Good point. By the way, an SOE unit blew up the German labortory working on the A-Bomb, which is another of our jobs.
American views of the British effort in D-Day and WW2 in general.
- Thread starter useless
- Start date
I'm not denying the great contribution of Allies and their help to the USSR during war. Lend-lease, opening of second front and their other actions saved many lives.
About 1/3 of Soviet military losses were POWs died in German camps.
That's not a good record for the Russkies if they got that many captured. Still, better than it could have been.
Like you did in battle for France in 1940.
Number of German POWs died in captivity: 374,000 (out of 3,300,000 taken by USSR), 11%
Number of Soviet POWs died in captivity: 3,600,000 (out of 5,200,000 taken by Germany), 69%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties
Don't you think there is something else here, except big number of Soviet POWs captured by Germany?
One action, fought on the back foot in a foreign country.
We all know about the way Germany treated her PoWs, but getting 5 million captured is a bit of a faliure.
Small correction, treated her Soviet PoWs - Germany treated British and French POWs in accordance with Geneva conventions.
About failure - agree, approximately the same kind of failure as losing 2 millions soldiers captured by Germany for 1.5 months, 10 May - 25 June, 1940.
aelf
Ashen One
Just read about Speer.
Sure, the bombing damaged the German war industry, but not significantly. The German war production was more than adequate, but the lack of fuel rendered it moot.
See my above post. The action was lost from the start, and we lost less than 70,000.
The US did not "save" Europe, but they certainly tipped the balance. The US industrial might played a significant factor. Not to mention it could produce without worring about air raids.
The US was just one piece of the puzzle in the European theatre. I dont see why we have to argue who won it.
The US was just one piece of the puzzle in the European theatre. I dont see why we have to argue who won it.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I'm a "Russophile" for merely stating the obvious facts about WWII?
Where exactly did I ever "bash" the United States in this thread? No, I'm 'bashing' people who get all their 'facts' about WWII from Hollywood movies.
And have you ever read the First Amendment to the Constitution? It would seem to suggest that you are the one who should leave by not supporting the right of those who merely disagree with you from expressing their opinions. There are lots of totalitarian governments out there where your views on expressing opinions different than your own would be quite welcome, so there's not much sense trying to turn the US into yet another one.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Where would have German production been without the attacks on say, ball bearing plants and fuel refineries? Not to mention railways?
Do you honestly think the Russians would have been as successful as they were without all the rest of that happening behind the scenes?
Really?
Laugable.
No one is saying any one nation defeated the Germans all by their lonesome.
Dont you think bombing their fuel refineries part of bombing their industry? No?
arguing how much each of the 3 major allies contributed could easily go on for ever, its already been going on over 60 years
but i think it could be agreed that if 1 of the big 3 hadnt taken part, the allies probably wouldnt have won
but i think it could be agreed that if 1 of the big 3 hadnt taken part, the allies probably wouldnt have won
aelf
Ashen One
Supply of the raw material was terribly short anyway.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
You are welcome to your opinion on the subject regardless of how few facts you provide to support it, but don't expect everybody to agree with you.
I'd like to see a british film about Pegasus Bridge. That would even the score a little
They wouldn't be as successful. As I already said, everything else behind the scenes was very helpful for the USSR in defeating Nazis.
Like having the best German troops tied up defending against the Brits and the US?
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Weeeeelllllll
Without the USSR a stalemate between the UK and germany would have been reached. Really very difficult to see how that would have worked out, except that both would have lost. I dont really see how the Germans could use their land might to gain access to the markets they needed to be economically functional or the resorces they needed to fully express their military potential. The end result would depend on how far the UK was prepared to be dragged down just for the joy of seeing the germans have it slightly worse.
With the Russians but without the US the war would have worked out about the same for the Nazi's, but with the ashes of Europe left in Stalin's hands. Which would kind of suck for them. Though the failings of Stalinism would be all the more evident with more land to "reconstruct". It would prob also have been a lot worse to be Australian or from NE India - who knows where the tide would have broken over there.
So while "we" could not have won the war without each other there is a qualitative difference. Without the Commonwealth there would have been no-one left to fight the fight. Without the Russians the fight could only have been won by dragging each other under the waves. Without the US the terms of the victory would have been closer to those of convenience rather than those of our choosing.
Yes, like having some German troops tied up in second front, opened in 1944, when result of war was determined. Not in 1941, when Nazis were stopped under Moscow at the cost of hundreds thousands of people. Not in 1942, when under Stalingrad both Wehrmacht and Soviet army lost more than million of soldiers. No, they finally tied up some of remaining German troops in 1944 when Soviet army was already in Poland.
Similar threads
