Yea I will admit that I was a bit biased and condescending, but it is absurd to say that the Soviets won World War 2. Also, I hadn't meant for it to come across saying that America solely won the war. That is absurd, certainly America provided fresh troops and a breath of relief, but the combined strengths of the Allies is what won WW2 and the tactical blunders of Hitler.Commissar Sae said:Of course, without support the Soviets would have floundered a lot longer and lost millions of more lives. I do base my theory in some pretty solid historical research mind you. Germany was going to lose the war in the end regardless, if only due to their inherent lack of raw materials. The Soviet industry was outproducing Germany by 1943 and they continued to expand while German output started to fall due to lack of material and manpower. Because the Soviets shipped all of their heavy industry over the Urals, it was safe from bombing, something the German industry starter to suffer as the RAF/RCAF started to counter-attack in the west.rt052192 said:you raise some valid points and yes the British did do alot during the war, but it was still a combined effort from the Big Three, not just the Soviets. Besides, your theory about how the soviets may have been able to win is yet, just a theory based on speculation. To end: I cannot stress this enough; it wasn not a one man show that won WORLD war 2, it was the combined effort from the Allies.Commissar Sae said:ah, need to interject and use this damn BA.rt052192 said:Now this is comical...I will say that the Soviets did a good job of repelling the Germans from Russia(the Russian winter probably had a greater effect then the Red Army), but let's be serious. You honestly believe that had America not entered the war the Red Army would have been able to eliminate the Germans from North Africa, Italy, Liberate France, get Germany to surrender, and deal with the Japanese in the Pacific? Yeah, I think it's quite comical to think this. The combined efforts of America and the Soviets, not solely one or the other, is what won the second world war.doodger said:By the way, the soviet union won the second world war, not the americans XD
The British did a fair amount of the work in North Africa, Italy fell like a stack of cards as soon as someone showed up with a gun (oversimplified for brevity), France was being defended by 10% of the German army and Canadian and British Forces made up a major part of the D-Day landing. The Soviets and Japanese had a peace treaty that was maintained up until right after the first atomic bomb went off and Russian invaded Manchuria.
The Red Army fought better than msot people give them credit for. Yes they were mainly a conscript army, but the Russian population had been massively taking part in after work activities like parachute training, rifle training and grenade tossing as recreational activities. Combine that with the massive partisan movements in the countryside and resistance movements throughout the reich and the Soviets would ahve won in time without the second front ever being opened.
So in the end Germany would fall, Japan would be untouched but would have devastated most of East Asia. North Africa would probably look pretty much like it does today. France would probably have a lot more Communist influences, since the Red Army would either have kept mowing on into France after Germany fell or would have been their immediate neighbour.
OT: Saving private Ryan is less irritating to me than some other American war movies. U-571 being the biggest pain to me as a historian as it casts Americans as the brave men who captured the enigma device, when in reality they were British.
Patriotism can be OK, it just has to be balanced and we all need to avoid jingoism.
But yes, it was through combined effort that victory was achieved. Your first post came off as a little arrogant and condescending so I felt the need to counter with the power of a history degree.
Argument/discussion aside: I'm loving this historical debate and correct me if I'm wrong but you have a degree in history? I'm currently going for engineering, but history has always been my favorite class. I just don't know what I can do with a degree in history.