How important was the US involvement in the second world war?

[Iriemon]

Yes, I do know that.
I assume that you know that the Russians were not the only combatants and that this fact completely refutes others in their efforts to minimize US Involvement due to the new revisionist and PC friendly historical interpretations?

If you are well studied in WWII then you know the facts and your reference to revisionist history doesn't make sense.

Sure there were other participants against Germany. So what? There were other participants in the war against Japan too, but that doesn't mean that the US would not have still won the war against the Japanese without them.

 

[Vader]

If you are well studied in WWII then you know the facts and your reference to revisionist history doesn't make sense.

Sure there were other participants against Germany. So what? There were other participants in the war against Japan too, but that doesn't mean that the US would not have still won the war against the Japanese without them.

Yet more irrelevent prattle from a man who hates the United States.

 

[Bodi]

I thought you just said we are all fairly aware of the facts, and now you are claiming he knows next to nothing?

I think that you overlooked this part:

I could assume by your comments that you understand or know next to nothing about many aspects of the war such as:

... and that you are operating off of some faulty notion that omits various truths and takes facts out of context and presents an incorrect perception that nulifies US involvement... but I won't. - Bodi

I could assume... but I won't.

What role did the US play?

Some... but how does that negate my point?

How did that impact the Russian front prior to the Germans being stopped outside Moscow in Winter 41-42? Or Stalingrad in Jan 43?

How many German divisions were dedicated to North Africa prior to the Germans being stopped outside Moscow in Winter 41-42? Or Stalingrad in Jan 43?

Same

Same

Same

Are you familiar with tactics?
Have you ever played Chess?

How did they save the Soviets?

Sorry... perhaps you could explain how they didn't instead, because I have already outlined (though roughly) how they did and you don't seem to be willing to hear me.

Then the questions I asked should be easy for you to answer.

It is... but first we have to get past this roadblock. I am not one of the many here that operates off of faulty foundations and that has marked me as arrogant, but certainly, isn't it foolish to debate about the specifics if we aren't on the same page regarding the overview?

 

[Bodi]

If you are well studied in WWII then you know the facts and your reference to revisionist history doesn't make sense.

Sure it makes sense, since I maintain proper perspective.

Sure there were other participants against Germany. So what?

It is a big what.

There were other participants in the war against Japan too, but that doesn't mean that the US would not have still won the war against the Japanese without them.

The two Theatres of Battle are not comparable in that area of thought.

 

[Iriemon]

Given your penchant for selling out your country, the fact that you clearly support terrorism, anti-Americanism, and various other incorrect ideas; I would say that NOTHING you say has ANY tangible value.

Frankly, Iriemon, you are a disgrace, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Save you hypocritical righteousness and infantile moralizing for those who don't know you.

The only one who is a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves is a person who writes posts like this:

[
I can live with the prayer-on-a-blanket deal and I can live with the turbans; however, we they begin attacking Christmas and Halloween ... they have crossed the line and they need to get the **** out of my beloved country.

Useless shitbags!!!!

The administration in that school district need to be fired and replaced with people who do not bend over for whining muslim troublemakers.

Useless shitbags!!!!

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It's now officially time to begin deporting Muslims from the USA. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MUSLIMS

<---- Non muslim population[/FONT]

 

[Iriemon]

Could the Russians have kept up production and fought a two front war? I don't think so.

I agree, had the Japanese attacked Russia instead of the US it might have made the difference.

One of the biggest axis blunders in WWII, IMO. But their alliance wasn't much about coordination.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Stace has thread banned both Vader and Iriemon for continued personal attacks. Let's keep the rest of this debate, civil, folks.

 

[Bodi]

The US involvement was very important as far as the US becoming a superpower is concerned.

But just to put some things in perspective, on June 6 1944 there were 18 German divisions between us and Germany itself.

There were over 200 German divisions thrown into Russia in the initial part of Barbarossa.

And all of them were ground into meat.

There were 160 divisions in Operation Barbarossa
There were 59 divisions on the Atlantic Wall
There were 40,000 German troops in Sicily
There were also forces in the North Atlantic

 

[aegyptos]

The US involvement was extremely important, if for no other reason than to divide German forces into various fields of battle and divert their attention from the Russian Front, a Front in which they could have had a very valid chance of winning if it had not been for biting off more than they could chew. Can you not admit that?

The US involvment was "important" as you put it but my assertion is that Russia would ahve defeated Germany even if the US had stayed neutral. Various small side efforts that you keep bringing up like North Africa, Italy or the North Atlantic are not relevant to the fact that Germany was defeated in Russia by the Red Army.

 

[Bodi]

The US involvment was "important" as you put it but my assertion is that Russia would ahve defeated Germany even if the US had stayed neutral. Various small side efforts that you keep bringing up like North Africa, Italy or the North Atlantic are not relevant to the fact that Germany was defeated in Russia by the Red Army.

Apparently you don't think that an additional 60+ Divisions would have changed anything for the Germans then?

 

[aegyptos]

Apparently you don't think that an additional 60+ Divisions would have changed anything for the Germans then?

Yes, they would have found graves in Russia.

German hopes for success depended on Barbarossa. After that failed they were caught in an endless cycle of catch up and attrition. Germany had to win quick or not win at all.

 

[dixon76710]

Yes, they would have found graves in Russia.

German hopes for success depended on Barbarossa. After that failed they were caught in an endless cycle of catch up and attrition. Germany had to win quick or not win at all.

Nobody is arguing about the "success" of Germany in conquering Russia. The arguement has been made that the "outcome" of the war was "pretty much certain" regardless of whether the Americans had set foot in Europe.
"Russia"??? Likely they would have been sent to the eastern border of Germany or into Poland and Prussia to defend against a Soviet invasion of Germany. The outcome for the Soviet Union was pretty much certain by 44, the Germans would have likely been expelled from Soviet territory with or without the allied invasion in the west. The "outcome" for Germany and Western europe would have likely been very different.

 

[MSgt]

Nobody denies this fact, Gunny. What people are denying is that the US was less significant than other sources.

Without the U.S. involvement WWII would never have been won... ON EITHER FRONT.

I happen to agree. However, upon reading up on the event recently (because I was tired of people skewing my perception of "Life, the Universe and Everything"), I have found that the Russians were the enormous factor here.

BUT, What I don't understand is how people can take this and deny the military from the west that aided the Russian front. How many more German soldiers, SS, and resources would have been thrown at the Russians were it not for the burden of having to throw them against America and Britian in Africa, Italy, and France? Without America's resources and presence, Russia would not have mattered in the end. It would have been a stalemate and Germany and Russia would have simply guarded borders (just like Russia intended to do from the beginning before Germany pulled them in).

 

[MSgt]

The Battle of Britain
The Battle of the North Atlantic
The Battle of El Alamein
Operation Torch and the Battle for N. Africa
The Allied invasion of Sicily
Lend Lease

All of which pulled a lot of resources from the fight in the eastern front. I just don't understand how people can pretend that Russia had this fight in the bag. Without America crossing the ocean and organizing the western front, WWII would have ended with the fascist on one side and the communist on the other. Both would have eventually gained nuclear power and a different kind of Cold War would have emerged.

I know..."Would of...could of...should of"....but thats what this thread has largely been about anyway.

 

[bub]

I happen to agree. However, upon reading up on the event recently (because I was tired of people skewing my perception of "Life, the Universe and Everything"), I have found that the Russians were the enormous factor here.

BUT, What I don't understand is how people can take this and deny the military from the west that aided the Russian front. How many more German soldiers, SS, and resources would have been thrown at the Russians were it not for the burden of having to throw them against America and Britian in Africa, Italy, and France? Without America's resources and presence, Russia would not have mattered in the end. It would have been a stalemate and Germany and Russia would have simply guarded borders (just like Russia intended to do from the beginning before Germany pulled them in).

that's easy to check: how many German divisions on the Western front? And how many on the Eastern front?

How many square miles re-conquered by the Soviets? And by the US/UK/others?

 

[bub]

All of which pulled a lot of resources from the fight in the eastern front. I just don't understand how people can pretend that Russia had this fight in the bag. Without America crossing the ocean and organizing the western front, WWII would have ended with the fascist on one side and the communist on the other. Both would have eventually gained nuclear power and a different kind of Cold War would have emerged.

I know..."Would of...could of...should of"....but thats what this thread has largely been about anyway.

Germany was unable to invade UK, thanks to the Royal Navy and the RAF. UK has resisted alone over 2 years without any US commitment.

 

[MSgt]

Sure there were other participants against Germany. So what? There were other participants in the war against Japan too, but that doesn't mean that the US would not have still won the war against the Japanese without them.

Well, America made up about 99.8659320 percent of the effort in the Pacific which covered a far wider area. This is hardly the case for the Russians in Europe. Europe's theatre was divided amongst four major armies (three on the same side). And without the western front, Germany would not have received as much trouble from Russia.

 

[MSgt]

Germany was unable to invade UK, thanks to the Royal Navy and the RAF. UK has resisted alone over 2 years without any US commitment.

But why would Germany have to? They controlled continental Europe. They could have simply bombed Britian for fun as long as they wanted to and called it a victory. With unlimited natural resources from the continent as well as the Middle East, Germany's supremacy was a wrap. Russia would have simply put up a wall and Britian would have been Germany's Ireland.

 

[RightOfCenter]

I agree, had the Japanese attacked Russia instead of the US it might have made the difference.

I think it would have made a very deciding influence. The Russians could afford to throw man after man at a superior German army, but with attacks from both Japanese and German armies I doubt they would have had a chance.

One of the biggest axis blunders in WWII, IMO. But their alliance wasn't much about coordination.

That's true.

 

[Goobieman]

I think it would have made a very deciding influence. The Russians could afford to throw man after man at a superior German army, but with attacks from both Japanese and German armies I doubt they would have had a chance.

The Japanese sparred with the Russians before the war.
It convinced the Japanese that they should leave Russia alone.

 

[Goobieman]

BUT, What I don't understand is how people can take this and deny the military from the west that aided the Russian front. How many more German soldiers, SS, and resources would have been thrown at the Russians were it not for the burden of having to throw them against America and Britian in Africa, Italy, and France?

the largest effect the western allies had in this regard was to ensure that a large portion -- up to 40% -- of German heavy artillery was pointed up rather than east.

 

[dixon76710]

No doubt one "outcome" that would have likely been different, even if the Soviet Union still managed to remove the third Reich from Germany, would be where the iron curtain would have been drawn.
I would suspect that without the American bombardment of Germany, without the men and resources devoted to the western front by Germany, Hitler could have stopped the Soviets east of the German border somewhere and the Soviets would have been content to only take back Soviet territory that had been lost.

 

[RightOfCenter]

The Japanese sparred with the Russians before the war.
It convinced the Japanese that they should leave Russia alone.

A Russia at war on two fronts is a defeated Russia.

 

[Bodi]

Yes, they would have found graves in Russia.

German hopes for success depended on Barbarossa. After that failed they were caught in an endless cycle of catch up and attrition. Germany had to win quick or not win at all.

...and without the Western Front and other Fronts, they would have been on schedule to start earlier and they would have achieved their goals, especially with 60+ Divisions there to help.

 

[Bodi]

But why would Germany have to? They controlled continental Europe. They could have simply bombed Britian for fun as long as they wanted to and called it a victory. With unlimited natural resources from the continent as well as the Middle East, Germany's supremacy was a wrap. Russia would have simply put up a wall and Britian would have been Germany's Ireland.

right, because Britian was ini no position to invade Europe without USA's help.