and the West would have had even more problems than it did (except possibly minus the Soviet threat).

The GDP of the world in the year 2004 is LESS then 48.5 trillion dollars(It's something around U$36 trillions), and so it's completely impossible that the US spent any ammount even close to the one you stated.

No I meant billion. I put too many zeros.

That is of course insane because the entire war costed one trillion.

Hmmm, none of u mention that the Chines had severly worn down Japan's ground forces by guerille tactics before the Allies entered the War. China was also a member of WWII, but not 1 of u mentioned it...

Hmmm, none of u mention that the Chines had severly worn down Japan's ground forces by guerille tactics before the Allies entered the War. China was also a member of WWII, but not 1 of u mentioned it...

But China certainly wasn't nearly the most 'important' country as far as actually defeating the Axis powers through major liberating ofensives that the Anglo-American and Russian alliance conducted.

Not to mention half their forces, Communist and Nationalist were tied up in preparing to fight each other after Japan was eventually defeated.

I would actually rate China as last among the major powers.

What was the population of US/GB/USSR/Germany back then? I might be wrong, but didn't population go like: Britain < America < Germany < Russia? Bah, that looks wrong. But anyway, wouldn't Russia be nesscessary to victory because of the manpower she would supply?

WW2 was really two wars. The German Japanese alliance did not contribute much to either country, even though it forced the allies to fight on two fronts. It also extended the time it took to win.

In Europe Russia made victory possible. Germany could not have won unless she made peace with Stalin. And if Germany and Russia had made peace in 1942, I doubt that England and the US could have successfully landed in Europe. Had germany not invaded Russia, they probably would not have geared up their war machine to the same scale; a peace treaty with England in Nov 1941 would have made for an interesting scenario. The A bomb would be the wild card here. The scale of warfare in Russia completely dwarfs combat anywhere else in Europe. The N African armies would have been completely swallowed up and gone unnoticed in Russia. N Africa was important, but tiny.

In Asia the US guaranteed certain victory.

England and the Empire get the Meritorious Service award and purple hearts in both theaters.

This is not to demean any nation's role, but merely to answer the question and add perspective.

Okay, here is my real opinion. I think the US were the most important nation. With the industrial output Germany could´nt cope. The Russians were nearly beaten and only because of Hitler´s idotical ideas, Stalingrad, Kursk, they could take the offensive. Also because of Hitler the Russian power plants were not attacked. With them bombed the Russian industry had no power to build anything. And spare parts were nearly impossible to get, because the producer would not have delivered. Made in Germany!
The British had alone no chances to win the war. The US had more man power and industrial output. With their air force they were able to attack and beat German forces hard. So they won the war. To the nuke: The US didn´t have enough Uranium to build even one bomb IIRC. They had to use German Uranium which was in the last Uboat to Japan. So the Germans and the US would have nukes at the same time: The Germans had Uranium but not the knowhow, the US the Knowhow but not the Uranium. This would have come to a close race. No. The the use of the USAAF was the winning point.
Or Hitler. But that would mean Austria was the most important nation. ;)

Adler

To the nuke: The US didn´t have enough Uranium to build even one bomb IIRC. They had to use German Uranium which was in the last Uboat to Japan.

Adler

Not true. The Uranium for the bombs was produced at the K-12 reactor in Oak Ridge, TN. The Plutonium was produced at the Hanford Engineer Works in Hanford, WA.

Your scenario sounds like a script treatment for U-571 part 2.

It's true however. I saw it on discovery :)

As for number one, I'd say Russia. The really, I mean really, big battles was fought there. The main bulk of the German army was fighting, and eventionally loosing there. But most important - most of German production when there. Without Russia, Germany could concentrate on England and crush it. Without England - no D-day.
________
COACH PURSES (http://icoachhandbags.com/)

I agree that all the Allied nations played a great role in the victory, it would not have been possible without any of them.

I also think though that India's role in the war is underappreciated. Because of India, Britain had an unlimited source of manpower, millions of trained and brave soldiers ready to be drawn on.

Underapreciated maybe, but they're in no way more important, or even on the same level of importance as the UK, US or USSR.

UK - Intelligence (Bletchley Park, Enigma), Technology (the Mustang was powered by a RR-designed Merlin), Navy (it was bigger than the German one), bases (Malta, Gibralter, etc)
US - Intelligence (Jap codes), Industry, Navy, Manpower
USSR - Industry, Manpower, Weather
Other nations need mention as well, but I just listed the main 3.

Germany - without them it could never end.

But for the interests of the argument: UK, because without their resillience to the Nazi warmachine, it would have controlled all of Europe very quickly, and the US would never have declared war but in the interest of hypothetical scenarios: Had the US done so anyway, the logistics problems with crossing the Atlantic and landing in unfriendly territory would have been unsurmountable.

With regards to technology, the UK was far ahead of the US at the start of the war and gave it away. These technologies included Radar, Short-Wave Radar, Merlin Engine, Jet Engine, Turbo-Jet Engine, Inteligence Agency and more..

Without Russia, it is doubtful that D-Day could have happened. A lot of the units guarding the beaches were Hilfswilligen or auxiliary troops from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Latvia etc. There were even Indians and a couple of Koreans. Most of the important, and tough units were tied up on the Eastern Front. Likewise, if D-Day had not hapened, the Germans could have thrown their full might upon the Soviets, and possibly delayed the end of the war until a potentially war-winning invention came along.

Also, I have to say that I disagree with MattIII saying that American intelligence was good. In my opinion it was very poor. Pearl Harbor could have been avoided. Also, the intelligence report for Omaha beach stated that the beach was defended only by auxiliary trrops from captured countries, and that it would be easy to capture the beach. They did not pick up that there was an Eastern Front battle hardened unit stationed there.

Well the Indian army might have been able to attack the eastern front in place of the Russians. I'm not sure what they actually did, but I think deployments were mostly defensive and spanning from Iraq to China.

The Indian army, under British command, fought extensively in the Pacific. The Japanese also set up an Indian anti-British colonisation army, that Indian POWs could join. Most POWs that did join were loyal to Britain, and in battle they deserted to rejoin British troops.

The Indian army divisions also saw service in North Africa from the begining to end of the conflict there IIRC. Some Indian/Ghurka formations also served in Italy. However India was limited to some extent, especially in industrial output compared to Russia, there is no way that the Indians could have ever effectively replaced Russia. Also there would be geographical problems with this, without Russia being in the war the best India could have done would have been to defend against Japan and provide additional troops to the western front.

Switzerland, because they were the real winners.

Well, I'm going to start with a bit of fence-sitting here... Britain, Russia and America all played hugely vital roles in defeating the Axis, and I honestly think that if any one had failed, the rest would have been unable to hold out.

However, what I find most interesting is that each of these 3 nations was able to play to its national strengths. I'll elaborate.

Britain. For sheer stiff-upper-lippedness, dogmatic defence and "fight them on the beaches" type mentality, you can't beat the Brits! When all of Western Europe had crumbled or was hiding behind "neutrality" the Brits, led by Churchill, held firm - I think that no one was more suited to the role of spoiler!

Russia. Well, for determination in the face of ridiculous material disadvantages (one rifle between two men?? flying in glorified biplanes against messerschmidts??) the Russian peasant of the mid-20th century has no rival. Sure, it helps to have your own officers threaten to machine gun you if you retreat, but hey, any nation that sacrificed 20 million of its citizens in its own defence deserves a lot of respect. They have nasty winters too. And they stopped Hitler stealing their oil supplies, which was helpful.

America. Nobody rides a tank, liberating city after city and kissing rescued damsels quite like an American! Whether it's the perfect teeth, the snazzy uniforms or the derring-do, they are the best proponents of technical warfare, bar none. Whenever the cavalry come over the hill in the nick of time, they're American!

The Indian army, under British command, fought extensively in the Pacific. The Japanese also set up an Indian anti-British colonisation army, that Indian POWs could join. Most POWs that did join were loyal to Britain, and in battle they deserted to rejoin British troops.

Yeah, thats true. 80,000 Indian troops did join the Axis powers, forming the Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army), because they were promised freedom if they did so.

They won a few victories against the British in Burma and India, and fought alongside the Japanese in Singapore and the SE. After the Japanese surrendered though, their supplies were cut off and they had to surrender.

Interestingly enough, the British noticed that those same Indians fighting for their freedom fought much harder than when they were part of the British army.

not only in WW2 but Indian troops served in WW1 in fact 1 million Indians died during WW1. There's some meorial to them in Dheli I think.

Russia, without a doubt (in my mind)

I gotta go with America, though the USSR counter-attacked Stalin was aware he would be crushed and begged the Allies for a second front. Eisenhower gave him Operation: Overlord. Though Britain held out for awhile and the USSR won at Stalingrad, America takes the cake

1. United States of America
2. Union of Soviet Socialist Republic
3. Great Britain

The Soviets did most of the dying, but that was mostly due to Stalin's blundering. He refused to allow his troops to retreat, dooming millions to death even when they could have retreated easily. Civillian deaths were massive because Stalin did not allow cities to be evacuated. Millions were killed in hopeless battles like Kiev. Millions more were killed in suicidal offensives such as the bloody race to Berlin. Many more would have died without the Amercian material supplies. The most important items were food, obviously, and vehicals. The advance into the Third Riech would ahve been FAR slowers without the help of thousands of American Studibaker trucks.

The Soviets are real lucky that the UK was able to hang on and tie up troops in France and North Africa. The UK is also lucky that Hitler is a blithering idiot who made the Luftwaffe bomb cities instead of the RAF after a small raid on Berlin. But they did a good job in North Africa, and bottling up the Mediterranean, and providing a springboard for the coming invasions in Italy and France.

It's very questionable whether the USSR could have defeated Germany even if the UK had been taken over. I'm guessing no, but if they could have managed to hold Germany off untill the winter, (something they barely managed to do with the UK being around) they may have been able to win, but they still had to beat the Germans in the southern summer offensive, which is where I think they would have lost big time with the extra troops that aren't needed in North Africa and France.

Even if the Germans took Russia, they would be hard pressed to garrison the whole thing, much less mount any more invasions (not even mighty India lol.) And if they ever went into peacetime their economy would have collapsed anyway.

I think the U.S. was the most important. The only reason there is any question about this is because the war ended before Amercia even got started. Maybe it's because I'm an (omgsoarrogant) American, but the economics of the time are stunning to look at. By 1945, the U.S. controlled 50% of GLOBAL GDP. And the American economy was not even at it's peak, as was almost everyone else's. Other countries were suffering from destruction of industrial bases and constriction of resource pools, such as Germany, and others such as the USSR and the UK because of sheer exhaustion of manpower. The U.S. didn't have to worry about any of these things, because of it's massive resources and industrial base, coupled with the fact that the United States made of the most of it's female workers.

The U.S. was able to churn out an almost endless supply of armorments, not just for itself, but to funnel lavishly to its allies too. The U.S. was able to send millions of troops to Europe, as well as fighting the Japanese almost single-handedly in the Pacific. I believe that the United States could have beaten the entire Axis by itself, but it just would have taken till like 1948, at least. If Britain fell, it would have taken much longer.

D-Day was not nessesary to defeat the Axis. The Soviets would have eventually taken over all of Hitler's holdings, but it would take much longer, and I really don't think a Red Europe would have been desireable. France, Belgium ect. would probably be 3rd-World countries today, if the USSR ever even fell. No D-Day equals a bleak future for Europe.

Never have I seen so such rampant nationalism in one thread. Who cares, everyone who died fighting fascism did their part and deserves our eternal respect, regardless of which banner they fought under. An Indian or French soldier was no less courageous than a Soviet or American.

Its impossible to say whos effort won the war but I would say that the Soviet Union payed the highest price.

What was the population of US/GB/USSR/Germany back then? I might be wrong, but didn't population go like: Britain < America < Germany < Russia? Bah, that looks wrong. But anyway, wouldn't Russia be nesscessary to victory because of the manpower she would supply?

I think that the Soviet Union had the most population however the United States had about equal if not somewhat higher to the Russian part of the Soviet Union. Germany did not have as much as the U.S. or Russia however it had around 70 million. The U.K. had less the Germany by a substantial margin.

I vote for USSR and Great Britain in Europe and America in the Pacific.

I vote for USSR and Great Britain in Europe and America in the Pacific.

Amen - despite every effort of Hollywood producers to re-write history, remember that the European war had been going on for 27 months (or 40% of total duration) before the US even entered it.

Given progress in Africa and the impact of Russian winters on the German armies in 1941 it is pretty certain IMHO that Russia and the UK would have beaten Germany EVENTUALLY without US being a belligerent.

It is even possible that the USSR could have beaten Germany in a straight fight, although I would be less convinced of this.

If the USSR had not been a belligerent I suspect the UK would have been forced to accept peace, albeit without being defeated. Certainly it could not have emerged victorious on its own.

However, it is inconceivable that the US could have beaten Germany without the USSR and UK's involvement - without the UK there would be no base of operations, without USSR the alllies would have lacked sufficient manpower to invade continental Europe.

So, I conclude in Europe the order of importance is USSR, followed by UK, with US in third.

In the Pacific of course, the US were by far the major player, with an honourable mention for the British Empire and Chinese contributions.

No offence intended to any involved, nor any diminution intended of the sacrifices made by all.

I think Russia... We forget the scale of the Eastern/Russian Front, it was truly a epic struggle. We recall D-Day alot in the west, but a Soviet invasion at roughly the same time was alot larger. The Germans had 30 divisions ready for the US/UK/Canadian attack but they had 150 divisions in the east ready for the soviet attack. 5-1 ratio there.

Lets see, well if Britain hadnt;

A) held out
B) supplied information + tech to america
C) shiped suplies to Russia
D) tied up troops in Burma and the Chinese border
E) won the battle of teh atlantic
F) crushed teh surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine
G) broken the enigma code in 1939 (yes the yanks did not get it from U-571 as teh load of bollox American attempt at re-writting history would have you belive)

Then D-day, the pacific war victory in Africa would be impossible.

Without America then the pacific war would most likely have been lost and the western european been a stalemate.

Without Russia the war in europe would be unlikely to succed, the war in Asia would have suffered.

As it has been said Britain, America and russia all had their parts to play but to bring in my opion would be baised as so many "america was best cos we did good and no1 can fight like us" happily u must've forgotten the Kesserene pass in which America was shown to be poorly lead, trained and equiped and British troops had to save them. It wasnt untill scily and Italy that they reached the requisite standard.

I'd say British, then Russia, then USA for combat/military, but from what I understand Switzerland was very crucial for economical reasons. :-)

If USA had stepped in a bit earlier, they'd probably be on top, but the many years of fighting and loss of life for the British and Russia, to me is very significant. Also the British kinda brought in the common wealth countries, as a whole the British Commonwealth more accurately, was most significant.

Italy! If they would have done their job right Germany would have won.

Adler

Ha Ha Ha! Italy..... :lol:

No seriously, Italy had 5 gears in its tanks. 3 Neutral and 2 Reverse. No way Italy. She was unprepared. Look at WWI. They tried to invade Austria-Hungary and were beat back. When they tried to invade France near Nice, they were pushed back in WWII. They had a hard time defeating the Ethiopians AND THEY HAD SPEARS!!!! They couldn't easily defeat the Albanians or the Greeks. The Italians were a crutch, not an ally.

Amen - despite every effort of Hollywood producers to re-write history, remember that the European war had been going on for 27 months (or 40% of total duration) before the US even entered it.

Given progress in Africa and the impact of Russian winters on the German armies in 1941 it is pretty certain IMHO that Russia and the UK would have beaten Germany EVENTUALLY without US being a belligerent.

It is even possible that the USSR could have beaten Germany in a straight fight, although I would be less convinced of this.

If the USSR had not been a belligerent I suspect the UK would have been forced to accept peace, albeit without being defeated. Certainly it could not have emerged victorious on its own.

However, it is inconceivable that the US could have beaten Germany without the USSR and UK's involvement - without the UK there would be no base of operations, without USSR the alllies would have lacked sufficient manpower to invade continental Europe.

So, I conclude in Europe the order of importance is USSR, followed by UK, with US in third.

In the Pacific of course, the US were by far the major player, with an honourable mention for the British Empire and Chinese contributions.

No offence intended to any involved, nor any diminution intended of the sacrifices made by all.

If you have ever read Clash of the Titans...great book about Soviet Military, you will know that Germany never really had a prayer in defeating the Soviets. The Soviets were just SO DEEP when it came to miltary equipment and men that the Germans probably would have been defeated by them eventually. I agree with you. :goodjob:

Ha Ha Ha! Italy..... :lol:

No seriously, Italy had 5 gears in its tanks. 3 Neutral and 2 Reverse. No way Italy. She was unprepared. Look at WWI. They tried to invade Austria-Hungary and were beat back. When they tried to invade France near Nice, they were pushed back in WWII. They had a hard time defeating the Ethiopians AND THEY HAD SPEARS!!!! They couldn't easily defeat the Albanians or the Greeks. The Italians were a crutch, not an ally.


didn't you know spears beat tanks!

:hmm: when is the last time you played civ ;), it must have been a long while if you forgot about that

Actually the Ethopian arm was modernized and it wasable to defeat the Italians. Later durin WW2 was when Ethopia a conquered.

If you have ever read Clash of the Titans...great book about Soviet Military, you will know that Germany never really had a prayer in defeating the Soviets. The Soviets were just SO DEEP when it came to miltary equipment and men that the Germans probably would have been defeated by them eventually. I agree with you. :goodjob:

So what about the German tank which has been left just outside Moscow, as a memorial to show how close the Werhmacht got? Don't forget Russia cracked up under the pressure in WW1.

in WW1 Russland was in a revulotion!!!

in WW1 Russland was in a revulotion!!!
Well because of the pressures bought on to Russian society and infrastructure by the war.

Clearly, the most important nation in WW2 in defeating Germany was Great Britain, who opposed them for longest.

What is often mistaken in evaluating Russias contribution is to forget that they were, prior to Hitlers suprise attack, effectively allied to Germany providing supplies of rubber and oil without which campaigns elsewhere would not have been possible. This fact is conviniently air-brushed out of history, which, as we know is written by the winners.

As for the yanks, they were late for the last two World Wars but to be fair, they want to make up for it by being really puntual for the third ! :lol:

Canada, where do you think they got their uranium from?

Seriously, Germany itself, it's totally boneheaded policies, which started the war in the first place, turned the eastern war from a war of liberation to a geneocide, wasted untotal resources in it's evil perscution of it's conquered territories to the point of having resistance groups growing in every conquered province.

Canada, where do you think they got their uranium from?

Seriously, Germany itself, it's totally boneheaded policies, which started the war in the first place, turned the eastern war from a war of liberation to a geneocide, wasted untotal resources in it's evil perscution of it's conquered territories to the point of having resistance groups growing in every conquered province.
I thought Jerry was pretty keen on making it a war of genocide from the outset!

USSR defenatly. It was in the east that Germany's army was weakened, America and Britain attacked an already weakened German Army.

USSR defenatly. It was in the east that Germany's army was weakened, America and Britain attacked an already weakened German Army.

The USSR could not have operated an effective army or offensives without the supplies provided by Britain and the USA.

The USSR could not have operated an effective army or offensives without the supplies provided by Britain and the USA.

I never said the USSR did all the work, but they do deserve credit for being the ones to really turn the tides in the war. Them and the Russian Winter of course.

Russia. All were important but they carried the brunt of the fighting. The numbers involved are staggering. 13 Million dead civilians, 7 million dead military. I wonder if they would have caved even if Moscow got captured- Napolean captured Moscow and still lost.

Zardnaar, the figures are right but there were 13 million dead soldiers and "only" 6 million dead civilists. Nevertheless I still think the US had the biggest effort. Or whatabout Hitler? Without the Gröfaz (Größter Feldgerr aller Zeiten= Greatest general of all times; better would be Größter Fatzke aller Zeiten= greatest squirt...) Germany would have won the war. But we talk about nations and it would bbe a too great honour to say he was a nation. Nothing more than a crazy Austrian at the wrong moment at the wrong place.

Adler

Adler I may be wrong and got the 2 figures mixed up. Grofaz was the allies best weapon of WW2. The Germans would have either won the war, called it quits after France was defeated or sued for peace alot earlier than they did.

why dosent civ tot work on my crappy windows xp home editn??

Best weapon? Okay, but since he was in a way biological the allies have to take the response for him and his deeds.
Happy Alex, I can´t help you because I have win 2k and didn´t try to install civ tot. But I think here it is a bad thread for your question. Go to the civ 2 forum.

Adler

In a way, Poland. They bought the enigma code from the German defect, when France and England refused. They then gave the code to the British soon after, there by alowing the british to create computers and other devices to crakc the enigma. After that, they send a plane to spot the boat they already know is there (When the axis boats were crossing the Mediterainian in order to bring suplies) and then attack the boat after the plain returns (they were not alowed to use the enigma without first faking the "conventional" method of spotting) If the germans didn't think that the enigma couldn't be broken and had spent more security with it (their navy was an important exeption) it might have been more difficult to win. Then there was the the special bomb that was designed to destroy hydro dams, (it was much more dificult than just drop a bomb at the right place) therby significantly reducing the production capacity of germany and creating floods.

You could also say that Briton wasn't nessisary to victory by D-Day, the americans could have invaded through Italy or Spain, at least in theory. By the way, the Canadian force was the only one to achieve its objectives on D-Day, and only one troop of Americans had grater resistance. France and Great Briton were respnsible for WWII in a way, because they didn't do anything about the German violations of treaties when they jsut began. They should also have read Mein Kamph.

Russia no doubt about it imho. ALthough all the major allies where
vital

Garfield, the bombing of the dams killed many civilians, but did´nt have a big influence on the German production. So these bombings were a failure. And if the US invaded Spain they would have to cross the Pyrenees and the Alps in Italy. Italy was much more a disaster for the US forces. Although numerically far superiror they were not able to conquer whole Italy. Not to mention they had then to cross the alps...
Mein Kampf was read by many people. Nearly all, except some idiots, didn´t believe someone could try to make this true. It was considered as election propaganda. They were wrong...

Adler

Ha Ha Ha! Italy..... :lol:

No seriously, Italy had 5 gears in its tanks. 3 Neutral and 2 Reverse. No way Italy. She was unprepared. Look at WWI. They tried to invade Austria-Hungary and were beat back. When they tried to invade France near Nice, they were pushed back in WWII. They had a hard time defeating the Ethiopians AND THEY HAD SPEARS!!!! They couldn't easily defeat the Albanians or the Greeks. The Italians were a crutch, not an ally.

I admit war between Italia and Ethiopia was quite a David/Golia struggle... but don't forget (as Silver2039 wrote) that 'David' was heavily helped and supported with modern guns by other countries (GB, France... anyone more???), without them, Abissinian army had been defeated quickly and more easily...
IIRC, even GB had problems and defeats in some of his colonial wars... and nobody was helping his enemies (quite never)...
About WWI... bah... Italia defeated the so-called "Strafexpedition" (punitive expedition) in 1916, a deep attempt to invade NE italian regions by Osterreicher army... Same story at Piave 1917/8.
However I agree that italian commands and preparation in both WW were really awful. Perhaps a poor ally, but without Italia, how could Rommel have arrived in North Africa? Certainly not from sky (as in Kreta 1941)...
Hitler sent DAK in Africa, cause it was HIS interest support Italians there.
However, Italia hadn't to join ww2. And perhaps it was better neither join ww1...

Well, the Italians had to invade Ethipia twice before they were able to annex it. And the Italian victories of ww1 were more or less the defeating of small assaults. Only the last victory was a big victory- a few days before the end of the war. The Strafexpedition you mentioned was a sucessful Austrian offensive in South Tyrol (Südtirol/ Alto Adige). The Austrians were able to defeat the Italians and had to stop at the gate to the Po flat only because of the Russian Brussilov offensive. So it was not the Italians but the Russians who terminated this offensive.And what about the Isonzo battles? IIRC 13 offensives against weak Austrian untis. All failed. And the smashing of the Austrian offensive in 1918 was because of the dissolving Austrian troops.
If the Italians did their thing well, Rommel didn´t need to go to Africa. The Italians would have captured Egypt and the Sues, So Hitler HAD to send Rommel BECAUSE of the Italian defeats against smaller British forces.
So Italy was a poor ally in both wars. If the Italians stayed loyal to their origianl allies, Germany and Austria, they might got more.
With these facts you can´t say these jokes are too bad and hurting Italians.

Adler

I've already said that Italia had GREAT problems in his army commands and preparation (linked to politic problems too). With these startpoints, I think victories are welcome exceptions... Those problems influenced heavily NorthAfrican struggle with British in Egypt. That's why I said also that Italia hadn't join Hitler adventure (but in 1940 the situation seemed too good, and Mussolini made one of his biggest errors). Caudillo F.Franco keep Spain out of war (nothwithstanding Hitler's pressions) but Spain had already been vasted by Civil War.
About Ethopia, I already said that not only Italian problems, but GB-France helps gave important contributes to Ethiopian resistance.
I agree Italia was a poor ally (more in ww2 that in ww1, where it was ally with Entente, not more with Central Powers).
I think these things were mostly effects of some Italian persons who made awful errors. The only things that could hurt Italians -IMHO - is to speak respectless about tragic events that Italians had already paid with their own blood.
In some parts of your posts (mostly past) it seems you are bad-minded with Italians, and I can't explain these. I hope I'm wrong.
I don't contest your preparation, Adler, I think it's appreciable; but you know well that there are a lot of ways to speak about something (especially war that saw millions of casualties). I hope you understand, I dislike non-sense polemic, I like historical forums (people exchanging his knowledge and opinion, respecting each other).

Well, I do not have any prejudices against Italians, I only critizize the Italian military in both wars. So we both agree they were a bad ally. I don´t know exactly, but there seemed to be mostly incompetent leaders in Italy in the last century (and today!). Where are the Prince Eugenes or the Garibaldis of the past? This is I critizise. Jokes are only one way. I know they might hurt and so I´m carefull to tell. But some of them are also part of history. I do not want to hurt anyone with any jokes. But again these jokes show the inability of the Italian military. The were great Italian deeds like the attack on Alexandria were two British battleships were sunk. They had to be repaired for months. Or the return of the Italian Ethiopia submarine squadron. But compared with the rest they are hidden in the shadow of incompetence.
But here is a joke about the German Luftwaffe of the last years:
Feldwebel to Flakgunner recruit: The US planes are silver, the Russians are dark green with a red star and if the plane is invisible then it is ours. (Boy, we had cloaking devices in ww2 ;) )
This is also only a joke. There were aerial fightings until the very end of course. But the allied forces were too many.

Adler

Yes, we're both agree Italia was bad ally.
And, uber alle, nice to know you're okay with Italia. ;)
:goodjob:
I'll celebrate this 'happy end' with a "pantagruelic" lunch :lol: ;)

You could also say that Briton wasn't nessisary to victory by D-Day, the americans could have invaded through Italy or Spain, at least in theory.

My history books must be wrong coz I've always thought that Spain remained nuetral during WW2. And the Allies didn't exactly make speedy progress up the Italian boot either.
If Britain wasn't in the war then where would have the American air force been based when raiding western Europe? And would the landing craft sail from Washington in order to invade France?

If Albert Einstein wasn't jewish,The germans would have won WWII

Einstein wasn´t only a jew but also a pacifist and enemy of Hitler. He would have been in opposition anyway.

Adler

Yeah, Einstein was too smart to be taken in by Hitler and his cronies.

Yeah, Einstein was too smart to be taken in by Hitler and his cronies.

what about all the scientists who did worh for hitler e.g. werner von-braun?

what about all the scientists who did worh for hitler e.g. werner von-braun?

May have been a patriot, or blind to what was really going on. A lot of German scientists worked for the Americans and Russians after the war so it may have been a money thing or they just loved doing their job.

Where are the Prince Eugenes or the Garibaldis of the past?

Adler

But were'nt they fightin' Italians?

Italy was a new born in WW1 and fought better and in worse terrain (alps)
than in WW2. Their was nothing wrong with the Italian infantryman, it was
a hopelessly corrupt officer core (leadership) and regime (crap equipment)
that produced Italy's failures in WW2.

The question was and is not the bravery of the soldiers but the effectivity of the Italian armed forces. And in three wars in Europe (German war 1866, WW1, WW2) and three in Africa (two attacks on Ethiopia and ww2) they looked very bad. In ww1 they were not able to crush the Austrian resistance in the alps although being much superior. 17 isonzo battles were not successful. The Austrian strike of 1916, in which the Austrian troops got to the gate to the Po flat, was only terminated because of the Russian Brussilov offensive. And the only big victory of the Italian forces was several days before the end of the war. No Italy was also in ww1 a bad ally.
Italy was unified finally like Germany in 1871. So it was Italy and no other state like the Kingdom of the two Sicilies fighting in ww1.

Adler

If I was stupid, I'd say Finland... The only thing we did was that we killed a lot of Russians... Although they started the war already in 1939. More here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War)

The Soviet's have a lot of real estate, so they either would've signed peace after the capturation of Leningrad, Moscow & Stalingrad. Or they would've continued to fight and eventually (if the Germans became too sure of themselves) invaded Germany.


... if D-Day had not hapened, the Germans could have thrown their full might upon the Soviets, and possibly delayed the end of the war until a potentially war-winning invention came along.

Germany's fate was sealed already in 1943, and it was only a question of time before the SU go into Berlin. And due to round-the-clock bombings by the US & Britain seriously reduced the oil refining & production of Germany.

Britain - no arguement. We hung on whilst the useless french capitulated.

I wouldn't call the French useless, unless I was ignorant. The French Poilus sustained heavy casualties. On a tactical side, the French blundered. However, they fought hard so the English could escape from Dunkerque. Then they fought in the Battle of Britain. And took part on commando raids. And landed on D-Day. And assasinated, held up and otherwise irritated Germans usingn the resistance. Remeber that France is on a land border to Germany, while Britain would need to cross a hundred or so (?) miles over the Channel.

And many collaborated with the Nazis. And conviently declared themselves heroes and resisters only once the German war effort was on the wane....still, atleast they resisted....many of their countrymen joined the Waffen SS. France got what she deserved after betraying the Czechs which she allied with such was her anti-german feeling...even though she had been a driving force in crippling Germany in Versailles in 1919.

Yes, wouldn't it have been preferable, from a traditional British perspective, if France, the old arch-enemy, had joined up with the Germans from the word "Go"? Then at least the French position in WWII would have made some kind of sense to them. ;) :mischief:

And many collaborated with the Nazis. And conviently declared themselves heroes and resisters only once the German war effort was on the wane....still, atleast they resisted....many of their countrymen joined the Waffen SS. France got what she deserved after betraying the Czechs which she allied with such was her anti-german feeling...even though she had been a driving force in crippling Germany in Versailles in 1919.

Like none of that applied to Britain. Collaborators were found everywhere; France, Holland, Germany, Belium, even Britain.
Conviniantly declared themselves resistants? Maybe. But there was one way to find out. Every member of the resistance (So I believe) was issued with an ID card from the FFI that ensured cooperation from the liberators and public. I know. I have a preserved example with my Grandfather's name on it at home.
Betraying the Czechs? Don't tell me you don't belive Britain had no part in that :rolleyes:. Chamberlain was as much, if not more, a part of the appeasement.
Waffen SS. Yep, Division Charlemagne. Sort of like the British Waffen divison the Legion of St. George later renamed the Britische Freikorps.
I really don't see how all of this pertains to France being useless.

Hmmm

I side mostly with nonconformist here in that the French were victims of bad geography and bad tactics in WWII. We had geography on our side, but I imagine if it hadn't been for the channel, we'd have capitulated and been in your words CD useless. Our performance in 1940 was hardly much better after all :p

I think on comparing the Charlemenge SS to the Legion of St George: The legion probably had no more than 30 members at any one time and no British officers, most of it's members were also rear-echelon troops. However it's probable that this figure would have been higher had the UK been overrun also. The French SS, like many non-germans in the German forces served for many reasons, some were nazis, others were anti-communists. Either way it is quite unfair to label the race usless and collaborators based on these small numbers of troops.

It's true that France sold the Czechs down the river, especially as she had a series of treaties with her at the time, but it's also true that the British were right alongside agreeing with it every step of the way. As for mass colaboration, you have to be realistic about these things. Many in France had to simply "collaborate" just to survive the war, even if that was just not being in the resistance or selling goods and working for the germans. Realisation of who ran the country then and doing what you had to in order to survive is not IMO collaboration.

Okay, comparing Charlemane to the Legion of St. George was slightly far fetched, but it was just an example to show how even the British "collaborated".

Verbose - No, most preferable would be an Anglo-German alliance against the French.
Regarding our part in the Czech crisis...We tried to appease Hitler yes, but it was the French, not the British who promised to protect the Czechs from German aggression...Britain told France that we would not support her in a war with Germany over the Czechs, and cowardly France sacrificed an ally in the Czechs because she couldnt rely on help from across the channel. The nation we vowed to protect was Poland. 1st September 1939 ...the rest, as they say, is history...

The Czech issue is an interesting one, however, though the French were acting appalingly, the British were acting no better. By refusing to back the French on the issue we colluded in the act of betrayal. It's unfair to blame the French solely for it because of that.

I also don't quite see what's so preferable about allying with the Nazis against the French :confused:

Why should we have backed the French? I recently produced a dissertation of British foreign policy during the 1930's and though i was critical of appeasement, Chamberlain was true in refering to the czechs as 'a far away country of which we no little'. You're ,issing the point in the sense that we didnt have the protection pact with the czechs, the french did. Also, why were we 'betraying' the french by not standing by them? In Britain during this time there was a lot of sympathy for Germany, a feeling that Hitler's grievances were just. Many people felt we shouldnt allow ourselves to be dictated by French policy.

In your opinion what country do you think is the most importaint country to the cause of WWII.
Germany. :lol: Hitler didn't have any grasp of strategy or tactics. But seriously, I agree with those who say all three played a role. The British held off the German grab for the oil supply. Had the Germans wrapped that up successfully, over time the British navy would have ceased to operate. As it was, Hitler didn't think of things, only dates, as being the objective. "Finish job A by such and such a date, or face the consequences."

The USSR (and its climate) ate up the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht, and for the first few years of that Heinz Guderian was reading the newspaper at home because Hitler didn't like him. But it took four years. Japan was engaged in a huge land war in China (had been for nearly ten years) and didn't need another enemy to fight. The USSR pulled 70 divisions out of the east after Molotov (I think it was) assured Stalin that Japan would abide by the pre-Soviet treaty it had with Russia. So the USSR was able to throw 70 new divisions against Operation Barbarrosa in very short order. Every truck and train rolled west fully loaded and returned (eventually) nearly empty.

The USSR kept insisting on having US Lend-Lease extended to itself, and eventually that took place. The USSR got a bunch of P38s out of that deal, along with various other provisions, ammo, arms, planes. And the USSR copied or built a lot of weapons systems, and of course poured out millions of lives. It's surprising in a way that the Germans were able to maintain such a long front against such a huge numerical superiority in such a terrible climate. Very high output machine guns were one of the ways they were able to do that.

The US was the arsenal, and of course sent 16 million into service (over 400,000 died; the USSR lost perhaps fifty times that many). The naval war against Japan covered (theoretically) half the world's surface and brought about the end of the Japanese occupation of China.

The convoy ships to keep Britain supplied were cranked out so quickly that Hitler reportedly remarked that the war was lost because they couldn't sink them fast enough (Hitler remarked that the war was lost a number of times). Chrysler built 30,000 tanks. The US built the amphibious landing vessels for D-day and 10s of 1000s of planes.

And now I'd have to add China to the list, since China's war with Japan went on a lot longer than did WWII and tied up large numbers of troops. Japan's naval tactics were a little dopey, regardless of the fact that the Japanese had no idea their codes had been broken.

Japan brought the US into the war in earnest with its Dec 7 attack, after a long series of embargos (scrap & oil) by FDR over Japanese conduct in the Far East. Dec 7 probably was the one day that had the most crucial importance in the entire war. Over time the European war would have wound down, probably to a negotiated armistice, because Britain didn't have the will or the means to reenter the land war against Germany. Germany's war of attrition in the east would have been even more costly to the USSR (the ratio of losses was perhaps 10:1 in favor of Germany) and would not have been sustainable. Elsewhere in Europe, Germany fought only low-grade guerrila wars until the invasion of Italy.

, I agree with those who say all three played a role.

Yes but the question is which country played the greatest role in winning. Britain obviously. Firstly, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the USSR was allied to Germany until operation Barbarossa, supplying oil and rubber to Germany, without which the campaign in the West would have been uterly impossible. So USSRs contribution was to extend the conflict quite substantially.

Secondly, had the UK not held out, Americas industrial might, as you correctly pointed out, would not have matched that of a mobilised and combined war economy of Russia and Europe under German domination. Added to this German war technology was in advance of the US (and don't even think of mentioning the A' bomb as Britian supplied all of the original research to the Americans which made it s building possible, on the promise that they would share the results, a promise they later went back on). In any case, why do we assume that America would have joined? Japan and then Hitler declared war, not the other way around. Do we have to assume that America would not have preferred peace with Germany? That they would not have is complete historical revisionism!


Thirdly, the political determination that Britain bought turned the fight against Facism into a global crusade, and the example set led many Americans into sympathy for the Allied cause. After the fall of France Britain and the Empire stood virtually alone. By the end of the war every remaining nation had joined the fight. (I think) Even Brazil sent 4000 troops to fight in Italy.

Once appeasment ended, we got stuck in. Shame the French didn't or we could have ended it sooner.

It's Britain and you all know it.

Get over it.

May have been a patriot, or blind to what was really going on. A lot of German scientists worked for the Americans and Russians after the war so it may have been a money thing or they just loved doing their job.
What? blind? to building flybombs? to concentration camp slave labour? Why can't some one be clever and evil. Intelligence is not about morality.

When someone thinks they are doing something right, they become blind to the truth.

hey, define 'right' and 'truth' ...

Yes but the question is which country played the greatest role in winning.
In that case, Germany.

Britain was able to resist because of US aid and Hitler's indifference to a cross-channel invasion. Britain was content letting Germany use itself up in the USSR, another foolish error by Hitler, while opposing Germany's navy, and on land only in north Africa.

Had Hitler bided his time, there would have been no future for an independent Britain, because as you mentioned, Hitler had an oil supply. Germany would have had time to build a massive navy and fully mobilize. Oops.

What? blind? to building flybombs? to concentration camp slave labour? Why can't some one be clever and evil. Intelligence is not about morality.

I don't think the use of the V1 and V2s was a war crime. Although they were launched indiscriminately at London it's was no worse than what the German cities got.

[QUOTE=SunkenCiv]In that case, Germany.

Britain was able to resist because of US aid and Hitler's indifference to a cross-channel invasion.
Had Hitler bided his time, there would have been no future for an independent QUOTE]

Oops shmoops.

You can't state Germany as a a country in important to winning the war for obvious reasons.

Hitler wasen't indifferent to a cross chanel invasion. He was actually very keen on it. He only appeared indifferent after the attempt failed. "well we were never really serious about it anyway" kind of attitude.

In any case, were talking about which country was the most important factor: not what would have happened if any country had to fight the war themselves.

Actually, Hitler hoped Britain would exit the war in 1940 after France's cowardly surrender, thus Operation Sealion wouldnt have to take place and all Germany's efforts concentrated in the East. Even if an invasion did take place, i dont see how there would have been no place for an independent Britain....the Germans would have withdrawn in time.

hey, define 'right' and 'truth' ...
If you think murdering prisoners or civilians is right, because you have been thoroughly indoctrinated, you become blind to the fact that it is criminal.

If you think murdering prisoners or civilians is right, because you have been thoroughly indoctrinated, you become blind to the fact that it is criminal.
It might be wrong for us, but for its moral for some other people.

Actually, Hitler hoped Britain would exit the war in 1940 after France's cowardly surrender, thus Operation Sealion wouldnt have to take place and all Germany's efforts concentrated in the East. Even if an invasion did take place, i dont see how there would have been no place for an independent Britain....the Germans would have withdrawn in time.

From what I've read I think Hitler had a great deal of respect for Britain and her Empire. He was far more intimidated by her than he was of the French. Len Deighton wrote a good book about an occupied Britain- SS GB.

Everyone.

I would have to say the British performed the most important act of the war. They refused to sue for peace. If they had, the Germans could have concentrated solely on Russia and may have won. The U.S. would not have gotten involved in the European War, and even if they had, there would be no place to strike Germany from.

Well, WWII was effectively two wars- Europe and Pacific.
Europe was mainly fought by USSR, Pacific by USA and the Brits helped greatly on both fronts, but really they were dwarved by the power of the USSR and USA.

From what I've read I think Hitler had a great deal of respect for Britain and her Empire. He was far more intimidated by her than he was of the French. Len Deighton wrote a good book about an occupied Britain- SS GB.
Could be due to nazi race theories. His whole world view told him to respect the English since he considered them as part of the "nordic" and "aryan" race. The French less so. That the British empire for him "proved" the inherent superiority of white "aryans" helped. Hitler saw British India as The Example of whites as a "natural aristocracy" and he itched to prove his point by imposing something similar (as he saw it) on eastern Europe.:crazyeye:
(It's possible these theories saved Sweden from occupation in 1940. The nazis believed it would take 30 divisions for a successful campaign against Sweden, which is frankly ridiculous. The Swedes were widely overstimated because of their perceived "race".) :blush:

I think the reason the Germans always kept Nordic countries defended was because of Commando raids like Narvik or Vaagso. Also, prior to D-Day, the land land in the North.

Plus a signifigant amount of British intelligence was devoted towards persuading the Germans that the allied invasion of Europe would either be there, Pas De Calais, or the Balkans. There's a good article on d-day deceptions in this month's Fortean Times for those who might be interested :) The stuff the British came up with was just phenomenal :goodjob:

after France's cowardly surrender
Cowardly? They had no bloody choice! :mad:
Continuing to fight would have been futile, and doomed to failure. France did what was the best for their country. They should not be called cowardly for that.

And on-topic: Either the British or the Russians. Winning would have been nigh on impossible without the sacrifices of the Russians.

True Hudson - a particular favourite genius bluff of mine was the British convincing the Germans that Sicilly would not be invaded, by planting a body with false papers that suggested an invasion would take place through the balkans, in Spanish waters. The body, on being identified by Spanish authorities was reported to the British consulate. Britain demanded that the papers be returned to her immediately as they were highly confidential. They duly were, but an examination of them when they returned showed that it was folded in a slightly different area to how it had been originally, so we knew the Spanish had opened them and read them, and most likely passed them on to German agents.

Cowardly? They had no bloody choice! :mad:
Continuing to fight would have been futile, and doomed to failure. France did what was the best for their country. They should not be called cowardly for that.
Sure they had a choice. Chancellor-dan is ungenerous towards the French who never surrendered, the Free French, but the truth of the matter (and if there is anything shameful in this) is that the French political leadership chose not to continue fighting, unlike the Poles, the Norwegians, the Dutch, etc. ("Never look for leadership in the political class of this country", as one French jouranlist recently put it.) Thus the need for de Gaulle to actually save France. The Vichy was a good nazi ally, sympathetic to its kind of anti-modernist, authoritarian politics. If nothing else the overseas colonies were mostly safe from Germany and could have gone on fighting. Indochina went with the Vichy, so did Syria (where the Free French actually had to fight their way into Damascus through the Vichy troops). The Free French managed to bag sub-saharan Africa however and set up a government in Brazzaville. All of this amounted to a French national trauma. It's not exactly France's finest hour and the know it.

No, but the resistants, heroes like Jean Moulin or André Heinz were not cowardly. Nor the French that took part in the Battle of Britain, who covered their faces up during photos, sao not to be recognised by the Gestapo, who would take reprisals. However, the Milice were a bad lot, basically a French Gestapo, and after the liberation resistants hunted all collaborators and milice doen and executed them.

No, but the resistants, heroes like Jean Moulin or André Heinz were not cowardly.
I'm relativist enough to think that those Frenchmen who went with Vichy out of conviction weren't necessarily cowardly either. The Vichy came about in a situation when all the wrong people in France got into power, and the military defeat opened the way. Sometimes it helps to think of WWII from a French perspective as a kind of civil war over what France should be. (And the good guys won.)
Question can of course be asked if the collaboration is in any way representative of France and the French? Most of them would definately say no and treat Vichy as an aberration. (I do, and feel entirely justified in doing so.) At the same time there seems to be a kind of British gut reaction where France is concerned, where it is assumed that whatever the French get up to it is wrong, disgusting of possibly both. I don't put that much store by it, since you can find its mirror image among some french people.;)

I think Phillipe Petain is a collaborative coward. He collaborated with the Germans and acted almost as Vidkung Quisling, the only reason he was not executed was his heroism in WWI.

Here's a thought:
Winning the war was necessary.
Even more so was winning the peace.
The allies won the war together, but it was the US, Britain and France who won the peace. Witness how chancellor Schröder has now declared D-day to have been the beginning of the liberation of Germany.
Russia lost it.

The Swedes were widely overstimated because of their perceived "race".) :blush:

That's because Swedish chicks are hot! :mischief:

That's because Swedish chicks are hot! :mischief:
Looking around, I often feel sort of blessed.;):blush:

Here's a thought:
Winning the war was necessary.
Even more so was winning the peace.
The allies won the war together, but it was the US, Britain and France who won the peace. Witness how chancellor Schröder has now declared D-day to have been the beginning of the liberation of Germany.
Russia lost it.

How can America have won the peace? It was as involved in the cold war as the USSR (though it did treat its residents better).

Traditional European wars: One winner, happy as anything. One looser, training hard for the re-match. You didn't get that after WWII. Everyone in Europe is happy with the outcome, including the Germans.
As far as the US winning the peace, I was mainly thinking of the Marshall Plan. Britain may have been the greatest beneficiary, but we all got a nice big chunk out of that pie. (Neutral Sweden included.)
The Cold War was another war.

Everyone.

I would have to say the British performed the most important act of the war. They refused to sue for peace. If they had, the Germans could have concentrated solely on Russia and may have won. The U.S. would not have gotten involved in the European War, and even if they had, there would be no place to strike Germany from.

Hmmm... lets change the nations and some verbs:

I would have to say the Russians performed the most important act of the war. They refused to get owned by Germany. If they hadn´t , the Germans afterwards could have concentrated solely on UK and may have won. The U.S. would not have gotten involved in the European War (maybe defending GB, but if NAZI germany almost managed to deafeat a huge country like Russia...) and even if they had, there would be no place to strike Germany from.

Doubtless Mr Schroeder's father and his family were feverant anti-Nazis during the Third Reich's existence...not. He's another hypocrite i suspect whose parents supported the regime

the French political leadership chose not to continue fighting, unlike the Poles, the Norwegians, the Dutch, etc.

Keeping fighting didn't do the Poles, Dutch etc. much good though did it? People always bring up the French surrender but the fact is that an American civilian, or even a British one during the Blitz, never experienced anything like a division of panzers rolling up their street.

Doubtless Mr Schroeder's father and his family were feverant anti-Nazis during the Third Reich's existence...not. He's another hypocrite i suspect whose parents supported the regime

That's not a very intelligent post bcause:

1.If his parents were "feverant anti-Nazis", it is extremely likely the Gestapo would have picked them up.
2. One's parents being one thing does not (always) contribute to one's views.
3. Not that many Germans were Nazis oe supported the regime. Being in the army, or not opposing the regime does not make you a Nazi. To support the Nazi regime one would have to either:
-Join the Nazi Party
-Volunarily join Nazi organisaions (E.g Hitler Jugend, SS, Gestapo, but NOT the Wehrmacht).
-Contribute funds to the Nazis
-Take part in Nazi acts(e.g I.G Farben)
4. Some famous and important people were Nazis: Gert Frobe, German actor played Auric Goldinger in the Bond film, Wernher Von Braun, NASA technician, helped hugely the American space race, and partially responsible for the moon landings.

hence, I conclude that unless you proove Herr Schroeder's father was any of the things in point 3, they are Nazis. IF not, ther are German.

I think it is beautiful that Schroeder is going to Normandy, and that the French and Germans have patched up their differences. France was treated terribly by the Germans, who commmited many atrocities. It is good to see that it is being overlooked, and that the Germans can say "Yes, WWII was our darkest hour. We fought for the wrong cause, and we lost, but we are now above that".

Doubtless Mr Schroeder's father and his family were feverant anti-Nazis during the Third Reich's existence...not. He's another hypocrite i suspect whose parents supported the regime

Is there even any evidence to support your statement? I think if his mom and dad were former Nazi sympathizers it would have made headlines.

How would we know if they were Nazi sympathisers? I think you need to look at the wider picture of what i was saying..maybe it's you whose not intelligent. The point i was making is many Germans today criticise the Third Reich when they supported it 70 years ago.

Not that many Germans supported the The Third Reich by 1945. They supported, to an extent (for remember, Hitler never had a majority in the Reichstag) Hitler during the mid 1930s, because he offered hope "Unsere Letze Hoffnong" (our last hope), but by 1945, he was unpopular. Even his army high command tried to kill him! And also, we would know if Schroeder's parents were Nazis during the Allied period of DeNazification, where Nazis were found out, and forced to watch movies of Nazi crimes. Oh, and whose should be Who's as it is an abbreviated version of who is.

I think correcting my grammar was quite predictable and tiresome. Like many of your arguements. You should be British, but your constant pro-french views are tantamount to treason in the eyes of a true Englishman. What is the relevance of whether they supported Hitler or not in 1945? It goes without saying that Germany's collapse would turn the tide of opinions, that's true in any case. I did say 70 years ago, ie the pre-war years. True he didnt get a majority even despite high intimidation, but from the mid thirties to Stalingrad most Germans were pro-Hitler, thats not a criticism - most of us would be too, in the circumstances. A friend of my grandfather's, a briton, had been in a German village in the 1930s when hitler passed through on open top car...the man subconsciencously found himself saluting - it's easy to fall into hitler's lure. The criticism is that Germans today will say they never supported the Nazis, when many of them did. I just wish they'd be honest because Germany is a splendid nation far superior to your beloved France.

:lol: This is rapidly degrading into a trolling session. Treason by saying France was not the worse army.
Take an Atlas. Go to Europe. See that big blue thing between Britain and Germany? That's water. It doesn't react to well with tanks.
Now I'm half French, so I'm likely to be slightly biased, but I seem to remembet the BEF was absolutely thrashed. The only reason Britain wasn't invaded is because of the Channel. The Blitzkrieg tactics can't work over water.

Treason? William Joyce was a traitor. He was executed. The hundred or so SS British, they also are traitors.
Of course people were pro-Hitler. They had the worse hyper-inflation in history, they lost half their territory, they took the blame.....they were desperate. Hitler was a very charismatic man. Watch his speeches or listen to him. He has an effect on people.

Pro-Hitler...that is very different from Nazism. Of course a lot of Germans had no idea of the atrocities the Nazis commited. Unlike the government you so intensely defend who had every knowledge of concentration camps, but did nothing.

I agree that many criticise it now who supported it earlier, however, many of those who supported Hitler in the 30s had no earthly idea that it would lead to the holocaust and the rest of the Nazi party's hatred. It's entirely legitimate for them to now criticise it, even if they did support it, they after all have had to learn their lessons of supporting hatred and xenophobia.

Talking of which...

You should be British, but your constant pro-french views are tantamount to treason in the eyes of a true Englishman

:rolleyes: This is an example of your logic is it? I'm English, that doesn't mean we have to be anti-french. It saddens me to see that there are still people in my country so obsessed with hating a nation rather than finding ways to reconcile ourselves with it. :sad:

And in case anyone cares to ask, I'm not half french ;)

You can't state Germany as a a country in important to winning the war for obvious reasons.
I already have stated it, so for obvious reasons, you are wrong.

Hitler wasen't indifferent to a cross chanel invasion. He was actually very keen on it. He only appeared indifferent after the attempt failed.
Germany never attempted an invasion. The air war against Britain lacked direction, although one reason given for it was to soften up various proposed landing sites. The fact remains that Hitler launched Barbarossa because he made war by timetable. As a spokesperson for London city buses once said, "we can't be expected to keep our timetable if we have to stop for passengers."

The schedule for a German invasion of Britain kept slipping, but little was being done about British naval strength.

In the book "Interrogations" various captives noted that Hitler and others were concerned that the British Navy was too strong for Germany to invade. Germany opened up a second front before it was ready (if indeed it ever could have been) rather than prepare the UK invasion. Keitel said that if the USSR could have been overcome by 1941 and forced to capitulate all would have been fine, and that he'd held that view at the outset. He also noted that Germany had only six divisions on the eastern front after the division of Poland, and that continuous guerrila warfare was going on, along with a massive buildup of Soviet forces, and increasing territorial and other demands that Hitler couldn't accept. Had the non-aggression pact not been signed, or Stalin's bluff ignored, the issue of a vulnerable eastern border wouldn't have arisen, and the overwhelming of western Europe including the UK could have gone forward.

In any case, were talking about which country was the most important factor: not what would have happened if any country had to fight the war themselves.
The most important country in the defeat of the Axis was Germany.

Britain comes somewhere after the US and USSR, but before Poland and France. :lol:

Interrogations by Miroslav Verner
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670030082/sunkencivilizati

Take an Atlas. Go to Europe. See that big blue thing between Britain and Germany? That's water. It doesn't react to well with tanks.
Heh... well said.
The only reason Britain wasn't invaded is because of the Channel. The Blitzkrieg tactics can't work over water.
A quibble -- the Channel was a surmountable obstacle, but Germany did little to eliminate the British navy, which made any cross-channel invasion impractical. So, Germany never tried it.
Now I'm half French... I seem to remembet the BEF was absolutely thrashed.
Now I'm half fried, but I remember it that way also. Had it not been for Hitler's micromanagement, the entire BEF and whatever was left of the French army would have been captured at Dunkirk instead of evacuated. That could have led to the fall of Churchill and a return to an appeasement gov't in the UK.
Of course people were pro-Hitler. They had the worse hyper-inflation in history, they lost half their territory, they took the blame.....they were desperate. Hitler was a very charismatic man. Watch his speeches or listen to him. He has an effect on people.
WWII was rooted in the terms of "peace" imposed by Britain and France after WWI. The world economy took a big dump during and after WWI, and US tariff policies made that worse.

Of course a lot of Germans had no idea of the atrocities the Nazis commited. Unlike the government you so intensely defend who had every knowledge of concentration camps, but did nothing.
People all over Europe and the world were pro-Hitler. And even those against him were mostly indifferent to the Holocaust.

Knowledge of the mass murder of millions was known in Germany. The war crimes (murder of POWs and other captives) were carried out by 100s of 1000s or perhaps millions of German soldiers as well as soldiers of occupied countries serving in the Waffen SS. The Red Army did the same thing. For that matter, there's testimony to the effect that perhaps as many as 2 million German POWs were starved (some to death) after the war in camps built and operated by Britain, France, and the US.

Soviet misconduct is also documented.

Doubtless Mr Schroeder's father and his family were feverant anti-Nazis during the Third Reich's existence...not. He's another hypocrite i suspect whose parents supported the regime
;) Schroeder is a hideous monster (politically speaking). It's hard to believe his deluded followers wave away the fact that he engaged in violence during the 1970s, including his (photographed) beating of a German police officer (he had help of course, being a coward). Like all leftist youngsters, he advocated a single party state, and engaged in and supported violent acts to establish one in Germany.

Hmm. And what was it that Hitler did? Oh, yeah, that's right, he engaged in and supported violent acts to establish a single party state in Germany.

Keeping fighting didn't do the Poles, Dutch etc. much good though did it? People always bring up the French surrender but the fact is that an American civilian, or even a British one during the Blitz, never experienced anything like a division of panzers rolling up their street.
You're right about the panzers of course. As far as the fighting not doing Norwegians, Dutch, Poles etc. any good, you may be right about that too.:) But they did help the war effort. So did the Free French, not unconsiderably.

What I meant is that if the legal French government had chosen to go into exile in London, it would have been a natural rallying point for those Frenchmen (sometimes whole regiments turning up at the British doorstep) who wanted to go on fighting. The governments of several other allied countries did just that. The Germans would have set up a puppet governement, but everyone would have known that the legal French governement was the one in London. First the surrender and then the Vichy Republic complicated the situation no end for the French. And de Gaulle and his Free French were initially a completely unknown factor. It was quite a feat on his part, managing to persuade Churchill and Roosevelt (and the French) that he actually represented France. (Even if he was though of as the new Joan of Arc, AND had "hips like a woman" as someone on the British side commented.;))
I wasn't critical of the French in general, just the governement that surrendered in 1940, when it could have escaped to continue the fight. For all we know, maybe it was a good thing it was the French who landed in a pickle like that? Frenchmen actually had to think and decide for themselves. Who's to say the British in a similar predicament wouldn't just have followed the orders of their new governement?:mischief::crazyeye:

Again you miss the point...it's acceptable with hindsight to say yes the Nazis were bad...but where you miss the point is that they wont admitt they supported them.

And you skirt round the issue about the English and French to make such a moot point.

Regarding what you said about the English and French....yes you should view them as enemies..we were only at war with them for 100 years afterall. England play France in 8 days too, another reason to stir up the rivalry.

Regarding what you said about the English and French....yes you should view them as enemies..we were only at war with them for 100 years afterall.

:lol: That would be what the 14th and 15th centuries right? :rolleyes:

Damn, and I wondered why some americans accuse the British of living in the past :sad:

England play France in 8 days too, another reason to stir up the rivalry.

Don't much follow football, be happy to see the team win, but I see no reason to view them as mortal enemies just because of a football game :p

France has been an ally of sorts for what 100 years? (since the entente), I've spent some part of nearly every holiday I have ever been on there (maybe 35 times) and have found the French to be very nice people overall. I prefer to live in the present, not drag up old rivalries in order to feed some ridiculous notion that we should hate/oppose our neighbours.

Friendly rivalry is one thing, treating a country as out and out enemies and showing a blatant disregard for certain facts when dealing with their history is another entirely. :mischief:

The Entente Cordiale means we must like the French? That deal was made in a search for security, it doesn't mean Joe Public has to celebrate it. Britons in the trenches of France during the Great War must have cursed the fact that they were livingi n muddy ditches, fighting for France cause against our German brethren, whilst the French troops were in a state of mutiny. As for the 2nd world war, i've already stated that the British public was sympathetic to German grievances over the shame of 1919 and the was a great deal of Francophobia.

The Entente Cordiale means we must like the French?

Not at all, I'm just pointing out that 100 years of non-agression and for much of that alliance is more important than a 100 year war that happened 5 centuries ago :mischief: Since you put so much faith in a century of foreign policy being the same, I was merely commenting that perhaps you might want to pay attention to the century that is nearer to our own lives :lol:

That deal was made in a search for security, it doesn't mean Joe Public has to celebrate it.

My thinking is that we should celebrate alliances, allies, friends, common things amongst our people and so on. You seem hell bent on ignoring selective parts of our history to follow some pro-german, anti-french notion that makes no sense whatsoever. I don't much care what Joe Public does or does not do, I choose to celebrate our relationship with the french because I think it's important and because I think that had we been in their position, we would have done not much better either.

Britons in the trenches of France during the Great War must have cursed the fact that they were livingi n muddy ditches, fighting for France cause against our German brethren, whilst the French troops were in a state of mutiny.

:lol: Bretheren? This is an interesting comment :lol: I suppose the fact that these "bretheren" fought two world wars against us and twice tried to starve these islands doesn't sink into your world view huh? :rolleyes: I guess you'd like to remind me of Wellington's time when we were allied to the Prussians against the French, only 200 years ago after all :lol:

I imagine they cursed every officer around them and the generals especially :mischief:

As for the 2nd world war, i've already stated that the British public was sympathetic to German grievances over the shame of 1919 and the was a great deal of Francophobia.

Sympathetic to Germany's initial cause does not in any way mean that the British public or Politicians were willing to sit by and watch the Germans overrun neutral after Neutral in the name of reversing Versailles. Even the appeasers eventually recognised that Hitler was too big a threat. For all that the British were prepared to concede on Versailles, much of the last concessions were done in the aim of buying time to re-arm for the inevitable.

It really does intruige me to know how you can continue to put up such a continuous stream of anti-french rubbish despite any kind of logic or facts presented against it. I can only presume that continuing such a discussion is worthless (especially since it's mostly off topic) as you seem to have some form of pathalogical inability to see French actions in an unbiased view.

Interesting. Because i disagree with you, i'm illogical. Yes, anyone who opposes France is illogical in your warped view. Fine, you celebrate the friendship with France, but i don't see how its a great crime to be pro-German, considering they have the racial link with us, and i have German relations myself. Instead you claim things become irrelevant with time, just because the wars with Germany were more recent means we should feel more animosity to them than the French. I think not. You dismiss the public sympathy for Germany, but i feel it's quite significant..it showed the tiredness of seeing British policy dictated by the froggies. It's also felt that an Anglo-German alliance would have been more beneficial to Europe's security in the First World War, as the Kaiser said 'With your Navy and our Army, not a mouse will stir in Europe without our security'...instead we're lumped with the French....ah, what might have been...

Interesting. Because i disagree with you, i'm illogical. Yes, anyone who opposes France is illogical in your warped view.

No, I find you illogical because you repeatedly ignore facts to be anti-french just for the sake of it. I don't see any reason to be anti-anyone based on some war fought 5 centuries/2 centuries/whenever. Every remark you make about them is either biased against them or totally derogatory, I find such hatred to be illogical.

Fine, you celebrate the friendship with France, but i don't see how its a great crime to be pro-German, considering they have the racial link with us, and i have German relations myself

I never said it was :rolleyes: I find it silly to be anti-anyone though based on a history that was so far into the past that no-one alive now ever experienced. And I hate to be terribly pedantic, but the French have strong racial links to us as well. Just because I have Irish distant ancestors doesn't mean I use it as a reason to hate myself for being english :mischief:

Instead you claim things become irrelevant with time, just because the wars with Germany were more recent means we should feel more animosity to them than the French.

Wrong. I don't feel or wish to feel any animosity against the Germans, I'm merely turning your logic on it's head. If we are to oppose someone's country based on 100 years of political opposition or wars then surely you should oppose the germans also. If we're to oppose them based on Football, then since the Germans have knocked us out of 2 tournaments on penalties in recent times then we should oppose them.

I don't feel animosity towards any country or set of people unlike you :mischief:

I think not. You dismiss the public sympathy for Germany, but i feel it's quite significant..it showed the tiredness of seeing British policy dictated by the froggies.

And I put forward the theory that after Hitler's policies went beyond the mere reversal of the Versailles treaty, his political support here dropped alongside his public support. After he broke his promises over the Czechs I think that even the public began to realise that whatever sympathy we may have once had for Germany rebuilding herself, Hitler was making Germany into the threat it once was to our security again. British policy is also about not allowing 1 country to gain dominance of Europe over any one other. Hitler aimed to do this, Britain was bound to stop her. Don't confuse the British publics lack of will to fight another bloody war with anti-french, totally pro-german feelings.

It's also felt that an Anglo-German alliance would have been more beneficial to Europe's security in the First World War, as the Kaiser said 'With your Navy and our Army, not a mouse will stir in Europe without our security'...instead we're lumped with the French....ah, what might have been...

:lol: Wishful thinking, the germans would have used it to dominate Europe whilst we sat on the sidelines. I'm sure that would have been terribly useful :rolleyes: I don't think we should or could have trusted the Kaiser at that time.

Like I said, I'm not anti-german, it's just your logic in reverse. If you dislike people being what you see as "anti-german", then you should look in the mirror. The reasons used are exactly those that you use against the French. Only difference is that I don't use those reasons to be anti-german and probably never will. As I said, I see no need to be anti-anyone and I doubt I will ever see one. :)

Anyway, enough for now, I doubt any of this will penetrate the shield of ignorance you've put up, and I have no desire to further drag this thread off topic. Anything else you have to say on the subject I suggest you do through PM or move to another topic, and allow this thread to return to it's actual topic :)

they wont admitt they supported them.

Err.....yes they did. Gert Frobe the actor, voluntarily came out with the fact he was a member of the Nazi Party. Albert Speer pleaded guilty at Nuremberg, and denounced the Nazis, spent 20 years in prison, and wrote books upon the subject, and AFAIK his diary was published including phrases such as "I saw Hitler speak. He was hypnotic. I joined the Nazi Party the next day".

And all your blatantly anti-French views make me wonder if you are a member of the British Independent party?

"Britain was bound to stop her. Don't confuse the British publics lack of will to fight another bloody war with anti-french, totally pro-german feelings."

Well, the public was far more ready to fight than the British government- Churchill had been constantly trying to find ways to escape from the Polish alliance, since he agreed with Germany's rights over Danzig and knew that they could never in a million years stop Germany from crushing Poland. Churchill probably would have left the alliance, only the public would have seen it as an act of cowardice and betrayal.
Indeed, if those idiots in the Polish goverment had simply handed over Danzig to the Germans, there would have been no war, or at the least it would have been delayed a lot.

The obvious answer is the USA. The allies would not have held without the boundless supply of american production.

Indeed, if those idiots in the Polish goverment had simply handed over Danzig to the Germans, there would have been no war, or at the least it would have been delayed a lot

Delaying the war would gain very little if anything to be frank. As proven by Czechoslovakia, Hitler probably wouldn't have stopped at Danzig either. Sooner or later someone had to draw a line in the sand and refuse to watch another neutral fall into Hitler's clutches. Besides that, Hitler had been spoiling for a war since Munich, indeed cursed Chamberlin later in the war for preventing this. Delaying it at Munich possibly did more harm than good anyway. If it hadn't been over Poland, it would have been over another Neutral country.

Besides, Churchill couldn't do anything about it anyway, Chamberlin and Halifax were running the country back then and Churchill was hardly even listened to half the time ;)

On topic: I hardly think reducing WWII to simple logistics though provides us with the definitive answer to the country that did the most.

Well, in terms of the sacrifice made by a country, it would be USSR, it single-handedly (except for the Desert War, where the British bravely faced 3 whole panzer divisions) fought Germany and won. USA was fighting an entirely seperate war and Britian was simply too weak.

Err.....yes they did. Gert Frobe the actor, voluntarily came out with the fact he was a member of the Nazi Party. Albert Speer pleaded guilty at Nuremberg, and denounced the Nazis, spent 20 years in prison, and wrote books upon the subject, and AFAIK his diary was published including phrases such as "I saw Hitler speak. He was hypnotic. I joined the Nazi Party the next day".

Thats a very small minority.

And all your blatantly anti-French views make me wonder if you are a member of the British Independent party?

Who? Do you mean British National Party or United Kingdom Independence Party?

I found out about Gerhardt Schroeder's father in a newspaper this morning.
He never kneww his father. Fritz Schroeder was a soldier in the Wehrmacht, and made up part of the rear guard protecting the Wehrmacht in Romania from the Red Army, when he, and a group of other soldiers were shot by Romanian civilians. Their bodies were buried in the village graveyard. Schroeder only recently found out about his father, and said that he doesn't blame the civilians, but the "criminal regime" his father had to serve.

Who? Do you mean British National Party or United Kingdom Independence Party?

Either. The British independent party is just a watered down version of the BNP anyway.

Hmmm... lets change the nations and some verbs:

I would have to say the Russians performed the most important act of the war. They refused to get owned by Germany. If they hadn´t , the Germans afterwards could have concentrated solely on UK and may have won. The U.S. would not have gotten involved in the European War (maybe defending GB, but if NAZI germany almost managed to deafeat a huge country like Russia...) and even if they had, there would be no place to strike Germany from.

Conquering Russia would have done nothing for Germany. All of the armies they had used to do so would have to remain as occupation forces. At most the Germans would have freed up a few armored units and supplies. The issue that Germany had with invading Britain was lack of landing craft and lack of long range bombers. I don't think this could have been easily and quickly overcome.

Conquering Russia would have done nothing for Germany. All of the armies they had used to do so would have to remain as occupation forces.

Maybe in the short term, but long term Hitler's goal was to exploit the vast Russian natural resources and use a bare minimum of military and administrative personnel to control a population of illiterate and poverty stricken slaves...apparently the British control of India was the model for this idea. But it might not have worked in Russia, Hitler totally underestimated the level of co-operation from local power structures in India.

I already have stated it, so for obvious reasons, you are wrong.

Listen matey, How can Germany be the most important country in its defeat?
You are effectively saying
'had Germany not started the war it would never have happened egro ipso facto Germany is the most important country in the defeat of Germany' :crazyeye:

You are constantly arguing hypotheticals and I have been arguing facts. And you completely missed my point about 'attempting' invasion and so doing have exemplified my point about rewriting history. The bombing of air bases and stockpilling of landing vessels constitutes an attempt (It didn't have to actually be successful to constitute an attempt) at invasion. The fact that the rest of it didn't come to fruition because of the power of the Royal Navy is neither here nor there.


Of course afterwards the Germans can say "well we never really that interseted in invading, we were just softening them up". If they had succeeded thy wouldn't have said that.

Also I must take issue with a number of people whose view of the three protagonits can be summed up as (paraphrasing Stalin) "Britain=time, America=resoures Russia=men".

Firstly, Britains material contribution was enormous. Britain fought for longer and on more fronts. For Britain WWII was truly global, not a local affair. Look at the fronts
Homefront/ Battle of Britain
Continent
Battle of the Atlantic
Burma
Middle east/Africa
Mediteranean

This is hardly the commitment of a "weak" nation...
Secondly, why use Americas industrial producion as a means of insubstanting Britains material contribution, which was in any case enormous?
The issue of Russias war dead as an important factor constantly arises in this discussion and is given far more importance than it should. The Germans could shoot as many men as they were had bullets to shoot them with. What is the strategic significance of sending unarmed men agianst machine gun nests? The Russian dead in world war II indicate the criminal nature of Stalins regime, not necessarily a good yardstick for their overall contribution.

When taken together, Britains contribution to victory in WWII was far and away the greatest.

The issue that Germany had with invading Britain was lack of landing craft and lack of long range bombers. I don't think this could have been easily and quickly overcome.

Hmmm, germany did have long range bombers, just not being used for the role needed. The FW Condor could have done a similar role, perhaps not as well as purpose built bombers such as a lancaster or B17, but I guess it could have been used. Further on the issue of Sealion, the Luftwaffe could have cleared the skies over southern England had it continued with it's early BOB policy of attacking airfields, factories and so on. What then would have happened is anyone's guess as to if Hitler would risk an invasion into the teeth of the RN, but I would suggest that the heavy bomber was not essential to winning the skies over at least southern England and therefore pushing towards invasion, at least not in 1940 when the situation in the British forces favoured it more.

However, one thing the BOB did do, distraction or genuine attempt at invasion aside was to whittle down the Luftwaffe's strength in planes and manpower that would have been much better used in Russia. The Luftwaffe was designed more for close ground support and air superiority, and the reduction in both fighters, ground attack planes and light/medium bombers (along with the veteran crews) that was caused over England cannot help but have had an affect on the performance of the Luftwaffe in the east and Africa. That's perhaps a rather overlooked point when discussing the Battle of Britain, it may or may not have prevented invasion, but it did affect the Luftwaffe heavily.

Furthermore, on British contributions, the resistance movements that were founded in most of occupied europe (obviously not including places like Russia and so on) were almost totally the work of the British support. The convoys of supplies that did reach Russia and enabled the Russians to continue fighting right up to Berlin were mostly convoys the British ran. American goods are no use to the Russians at the bottom of the Atlantic, or in America after all! Britain it was that broke enigma, and so on.

I'm still of the opinion that no one country did more than the other, but I dislike the British efforts being played down. :mischief:

Conquering Russia would have done nothing for Germany. All of the armies they had used to do so would have to remain as occupation forces. At most the Germans would have freed up a few armored units and supplies. The issue that Germany had with invading Britain was lack of landing craft and lack of long range bombers. I don't think this could have been easily and quickly overcome.

What about the Caucasus oil fields? And the the Ukrainian wheat fields? To name just 2. These would have solved Germany's supply problems and the Royal Navy would have had nothing to do. Not to mention the fact that it would have saved Germany from a 2 front war and given them limitless supplies of labour. The units the Germans had deployed in France on D-Day would have been much more powerful on land and in the air.

I agree with Privatehudson, the British armed Tito's boys and they were a constant thorn in the German's side.

Also, the British involvment in any major war during the 20th Century guarenteed the participation of Commonwealth troops as well.

All partisans were a constant thorn in the Germans' side.

forgive me for not reading all 9 pages, but to the orginial question:

Britain gave time

Russia gave blood

America gave supplies

all were equally important.

Forgive me as well for not reading all 9 pages. My opinion is that had the US simply supplied Britain and the USSR as it did, its involvement in Europe would have been unnecessary. In the Pacific, it was the main driving force behind victory but in Europe, D-Day, however great of a sacrifice it was, came after the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, which doomed the Germans to defeat. The USSR really was the key to defeating the Germans. Had D_Day not occurred, they still would have defeated Nazi Germany (with US supplies and British and US air power occupying the Luftwaffe in the west).

It seems that everyone is missing out on a huge point here: WWII was not strictly a European conflict. Remember Japan? Maybe someone pointed that out earlier, but I didn't have time to read all 9 pages.

I think without the involvement of the Japanese, then the balance of the USSR, US, and Britian (along with the numerous other allies that everyone forgets, like India and Australia) would have been equally as important in winning the war.

Everyone points out the fact that Germany lost because they were fighting a multiple-front war against powerful adversaries. What about Japan? America (and the USSR and Australia to a lesser extent) was given the task of keeping the Japanese powerhouse at bay, and that was another huge front. Almost alone, the Americans fought some of the most vicious battles against the Japanese Imperial forces in the Pacific theater, and won. I think this fact (at the risk of sounding like an arrogant SOB) makes the Americans the most important ally in winning WWII. The Japanese had Russia in their sights (they'd already fought them in 1905 and won), and had taken out China, and were all set to move on Australia. Without the Americans to have taken the Japanese down, Germany's defeat would have been less strategically important because a more powerful enemy would have been in control of the world's largest ocean, and much of Asia

emmm.......the Japanese hadn't taken down the chinese....

emmm.......the Japanese hadn't taken down the chinese....

Um... yeah they really kinda did. Pretty brutally in fact. They never really completely defeated them militarily, per se, but they did kill more than 15 million of them. I'd say that's pretty well taken down. People know that 50 million people died in WWII. The 6 million Jews, all those millions of Russians and Germans, and the whole bunch of French, English, Americans, Japanese, etc. But no one ever gives the recognition to all those Chinese that they deserve.

emmm.......the Japanese hadn't taken down the chinese....


Then perhaps you might want to explain why huge strechs of China were under Japanese occupation?

The Japanese did indeed occupy the majority of China, but the Chinese Nationalist and Communists Government were never fully crushed. extremely weakened, but not crushed. They continued to fight on. (I assume that "taken down" means knocked out of the war)

Italy! If they would have done their job right Germany would have won.

Adler
Therefore,it wan't Italy,it was Greece.Italy did her job relatively right(they were more,better armed,quite courageous),but Greece was desided to make HER job better than Italy.But only Greece wouldn't be enough(for goodness sake,8 millions against more than 100 millions better-armed axis forces!)so I could say that these who actually were the most important(in order) were these:
a)USSR(she fought Germans closer than anyone so Germans lost mainly by them)
b)England(They played very important role and were the No2 reason for defeating the Germans)
c)Greece(Because of the Greek victory,Italians' morale was annihilated,they weren't able to fight anywhere else and they capitulated to allies in 1943)
d)Those who built the american atom bombs(These made the Japanese to surrender)
e)USA(they played a rather late role)

:lol: That has to be one of the funniest and most biased answers yet :lol:

:lol: That has to be one of the funniest and most biased answers yet :lol:
Thank you very much,mr. humored.But are you sure about that?Think again.I didn't say that as unconciderately as you think.

I hardly count slightly helping to put the Italians out of the war as one of the most important aspects of WWII somehow.

I hardly count slightly helping to put the Italians out of the war as one of the most important aspects of WWII somehow.
Italians are underestimated.They have defeated Turkey in 1911.They were not weak.Unless 27 divisions in Albania are an unimportant number.Count in that some were tank divisions.In the 20's,a diplomatic episode between Italy and Greece was confronted carefully by the Major Powers,because it had to do with a superpower's interests.Italians were a superpower.In addition,Germans were bothered to strike Italian resistance in combination with the Greek,French,and other nations' resistance.

And that counts for more in the eventual defeat of the entire axis powers than providing the base for the retaking of europe (UK) and the production power to defeat the Germans in the west and the Japanese overall? (US)

Frankly, not even in the most biased of opinions :rolleyes:

I'm all for acknowledging minor powers contributions, but that's another topic entirely from who was more important in winning the WHOLE war, not just one theatre. If you want to make a point on the Greek-Italian war, try starting a thread on it rather than making such a laughably wrong claim.

I may was wrong about the order of importance,but not for sure.There is another thing to concider and deside.The delay of German invasion in USSR.English and many people admit that if Hitler hadn't lost two months to wipe Greece out,he would arrive in time to attack USSR,without winter or 16 divisions which the Russians had sent from the Japanese flank.So,from one side,you can add USSR's effort to the Greek,since it wouldn't excist without the Greek aid.And you know why?Because Hitler advanced to Russia up to few kilometers from Moschow.

Which also had an awful lot more to do with his desire to take the objectives in the North and South of the country, so it's anyone's guess as to if more time would have altered the Moscow advance. Add that to the problems re the Luftwaffe redeploying to the east and the fact that the fall of Moscow may not have absolutely ensured Stalin surrendering, and we end up back where we started, Greek influence affected one theatre a lot and one the whole war very, very little. Unless I'm mistaken they had no affect whatsoever on the pacific war.

If we're also talking about Barbarossa, you could easily claim that without the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe would have controlled russian skies for much longer and inflicted more losses. Sorry, but your theory simply does not hold water, and at least 2 countries did more.

I didin't say that Greece played the most important role in all of the war,but you must admit that Germany lost too many chances of success with attacking Greece,while Italy was just driven out of the picture.The same way Greece didn't nothing at the pacific war,USA did nothing to the European flank.And I disagree that it played "very,very little" role on the total.Hypothetically,if Greece capitulated,Middle East's oil would be at Hitler's hands,and also the mediterrenean.If Hitler had defeated Russia(and he would defintely have more chances without winter and 16 divisions) only England and USA would have left.Finally,it would be possible to win the war without Greece.It is a fact that USSR defeated Germany,although England helped.And I think the soul of axis was Germany.

In total,you cannot reject my theories that way,neither I can be defintely sure,because all have to do with posibilities.You have to accept that,without Greece,axis would have many extra posibilities.

The same way Greece didn't nothing at the pacific war,USA did nothing to the European flank.

:hmm: Which history of WWII did you read? The Americans provided enourmous manpower for the retaking of europe, and bombed German industries during the war amongst other things. Hardly accurate to say they did nothing really is it? :confused:

And I disagree that it played "very,very little" role on the total.Hypothetically,if Greece capitulated,Middle East's oil would be at Hitler's hands,and also the mediterrenean

Again allow me to contest this. If Churchill hadn't been stupid enough and kept the desert army intact the British would have driven the Italians from the desert completely before the Germans even turned up. Greece may still have fallen, but the desert war and the UK's involvement in Greece actually did more to ensure the Germans retained a chance in Africa. Furthermore Greece capitulating probably wouldn't have affected the German's involvement in the Med anyway given the Italians woeful performances elsewhere anyway. Ironically, the Greek campaign probably did more to hamper British med efforts than help them.

It is a fact that USSR defeated Germany,although England helped.

And I guess the Allied air offensive had no affect on the German industry, the Americans didn't fight in Europe and the supplies they gave to the Russians and British had no affect at all...

You have to accept that,without Greece,axis would have many extra posibilities.

But to state their importance above the UK and US is just silly, whatever the possibilities, they will never outweigh those presented by the British or Americans doing less, or not being involved.

:hmm: Which history of WWII did you read? The Americans provided enourmous manpower for the retaking of europe, and bombed German industries during the war amongst other things. Hardly accurate to say they did nothing really is it? :confused:

And I guess the Allied air offensive had no affect on the German industry, the Americans didn't fight in Europe and the supplies they gave to the Russians and British had no affect at all...

Yes,now I remember that you're right.Sorry.However,admit that the USA turned up late,didn't she?Although her ally,England,was being attacked,she didn't enter the war until she got attacked in Pearl Harbor.

But to state their importance above the UK and US is just silly, whatever the possibilities, they will never outweigh those presented by the British or Americans doing less, or not being involved.

First of all,I changed the order.Now USA only is under Greece,and the reason I explain it here,in adittion for the whole quote.Look it by this side:What would have USA if it had the size of Greece?Think of what has Greece done in addition with what abilities it had.All right,she had an auxiliary role,but look at the size of her.Don't you think she had done far too much for her size?I know that this hasn't got to do with the practical role,but you need to look at that before making up your mind to the importance of Greek support and how biased I am.

I have to admit that,practically,the importance of USA might be bigger.But she didn't fight as much as Greece.And,in addition,Greece was at the swich,at the strategic point,while USA had the power.Much depended by her decision.Do not underestimate the strategic role.About what I said that Middle East would be in axis' hands without Greece,it wasn't actually me who said it.Churchill said it.

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS!

then comes England
The US is vital, but w/ soviet or british surrender early 1942, the war could have turned very different.

BTW, the allied air offensive was important, but let us remember that under the leadership of Speer, the german production continued to increase until 1944 despite the bombings, if it hadnt been for the russian front, the allied bombers would eventually have been crushed by messershmitts Me410a's or me163's, known as komets.

The Me 163 and Me 410 were not such a good bomber killer, the Me 262 otoh was. If she was used from mid 1944 as fighter together with Galland´s plan to hold fighters back for one decisive attack on the bomber fleets, the air offensive might have crushed. But we had a crazy Austrian and a junky in charge of the Luftwaffe (Hitler and Göring).

Adler

If America dropped out, the Allies would have lost tremendous supplies and aid, and lost the war.

If Britain dropped out, the Allies would have lost tremendous troops and location, and lost the war.

If Russia dropped out, the Allies would have lost tremendous troops and location, and lost the war.

If Argentina dropped out, the Allies would have lost a guy named Juan.

BTW, the allied air offensive was important, but let us remember that under the leadership of Speer, the german production continued to increase until 1944 despite the bombings, if it hadnt been for the russian front, the allied bombers would eventually have been crushed by messershmitts Me410a's or me163's, known as komets.
I recall hearing that Hitler (and the least sane part of his upper ring) believed victory was inevitable until close to the end, so he did not even actually order full wartime production (as the Allies did) until 1944. Am I right? Wrong? Close?

No. Hitler knew he lost but overerestimated the tensions between the allies. Only his death would have brought this tensions into action. Oh I remember a German pilot who asked him if the war is lost. He answered yes, but soon england will switch the sides and fight against Russia. Well he was mad...

Adler

BTW, the allied air offensive was important, but let us remember that under the leadership of Speer, the german production continued to increase until 1944 despite the bombings, if it hadnt been for the russian front, the allied bombers would eventually have been crushed by messershmitts Me410a's or me163's, known as komets.

And had the bomber offensive not been striking at German industries there's every chance that those production levels would have been many times higher than they turned out to be, so it was very important in allowing the allies to face less than they did in all aspects.

Yes,now I remember that you're right.Sorry.However,admit that the USA turned up late,didn't she?Although her ally,England,was being attacked,she didn't enter the war until she got attacked in Pearl Harbor.

Not a suprise, the universe works a lot on enlightened self interest ;) Late or otherwise, the USA's contribution made winning in the pacific a reality and made retaking western europe from a dictator a possibility, that's very hard to ignore.

I know that this hasn't got to do with the practical role,but you need to look at that before making up your mind to the importance of Greek support and how biased I am.

I'm perfectly aware of her role and have always given the smaller countries their rightful place as allies and remember their sacrifices. What I do not accept is that we should transfer this to the country being given a greater practical role in the downfall of the axis powers. We're not talking here about accepting the moral right of minor nations to be recognised as giving their all, but rather who was more responsible for the downfall.

About what I said that Middle East would be in axis' hands without Greece,it wasn't actually me who said it.Churchill said it.

Churchill was a fool when it came to the Med, he was obsessed with a Balkan alliance against the Axis powers and would do and say anything to achieve that. Greece fell, the middle east did not. The middle east and africa would have been more secure had we NOT been involved in Greece against the Germans. Those facts proves that Churchill either said that as pure propaganda, or to persuade some of his cabinet/people that sending troops to Greece was necessary. It wasnt, Simply put, Churchill was wrong.

What I do not accept is that we should transfer this to the country being given a greater practical role in the downfall of the axis powers. We're not talking here about accepting the moral right of minor nations to be recognised as giving their all, but rather who was more responsible for the downfall.
Don't bother so much about that list I've made for the roles,it wasn't the main point in my post.If you noticed,I was quoting the other post.My post must be compared to what I am quoting.Do you mind making your own list for the top 5 nations who played the most important role?

I don't agree with assigning a top anything, I reject the idea that any one of the US, UK or USSR were more important than the other two. On other forums I've also made points about the collective worth of the occupied countries being as important as any of the 3 allies.

"I reject the idea that any one of the US, Germany or USSR were more important than the other two."
You probably mean UK, not Germany?

For me, to defeat Germany top 3 are US, UK, USSR, and I don't see how one can be put before the other. However, when I say UK, I include troops from the Commonwealth, because I don't really see how they can be separated.

The next one would be France, because even if defeated, Free French and Partisan were quite active, and 5th... Perhaps Yougoslavia for Partisan?

Oh, and before Canadians and Australians start to contest being after France, remember they are before, together with UK.

:blush: So I did *rushes off to edit his remark fast* :D

On france, it's worth adding that the Free French armies after the liberation of france provided hundreds of thousands of troops for the allied forces. Even before that they provided many troops in both Italy and France, though they tended to be colonial troops as much as French prior to the liberation. I prefer to put the occupied countries together as one and say that they all did enough to place them on a par with the other three. Poland for example with it's capture of the early enigma machine, Norway for helping shut down the German heavy water system and so on.

The main difference being France was not completly occupied (because of colonies), and Free French continued the fight, that's why I would put France sligthly before.

But we should not forget volunteers from occupied countries, such as the Poles who fought with the British (Cassino for instance IIRC), although their country was completly occupied.

The dutch also, they had at least 1 brigade in NW europe, and some of their naval forces continued to fight out in the pacific against the Japanese for some time. We should also remember that large numbers of Czechs, poles and others served in the Russian army during the war in their own formations.

SOVIET UNION. It would have conquered Europe if there wouldnt have been D- day. Germany would have lost in any case.

US just speed up the fall of Germany.
Britain didnt play that important role in the war.

SOVIET UNION. It would have conquered Europe if there wouldnt have been D- day. Germany would have lost in any case.

US just speed up the fall of Germany.
Britain didnt play that important role in the war.

Apart from supplying Russia, running the convoys to supply russia, providing the base for the retaking of europe, helping to defend the pacific in certain areas and protecting Africa. Yeah, not important, I'm pretty sure the US would have had a fun time invading europe without us :p

@privatehudson: :lol: really not important... :goodjob:

That's just the begining too :D There's pleanty of other reasons

Apart from supplying Russia, running the convoys to supply russia, providing the base for the retaking of europe, helping to defend the pacific in certain areas and protecting Africa. Yeah, not important

Soviet Union would have "retake" Europe any way. US played major role in pacific theatre. Im not saying that Britain was not important, im just saying that in European theatre SU was most important.
Most of Germanys forces were in Eastern front, even after D-day. Also Rumania, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Bulgary and Croatia had lots of troops in Eastern front.

And dont show your tongue! OR... your actions will be reported to moderators. I dont also like that you question my supremacy as a historian.

Consider this as warning.

Only mods can issue warnings. :rolleyes: Dealt with. - XIII

Soviet Union would have "retake" Europe any way.

There's a good chance she wouldn't have, or had a considerably harder and longer road if the supplies from the west did not reach her in the early years. Even in 1945 this was important, the only thing keeping the advance on Berlin running so quickly was American trucks, not russian ones, trucks shipped on British convoys. The longer and bloodier the war, the less the chance of victory...

Im not saying that Britain was not important, im just saying that in European theatre SU was most important.

You said they were not very important, that gives the impression that the others could have done without us, which is wishful thinking IMO. That's the impression given out anyway.

And dont show your tongue! OR... your actions will be reported to moderators. I dont also like that you question my supremacy as a historian.
Consider this as warning.


:lol: Oh dear, either your joking or you need to lighten up a little :rolleyes:

And what supremacy? Are people not allowed to have a different opinion in case we (SHOCK! HORROR!) might actually have a valid point?

Privatehudosn, I would be careful if I were you, you've been warned by the superior historian!!

That has yet to be proved :mischief:

By the way, Inhalaattori if you are serious, you might want to take note of a recent post by XII in the what if china thread, there's *3* of " :p " there, so you might have a hard time making that theory stick :D

I recall hearing that Hitler (and the least sane part of his upper ring) believed victory was inevitable until close to the end, so he did not even actually order full wartime production (as the Allies did) until 1944. Am I right? Wrong? Close?

exactly, take out the soviet front and the germans have at least another year, plenty of time to build up and stop D-day (not to mention the troops that were in east europe would have been in north france)

If we assume he never invaded Russia then retaking Europe would have been nearly impossible, if we assume he conquered Russia then it would have been difficult. Even subdued, troops would have been kept in Russia anyway.

yes, but not every soldier, a few panzer divisions would have been sent back west. something that could easily turned the tide of the war.

In which case we have to assume that the allies would have prepared more carefully and explored other options first such as diverionary actions.

This is a silly thread in my opinion.

The notion that one nation was more important than other members of the alliance suggests that one country alone could have been victorious.

Myth. No country could have stood up to the Axis on its own.

Soviet Union would have "retake" Europe any way. US played major role in pacific theatre. Im not saying that Britain was not important, im just saying that in European theatre SU was most important.
Most of Germanys forces were in Eastern front, even after D-day. Also Rumania, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Bulgary and Croatia had lots of troops in Eastern front.

And dont show your tongue! OR... your actions will be reported to moderators. I dont also like that you question my supremacy as a historian.

Consider this as warning.
If you truley are a historian, you are not the best one I have ever met....

Britain's role not that importnat. Gimme a break.....


When it comes to fighting Germany, the Brits were alone, until 22th of june 1941.
The British fought the Germans in Africa. Even Torch, though officially a Anglo/US operation, to please the Russians, was mostly a British operation.
Before june 1944, the US army hardly contributed to the European theatre.

And even from that point, the British had eventually more soldiers.

The biggest contribution of the US was its enormous production capability. That was really a must, to keep the British forces alive.

[/QUOTE]When it comes to fighting Germany, the Brits were alone, until 22th of june 1941.
The British fought the Germans in Africa. Even Torch, though officially a Anglo/US operation, to please the Russians, was mostly a British operation.
Before june 1944, the US army hardly contributed to the European theatre.

And even from that point, the British had eventually more soldiers.

The biggest contribution of the US was its enormous production capability. That was really a must, to keep the British forces alive.[/QUOTE]

Torch was a joint afair with equal numbers of US and British troops. In Sicily and Italy, US and British troops were roughly equal. But it was in Italy that the British were forced to start disbanding divisions because they were running out of manpower. And by the end of July 1944, the Brits were desperately short of infantry replacements after Montgomery's disasterous attacks against Caen. The Brits had some very good divisions, but not very many. By 1945, many of the Royal Navy's battleships had been placed in reserve to free up manpower. And for that matter, by that date, even the Russians were running out of men to replenish their infantry divisions.

The US production capability was the real war winner. The supplies to England were the least of the contribution. The mobility of the Russian army was provided by American Trucks and American radios and communications equipment. Russian uniforms were "made in America" and much of the food they ate came from America, only the men and weapons were Russian.

But I digress, the question was "which country was most important in winning the war?" In all fairness, The US, the UK, and Russia, are equally important in winning it! Yes, the UK was the weakest member of the three, but without her providing an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" from which to launch the bombers and a second front, and her suppression of the U-Boat menace, the American production would have had a very difficult time getting to Russia and trying to lauch a second front via North africa. And, without the Russian Troops tying down and chewing up the vast bulk of the German army and airforce, a "second front, in North Africa and Italy would have been doomed to failure. And if the US was not there, the Germans would have stopped the British bomber offensive and might have been able to fight the Russians to a standstill.

In summation, If any one of the "Big Three" had dropped out, it would have been a much longer and difficult war.

And dont show your tongue! OR... your actions will be reported to moderators. I dont also like that you question my supremacy as a historian.

Consider this as warning.


Quite right. It's high time someone put that upstart Hudson in his place. Don't question my supremacy either while your at it Hudson!!! Or the F.A.C.T. that I'm better looking!
Lets have no more of this. Especially the way you deliberatly present facts that conflicts with ones best arguments....that is not the kind of behaviour one expects from a gentleman. :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

*sarcasm monitor explodes* :lol:

america, because of industrial might, england was to small, and russia wasnt industrialized yet

I'd have to say Soviet Russia, because it was them who distracted Germany's attention on the Russian front, it was them who captured Berlin, (and even though a lot of people might disagree) it was them who encouraged Japan to surrendure by making the Pacific Theater a two front war. Alot of people will probably say things like, "No, it was the Atom Bomb.",but Russia declaring war on Japan started to make them realize that victory was impossible. If Japan had still refused to surrndure after the two atom bombs, then we would have had to invade Japan, since we had used up all the uranuim we had.

Don't forget the Belgian gendarms who slowed the initial German attack for at least two seconds. It saved enough time to enable the evacuation of the Biritish army at Dunkerque, and provided the British with enough man power to continue the war. For this achievement, Belgium should be number 1, far before Greece.

PS : no offense for the Belgians intended, I hope they will all understand my purpose here. They DO have a sense of humor, with all their jokes about French, even if I find French jokes about Belgian a lot more funny ;)

All the Allies played a major role, but the Soviet Union was perhaps most vital. Nobody (other than the US) had an army of such size to stand up to the Nazis. Nobody had 10 million + troops to kill. Ofcourse many Soviet deaths resulted from quite possibly the worst military leaders in history. Sure they won the big battles but the cost was ridiculously high. With that said, even an army led by better leaders would still have suffered very high casualties against the main force of Nazi Germany (easily over 4-5 million). The only other Allied nation that could do that was the United States but they wouldn't be ready to take on Germany in 1941.

Another vote in the Belgian Greek kind ;) :
Austria. We lost because we had Hitler in charge. He was an Austrian. So Austria was the nation with the biggest war effort for the allies with her revenge for Königgrätz.

Adler

1) Soviet Union , helped by a devastating winter , their courage , and their beliefs ( holding Stalingrad for so many months needs lots of them )
2) USA ( Awakening the giant : after the Pearl Harbour attack , the U.S. produced so many tones of resources and armor , supplying both GB and Russia ... )
3) One of the things I can recognise to the British is their courage while bombed everyday from Luftwaffe's planes ... And their Radar invention :mischief: And their SAS operations ...

As for the "Greece-Belgium and stuff" part , I must say that privateHudson and Yannis were both wrong ...

Of course Greece wasn't one of the powers that actually won the war for the Allies , but It was the first country to defend and counterattack an Axis assault ... 28/10/40-06/04/41 . Greece fell to the Germans in 30/04/41 after 6 months of fighting . It took the Axis more to capture Greece than Poland or Norway and Denmark or Benelux or France ...


20 May 1941,
"Operation Merkur": German troops invade the Greek island of Crete.
The full German assault on Crete commences with air attacks followed by paratroops dropped on the four airfields. They suffer heavy losses. Some 23.000 troops and 600 aircraft are deployed. The British and Greek forces are short of equipment and firepower but know the Germans are coming; they will outnumber them considerably. The Mediterranean fleet is offshore preventing any German arrivals by sea. The German side of the mission begins well but is then hit by delays in the flights of the aircraft bringing more troops, by heavy ground fire against those who do land and loss of communication between many of the constituent parts of the invasion. Towards the end of the day, the withdrawal of New Zealand units from Maleme airfield gives the Germans an unexpected foothold.

I googled WWII history ... ;)
The heavy losses of the German elite paratroopers caused Hitler not to use any of them in the next years of the war ...
The fightings in Greece stopped in 1 June 1941 with the surrender of the Allied troops . Also , the first resistance action was the sabotage of Gorgopotamos bridge , cutting the lines to Africa ... And that's why the Brits wanted to keep Balkans as long as possible .
Greece as a minor country gave much more efforts ,than any other minor country ... If we think only the morale boost to the other Allies .

Vasileiusn, your arguments in Greece favor are a lot more well presented than Yannis. They seem objective, and sensible.

Opposed to the morale victory must be the lasting effects of the British being drawn into an extended campaign in Africa that was not needed, and increased naval and trained army units lost. Ultimately throwing the Italians out of Africa would have been far more valuble than involving ourselves in Greece. Why the need to secure supply lines to Africa so much if the fighting there had all but ceased?

Also we have to balance the fact that though Greece was the first country to throw back an offensive on it's own land, the British anhialated one in Africa, and defeated the much vaunted Luftwaffe prior or at the same time as this. Imagine the morale boost of driving the Axis powers from the entire African campaign for a moment before we proclaim the value of Greece above it. As for Krete, to be fair the ability of the germans to use their airborne beyond this date in their intended role was somewhat limited. Also it did not end all airborne operations, just large scale divisional drops.

However I'd be intruiged to learn where I am "wrong" since I already stated that Greece deserve large amounts of credit for their role in the war. I don't happen to consider this any more (or particularly less) though than France for example, though of course it's debatable if they fall into the category of "minor" ;)

However I am amused by the way according to our german member, everyone in the world was to blame for loosing WWII but the Germans themselves :lol:

Well, Hitler was an Austrian! The "Anschluß" of Austria was only the last step of the Austrian occupation of Germany ;).

Adler

You still seem to think that devoid of allies and Hitler the Germans were perfectly incapable of mistakes :rolleyes:

No I don´t. I only think the worst mistakes made were mistakes by Hitler and his camarilla. It is clear that even the best make mistakes. Nevertheless I was making a joke, but I shoulnd´t be surprised that German humor isn´t so popular ;).

Adler

German humor? :eek: It actually exists? I thought German were an ever serious people :p

What a question... Russia for sure! Anybody who says something else is wrong ;). No seriously: Actualy I even think that Russia would have won the war without D-DAY (but thats an other topic!). The big part of the war was fought in Russia, most people died there and the biggest battles were fought there.

Nope. Without Britain controlling the seas and the US sending material, the USSR would be Germany.

The combination of the three major Allies was mutually supportive and all were equally necessary to defeat Germany.

All the Allies played a major role, but the Soviet Union was perhaps most vital. Nobody (other than the US) had an army of such size to stand up to the Nazis. Nobody had 10 million + troops to kill. Ofcourse many Soviet deaths resulted from quite possibly the worst military leaders in history. Sure they won the big battles but the cost was ridiculously high. With that said, even an army led by better leaders would still have suffered very high casualties against the main force of Nazi Germany (easily over 4-5 million). The only other Allied nation that could do that was the United States but they wouldn't be ready to take on Germany in 1941.

The US could never have fielded an army of 10 million men, ever. However, the fact that it did put an army into France at all in June 1944 is amazing considering that in 1941 the US army was ranked 17th in the world (tied with Portugal).

The US was hurt very badly by the Great Depression, and aside from it's navy, was largely demilitarized.

Soviet Russia did not have the capacity to create a mechanized army needed to roll the Germans back out of their territory. The US sent 350,000 trucks and 2,700,000 tons of gasoline to the USSR during the war, in addition to aircraft, tanks, ships, artillery, ammunition and above all else millions of tons of food to feed the Red Army. Stalin once remarked that without Spam the Red Army might have starved. :lol:

The transfer of all that material was made possible by the Royal Navy which controlled the Atlantic and faced down the U-boats. In the early stages of Barbarossa, the British aid to Russia was critical in helping to avoid the collapse of the Red Armies.

Russia indeed made the biggest sacrifices in terms of battlefield casualties. The German soldiers could not understand how the Russians would keep on fighting even when they were so obviously beaten, especially when they lived under the murderous regime of Stalin.

The Soviet soldier fought for his basic right to exist against a German invader that viewed him as subhuman, good only for slavery and death. The Soviets fought for their homes and families, and each other. Few really believed in communism, but many believed in Mother Russia.

Sorry if this seems OT, but I don't think it is worth a thread of its own.

When the Maginot Line was being manned, many French people sent the government money. The money was to be used to plant flowers along the Maginot Line, so that the French soldiers would not have to look at concrete walls all day. :lol:

Well, flower pots would definitely have been a more useful way to use it

Nope. Without Britain controlling the seas and the US sending material, the USSR would be Germany.

Oh please ...

NO country or nation can control such large areas ...
The biggest mistake of the Germans in both the wars , was that they were fighthing in 2 different fronts . If , in the WWI or WWII they hadn't declared war to the Russians , every other part of Europe would be Germany ...

Which army has the manpower to control the whole world , while there is a strong resistance ? None ... Even the American superpower , today , cannot control a desert like Iraq .

If the Germans were smarter , they would have been the European Empire for sure ... Napoleon did the same mistake ... Alright they captured Moscow . How could they keep it ?

Oh please ...
NO country or nation can control such large areas ...
Napoleon did the same mistake ... Alright they captured Moscow . How could they keep it ?

By starving out or deporting the population. This is a long term initiative but its what the Germans planned to do with conquered Russia.
Just resettle the vacant areas with Germans and keep the slavs in labour camps.

By starving out or deporting the population. This is a long term initiative but its what the Germans planned to do with conquered Russia.

Well they planned to do it ...
As we now know it was unachievable , they couldn't hold Moscow so long as the long term initiative required to . :D
RL is not like CiVs guys ... :lol:

Well they planned to do it ...
As we now know it was unachievable , they couldn't hold Moscow so long as the long term initiative required to . :D
RL is not like CiVs guys ... :lol:

As you would say "Oh please" The Germans did NOT capture Moscow due to
Hitler diverting Panzer units to the South :crazyeye: If he could have kept
to his original plan they WOULD have captured Moscow and could have
probably fought off any counterattack if they had consolidated and entrenched before winter set in. That would have most likely been the end
of the Russians with their capital in German hands and the country's best
territories. The Russians would have been forced back to the Urals and the
whole war may have ended much differently :scan: .

Maybe, but Lenengrad didn't fall, even after 500 days of siege.

There weren't enough soldiers to mount an offensive in the North, Hitler was satisfied with the city being shelled into oblivion.

Actually, the siege of Lenningrad lasted 900 days, but if Hitler had followed the original plan, it would have fallen in the first rush.

You are correct about Moscow. If he had ignored kiev and pushed into Moscow instead, that would have been the end for the Soviets. After Moscow fell, he could have turned south and cleaned up the Ukraine. The most important thing about Moscow, besides being the capital, is that it was the major rail hub for western Russia. With the Moscow rail net in German hands, Lenningrad would have been cut off from the Urals. In 1940, the Russians had practically no North/South raillines that did not pass through Moscow. Most of their major lines radiated out of Moscow like the spokes of a wheel. Without Moscow, Russian rail mobility would have been severely limited. The panzers would have chopped them up before winter. The Siberian troops would have than been trying to from a line well to the east of Moscow!

Oh please ...

NO country or nation can control such large areas ...
The biggest mistake of the Germans in both the wars , was that they were fighthing in 2 different fronts . If , in the WWI or WWII they hadn't declared war to the Russians , every other part of Europe would be Germany ...

Which army has the manpower to control the whole world , while there is a strong resistance ? None ... Even the American superpower , today , cannot control a desert like Iraq .

If the Germans were smarter , they would have been the European Empire for sure ... Napoleon did the same mistake ... Alright they captured Moscow . How could they keep it ?

You don't know your history. In WWI, the Russians mobilized in response to Austria's attack on Serbia. The Germans had no option to keep Russia neutral unless they completely abandoned their ally.

In WWII, it was always Hitler's intention to attack Russia. Many years before the war he said so in his rambling book. He had to defeat the Czechs, Poles and French first though, which he did. However, the stubborn British foiled his plans by refusing to make peace even after being handed a terrible defeat in France, losing most of their equipment at Dunkirk.

The Luftwaffe was badly mauled over Britain, and their inability to launch Sealion left Britain as a base for the future liberation of France and North Africa.

The supplies coming from the Britain and the US kept Russia in the war for the first two years. Without it, they were dead. Not until Kursk did the Red Army enjoy a superiority on the battlefield.

As Ace already explained, Hitler's amateurish meddling in operational matters lost him the big battle for Moscow. It was a very close thing. Had the Germans won there, it's hard to say who would have won that war.

Holding the territory is immaterial when you have no scrupples about mass extermination either. The Germans would have ruled by terror, which in fact they did in all parts of occupied Poland and the USSR.

You don't know your history. In WWI, the Russians mobilized in response to Austria's attack on Serbia. The Germans had no option to keep Russia neutral unless they completely abandoned their ally.

In WWII, it was always Hitler's intention to attack Russia. Many years before the war he said so in his rambling book. He had to defeat the Czechs, Poles and French first though, which he did. However, the stubborn British foiled his plans by refusing to make peace even after being handed a terrible defeat in France, losing most of their equipment at Dunkirk.

The Luftwaffe was badly mauled over Britain, and their inability to launch Sealion left Britain as a base for the future liberation of France and North Africa.

The supplies coming from the Britain and the US kept Russia in the war for the first two years. Without it, they were dead. Not until Kursk did the Red Army enjoy a superiority on the battlefield.

As Ace already explained, Hitler's amateurish meddling in operational matters lost him the big battle for Moscow. It was a very close thing. Had the Germans won there, it's hard to say who would have won that war.

Holding the territory is immaterial when you have no scrupples about mass extermination either. The Germans would have ruled by terror, which in fact they did in all parts of occupied Poland and the USSR.

Great post joe :goodjob: , right on the mark! ;)

Well they planned to do it ...
As we now know it was unachievable , they couldn't hold Moscow so long as the long term initiative required to . :D
RL is not like CiVs guys ... :lol:

I agree with dgfred, Moscow was an important rail and communication hub in Russia. If it was captured, after 6 months of morale sapping defeats, the whole Soviet Union may have collapsed.

Steph read this and you will think I´m right ;).

Adler

The biggest mistake of the Germans in both the wars , was that they were fighthing in 2 different fronts . If , in the WWI or WWII they hadn't declared war to the Russians , every other part of Europe would be Germany ...

Actually, while nobody likes to fight a two-front war, it can be done. The U.S. successfully fought a multi-front war against the Germans and Italians in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific, with 14 million military personnel spread across 3+ continents. There is nothing automatic about the outcome of a two-front war, and indeed as Joe mentioned the Germans very nearly pulled it off in 1939-45. It's a matter of being able to coordinate resources and manage events in multiple theaters.

And as for the Germans attacking the Russians, they had no choice, strategically-speaking. If your objective is continental hegemony and your homeland is for the most part on a long and flat northern plain that stretches from the Urals to the Atlantic, then you will have to eliminate any power potentially able to challenge your hegemony on that plain. If you understand German objectives, both in 1914 and 1939, and you look at the balance(s) of power in Europe at those times, then one of your first thoughts is going to be, "There's going to have to be a Russo-German showdown." The Germans handled the Russians adeptly in 1914 (though they did still manage to get a few scares, like Brusilov's offensive) and Hitler attacked the USSR at a precipitous time (catching the Russians off guard despite so much evidence of what was coming). The German failure to defeat the USSR is mostly attributable to Hitler's own mis-handling of the campaign. (Remember that in 1917-18 the Germans did defeat the Russians, forcing Lenin to sign the severely punitive treaty of Brest-Litovsk. That was the underlying point of 1918 in the war, that the Germans could finally shift all their forces westward in a final desperate bid to win the war in France before the Americans started showing up in significant numbers.)

And indeed, while Britain in World War II posed a threat as a potential launchpad for a future invasion of Europe the reality was the Western Allies didn't have the means and materials in place to do so until the summer of 1944, and Hitler knew this. This means that when the Germans invaded the USSR in 1941, they had already occupied most of Europe and needed only maintain cursory forces in France since Britain - sans the U.S. in most of 1941 - posed little offensive threat to mainland Europe.