no, actually i meant that help provided by the Allies doesn't entitle them for the status of being a victors in WW2 ; helpers - yes, but not a victors. . I think that this post will go no where until the concept of 'victors' is explained. The western forces were still standing in Europe after the defeat of Nazi Germany. As you know this lead to the Cold War. What do you mean by the term 'victors'?
''winners'' So 'winners' means 'victors' and 'victors' means 'winners'. I am not trying to be rude, but you must explain further.
.. I am not trying to be rude... that's exactly what you are trying to be now by assuming this retardish tone.
that's exactly what you are trying to be now by assuming this retardish tone. If I have offended you, I sincerely apologise. However seriously, what has been created is known in English as a 'circular definition'. You must explain what a 'winner' or 'victor' is.
The defeat of Nazi Germany was an Allied effort pure and simple. It was only through the efforts of ALL Allied Nations that the Third Reich was brought to its knees. It is true to point out that the majority of German Land Forces were deployed in the east. I believe Spidge published a most excellent chart in which it stated that at least 80% of the Wehrmacht were deployed in the East from 1941 and this figure never dropped. I have always maintained that the Wehrmacht was bled white in the East and I still stick by that assertion. HOWEVER this argument does not end here. It is far too simplistic. The Germans were not just ground down by superior land forces. Whilst the Russians were facing down the land army, the Allies waged a massive war in the Air with two consequences; the first being the eradication of the Luftwaffe as a credible force, the second was the destruction of the Industries needed by the Third Reich to continue the war. Devotees of the Ostfront would do well to remember that the Wehrmacht was fighting with dwindling fuel supplies and reduced supplies of weapons and ammunition. And this was solely due to the Allied Strategic Air Offensive. Also it should be pointed out that at no time did Russia face Germany alone as Britain did in 1940. For a full year Britain had no allies. Russian supporters should also remember the effect that the German invasion had on their industry and that the strategic destruction of the German war amchine was crucial to victory. Western advocates should also be aware that in terms of sheer numbers the Eastern Front dwarves every other front. The North African theater ( in terms of numbers) was a sideshow compared to the East and whilst the western advocates may point to Operation Overlord as being a major victory (which it was) at the same time the Russians destroyed Army Group Center (Germany's biggest Army Group in the East), over 56 divisions in total, obliterated. So everyone can point to their fair contributions made but in reality the US, The Commonwealth and the Russians all have a right to sit astride the Victory pantheon and lest anyone still doubts me let me put this question to you, Could your country have faced the Germans alone and won??? I am pretty sure the answer is no.
Oi! T-34, don't start a slagging off war or we'll ban you, very easily.I'm not in the mood for your tirade. We've more reasoned Russians members than you who have contributed positively to the forum. Anyway Britian and the Commonwealth had already beaten Germany once in the 20th Century whilst you lot were having a Revolution. Actually Churchill did contemplate sending 50th Division to Russia if I remember correctly, but they went to North Africa instead.
' ...thus the victor in WW2 was Russia - meanwhile the US and UK were merely a help providers. agreed ? No I don't think that is correct. T-34, it would have been very difficult if not almost impossible for UK/US to invade Germany without the Russians fighting on the Eastern front. (until the bomb?) Now let me turn this around - suppose that the UK had been invaded or had accepted Hiler's offer of a truce in 1940 and stayed neutral. Do you think that the USSR could have repelled a German invasion against the FULL Nazi resources? The Germans would have 40 - 50 extra divisions, (no need to guard Western Europe against the British) using ALL available airpower, (remember that a big part was tied down by the Commonwealth in France & Med theaters) The USSR would not get any aid from the west, but presumably the Germans could import oil and other resources from S. America, Africa etc, as the Royal Navy is not blockading them. But perhaps the most important point, without British "meddling" in Greece & the Balkans, the Germans could launch Barbarossa 3 or 4 months earlier, so that they would be approaching Moscow, Leningrad & Rostov in June/July instead of late October. Do you really think the Russians could have prevailed? I would also like to hear Deadb tch & Za Rodinu's opinion on this.
T-34, notice your avatar has been deleted. Please do not replace it. Please, keep avatars non-political. If anyone wants to know more on T-34's deleted avatar look here. National Bolshevik Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hitler had to break off the Kursk offensive to attend to the Allies' landings in Sicily. I wonder how much more effective the wehrmacht would have been in the East had they not tied down divisions in the west in anticipation of D-Day, even a year before it happened. Plus, all of those bombs raining down on Germany and her forces, night and day, surely helped the Russians. Sure, Russia MAY have won the war on her own, but how many more hundreds of thousands of Russians would it have taken? How many more years? tom
"He is consistent in his denial of historical fact, even from official Russian sources and provides nothing of note to support his views." In another forum in which I am a moderator, guys like this are called "trolls". tom
Lend-Lease: Lend Lease "The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition." Bren Carriers - 2336 M3 Halftracks - 900 M3A1 Scout Cars - 3092 M3A1 Stuart - 1233 Valentine - 3487 Churchill - 258 M3A3 Lee/Grant - 1200 Matilda - 832 M4A2 75mm Sherman - 1750 M4A2 76mm Sherman - 1850 Half Tracks - 820 Light Trucks - 151,000 Heavy Trucks - 200,000 Jeeps - 51,000 Tractors - 8070 Not to mention that the great tank factories would have been all but impossible without the technical aide and pre-war assistance by American companies in modernising and building the Russian steel industry. tom
"He is consistent in his denial of historical fact, even from official Russian sources and provides nothing of note to support his views." In another forum in which I am a moderator, guys like this are called "trolls". tom Been there done that!
No I don't think that is correct. T-34, it would have been very difficult if not almost impossible for UK/US to invade Germany without the Russians fighting on the Eastern front. (until the bomb?) Now let me turn this around - suppose that the UK had been invaded or had accepted Hiler's offer of a truce in 1940 and stayed neutral. Do you think that the USSR could have repelled a German invasion against the FULL Nazi resources? The Germans would have 40 - 50 extra divisions, (no need to guard Western Europe against the British) using ALL available airpower, (remember that a big part was tied down by the Commonwealth in France & Med theaters) The USSR would not get any aid from the west, but presumably the Germans could import oil and other resources from S. America, Africa etc, as the Royal Navy is not blockading them. But perhaps the most important point, without British "meddling" in Greece & the Balkans, the Germans could launch Barbarossa 3 or 4 months earlier, so that they would be approaching Moscow, Leningrad & Rostov in June/July instead of late October. Do you really think the Russians could have prevailed? I would also like to hear Deadb tch & Za Rodinu's opinion on this. Well said., with one exception. In 1941 the spring was an unusually wet one. The invasion would have been caught up in the Spring thaw in which roads were mud rivers etc. It couldnt have gone any earlier than it did. But a fine post nonetheless!!!
I'm sure I read a Stalin quote somewhere that went along the lines of the war in Europe was won through British doggedness, American money and Soviet manpower. British doggedness for refusing to give up between 1939-41, the Americans for financing and assisting the Allies with equipment, and the Soviets for providing the bulk of the forces used to defeat the Wehrmacht.
First of all guys I am becoming to idea to consider such threads like provocation and u know what have been done with provokers at war. Sorry if I have offenced someone but I'm little bit tired of this discussions that have no end and have no future. The second is that how could UK accept the truce with Churchill, ah? Please explain me.
The second is that how could UK accept the truce with Churchill, ah? Please explain me. It would not with Churchill, however, during the debacle at Dunkirk there was one last attempt by a group of appeasers who coalesced around the figure of Lord Halifax to seek terms and exit the war. This all happened at a two day stormy cabinet meeting in May 1940. Halifax lost and would become British ambassador to the US later that year, a typical British maneouvre where Halifax would not lose face in being givien this post but at the same time be far enough away from any other attempts to be used as a focal point for the remaining appeasers.
