hello i have just had a rather heated arguement with a uni mate that argued with me about who actualy won the war, (ww2) he said that us english should be VERY GRATEFUL TO russia coz they won the war for us. (he is cannadian), he said that they were the ones that defeated the germans and that allmost all the german troops were fighting against them, and insulted my intellengence because of my opinion that it was a join effort that won the war for the allies, where he seemed to thing that it was mostly the russians. i do not know alot about history, so i am asking you historians out there to help out our disscussion. did the russians save brittons by defeating the germans? was it mostly them that did the damage? or was i right by saying it was a groupe effort. i aslo applogise for my spelling as i am quite intoxicated when righting this post, i just got really anoyed about this disscusion and realised that i do not know as much about the history of my country as i would like to (i am english) thanks for you help CraigyP
Actually, I'd appreciate it if you edited out the foul language. There are likely kids here. The best answer on how the war was won is this: "The British gave the world time, the Russians gave the world blood, and the Americans gave the world the materiel." I would also point out that after the D-Day invasion, Germany fell in less than a year. Also that the Soviets were heavily dependent on Anglo-American lend-lease. Not as much for combat weaponry, but for all the other stuff that makes armies go: food, communications wire, trucks, radios, and so on. Remember that amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
Hi Chaps Just thought I'd remove and substitute the peurile colloquialism in the first post re. post-war Anglo-Russian relations ... if only 'cos otherwise there would be a joke about Stalin's Organ at some point (those who saw the unedited post will understand). I tend to agree with Kiwiwriter, without any of the above named nations WW2 would have had a far different ending. If UK fell there would be no springboard for an allied invasion of the Continent (including in the Med) and also it would be far more difficult to get vital supplies by sea to Russia; this was of particular importance early on in the War. One need not think in terms solely of a Russian military defeat: there could (possibly) have been a collapse from within without external support and promises of a secod front. If the US remained completely neutral, especially whilst bearing in mind the Japanese threat in the Pacific, it would have been all but impossible for British and Commonwealth troops to get the manpower and materiel necessary for a re-invasion of the Continent, providing that they were not handicapped or even forced to sue for peace after the U-boat campaign where they would have less escort warships.
The best answer on how the war was won is this: "The British gave the world time, the Russians gave the world blood, and the Americans gave the world the materiel." This is the way I have heard it said many times. It was a joint effort by all the Allies. None of us could have done it alone. Dick, I wouldn't worry about your mate-he probably thinks Russia won the Cold War too. You're probably right. When I was in high school in '82 we had a Soviet Diplomat's son come to our school for a while. This poor kid actually thought that the Russians had beat us in Hockey during the Olympics. He wouldn't even budge when we showed him the articles from Sports Illustrated. He called it "mere propoganda" Bill
Hi Chaps Just thought I'd point out, for the record, that as a Moderator I just tweaked the thread started by CraigyP since it was a little graphic for first thing in the morning. And Craigy, as a student I hope you have only just got up by this time of day: Good Morning ... and did you meet any Russians to express the gratitude of our nation? Richard
I never saw the original, so I guess I owe you one, Dick, for saving me from the full, unabridged horrors. It does, though, bring home one rule I try to stick to - never post while under the influence, because I will be embarrased next time I log in sober! On the topic itself, I think we do need to acknowledge that by the time of the Normandy landings, the Red Army had effectively faced the bulk of the Wehrmacht for three years and driven them back, wiping out the cream of the German forces into the bargain. Although, in 1944, the Germans had some very good troops, overall they were not the same army which conquered Poland and France. They never really recovered from Stalingrad, Kursk and the battles in the Caucasus. In some ways, by this point the Red Army had also suffered from loss of their best forces, but were still able to mount Operation Bagration in the summer of 1944, a bigger battle than Normandy. At the time of el Alamein, the Germans had something like 200 divisions fighting the Soviet Union. Makes you think! Anyway, enough of this. Back to the **** decorating, as I think the first coat is dry.
I agree that the war was a joint effort-eventually. Britain and the Commonwealth had been fighting Hitler for five years by D-Day, regardless to how many divisions the Russians had on the Eastern Front. People often comment about America being a late-comer to the actual fighting, but conveniently overlook the fact that Stalin invaded Poland from the opposite direction on September 17th 1939. No qualms there about siding with the winning team, so would it have been different if America had never been involved and Britain was on her own? I doubt it.
