PDA

View Full Version : Who contributed most to the defeat of Fascist Germany ??



Pages : [1] 2 3

stevey
04-15-2002, 11:31 AM
I'm interested, firstly because i've been to Russia, they say it was them, and most Americans seem to say "we saved your ass in WWII!!", and a lot of British think we won it !!!

and secondly, most people i talk to don't know a damn thing about it !!! "whats pearl harbour about???", "what was D Day?",
"who were we fighting again ???"

Govtcheez
04-15-2002, 11:46 AM
How about the Allies?

How about Hitler? I think he was responsible for most of it himself...

stevey
04-15-2002, 11:49 AM
How about the Allies?
If you had to choose, pick one.......


How about Hitler? I think he was responsible for most of it himself...

he wasn't fighting himself !!! but i know what you mean...

Deckard
04-15-2002, 11:51 AM
They may be Russia now, but in the second world war they were the Soviet Union. They also get my vote as the country having the most impact.

Shiro
04-15-2002, 11:57 AM
The most important thing is that the war has ended. I think every country has their small or big part in the victory. Ofcourse there are many countries saying that they played a big role in the war. I think it is wrong to say "WE have defeated the Germans and YOU didn't", since that was the kind of thinking where it all started.

So I voted: I don't care.

stevey
04-15-2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Deckard
They may be Russia now, but in the second world war they were the Soviet Union. They also get my vote as the country having the most impact.

ok Soviet Union.

Anyone who knows their history would agree with your vote. i was interested in how many people do know their history.

I went to Moscow when i was young, and they were taught that Stalin and the Soviet Union defeated hitler almost single-handedly in the "great patriotic war".
not true, but the Eastern Front bled Hitler dry, they contributed more......and a lot of Western people don't appreciate that...

Napoleon also was crushed by the Russians, leaving 450,000 dead frozen corpes in mother russia.....and that was a hell of a lot in those days !!

finally finished off at Waterloo, but it was the Russians that crushed his dreams.....

Deckard
04-15-2002, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Shiro
Ofcourse there are many countries saying that they played a big role in the war.And they're all right: they all played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. No single allied nation could have defeated the Nazis, IMHO.

stevey
04-15-2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Deckard
And they're all right: they all played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. No single allied nation could have defeated the Nazis, IMHO.

you might be right, you might be wrong though !!!!!
what very few people realise, if they even give a ****, is that the Soviets were on the OFFENSIVE in Nov/Dec 1941 !! ie b4 the USA entered the war !!

then came Stalingrad in April 1942, ie b4 any major contribution by the USA !!! the German army was in slow retreat after that.

i would still say "combined effort", but still..........

Shiro
04-15-2002, 12:15 PM
>ok Soviet Union.

Not OK.

>Anyone who knows their history would agree with your vote. i
>was interested in how many people do know their history.

Well, as you probably know, Hitlers armies also went to Africa and they were defeated there. The reason why it seems that the Russians took a big part in the war is because Russia is so large. If Russia was a collection of small countries.... but it's all Russia.

>not true, but the Eastern Front bled Hitler dry, they contributed
>more......and a lot of Western people don't appreciate that...

If you read your history book again, you'll notice it were not only the Russians, but it was also mother nature who took part in defeating Hitlers armies in the east.

>dead frozen corpes in mother russia.....

That's what I meant.

>what very few people realise, if they even give a ****, is that
>the Soviets were on the OFFENSIVE in Nov/Dec 1941 !! ie b4 the
>USA entered the war !!

That's because the Soviets were attacked by Hitler. The USA wasn't, so they had little reason to attack Hitler, besides being solidair with Europe. But so many countries in the world didn't attack the Germans.

>then came Stalingrad in April 1942, ie b4 any major contribution
>by the USA !!! the German army was in slow retreat after that.

Yes, so?

>and yet 25% (so far) vote USA !!!

Ehm, don't forget that the USA had some other problems.

stevey
04-15-2002, 12:22 PM
>>If you read your history book again, you'll notice it were not only the Russians, but it was also mother nature who took part in defeating Hitlers armies in the east.

of course.....but its not fair to say it was the Russian Winter.....they were clever in using their climate to best advantage to defeat Napolean using scorched earth tactics, retreating to Moscow etc,
and clever in using it to help defeat Hitlers armies......

its not winter all the time........nor the slush after the thaw.......

Shiro
04-15-2002, 12:24 PM
>but its not fair to say it was the Russian Winter

I didn't say that. I just said that it took part in defeating the Germans. Ofcourse the Russsians know very well about their climate, that's just the same with the African who knew how to use the Sahara.

>its not winter all the time........nor the slush after the thaw.......

I know that, been to Russia too. In the summer, really really hot.

stevey
04-15-2002, 12:31 PM
>what very few people realise, if they even give a ****, is that
>the Soviets were on the OFFENSIVE in Nov/Dec 1941 !! ie b4 the
>USA entered the war !!

>>>That's because the Soviets were attacked by Hitler. The USA wasn't, so they had little reason to attack Hitler, besides being solidair with Europe. But so many countries in the world didn't attack the Germans.

eh????
point is, the Soviets had achieved parity, in fact they were on the offensive. fighting all Hitlers armies all alone.

>then came Stalingrad in April 1942, ie b4 any major contribution
>by the USA !!! the German army was in slow retreat after that.

>>>Yes, so?

so, see above......

>and yet 25% (so far) vote USA !!!

>>>Ehm, don't forget that the USA had some other problems.

of course, luckily for us Europeans, Roosevelt adopted a "europe first strategy", bringing the European war to a close first. anyway 25% was only one vote !!

stevey
04-15-2002, 12:34 PM
>>>>that's just the same with the African who knew how to use the Sahara.

Africans fighting Hitler ?????

nvoigt
04-15-2002, 12:40 PM
>Who contributed most to the defeat of Fascist Germany ??

Parties involved:

US
Great Britain & Commonwealth
Russia
France

Germany
Italy
Japan

Let me first comment on who did not, because I'm somewhat sick of it. Dear frenchmen, you are a country on the winning side, but it is hilarious to claim you fought Germany and won. You were overrun, occupied and later freed. Your Resistance were brave fighters, but hardly brought Germany to it's knees. So don't act like you won WW2, you merely managed to be on the winners side and come out alive.

The British definetly brought the German advances to a halt. The battle of Britain marks one of the first turning points in the war. While Britain might not have won the war, it can claim to be the nation that ensured the allies didn't lose the war.

The Russian steamroller brought Germany down on the eastern front. However, without US aid, it would not have been possible. The Russian staying power wasted many of Germanys resources on the eastern front and bound them there.

The US won the war. Their money supported Russia, their technology and bombers defeated the German troops and destroyed the factories, their Armies marched through France into Germany.

There is no most contributing participant. All four factors had to be there to achieve the end result, the fourth probably being the most scary: Hitler.

Hitler made military incompetent decisions from early in the war. His generals, admirals and air marshals were brilliant people, but he didn't listen to military reason. The scary thing is that if it weren't for Hitler himself, his staff might have won the war.

Govtcheez
04-15-2002, 12:47 PM
nv's got the same idea that I was trying to get through - In the same way that good moves on the Allies part helped the success, bad moves on Hitler's helped his ultimate failure.

Besides, I don't like putting the whole glory for winning the European war on just one country - that's why we were referred to as the Allies, remember.

Can anyone comment on the involvement of European nations in the US's campaign against Japan?

Shiro
04-15-2002, 12:50 PM
Also the Australian come into mind, the played a big role in defeating the Italian and German in North-Africa.

And the Canadian played a big role in freeing the Netherlands. I know, it's a small country, but in Dutch WWII-history they played a big role when it came to freeing the country.

>Can anyone comment on the involvement of European nations
>in the US's campaign against Japan?

Sorry, I can't. But I can imagine that the European had other things to think of. And since the Germans had captured almost whole of Europe, I can also imagine that Europe had little or even none military power to help the US.

>Africans fighting Hitler ?????

Yes.

Govtcheez
04-15-2002, 12:57 PM
> But I can imagine that the European had other things to think of.

I see.... And so couldn't you also get from that that maybe America had other things to think of, too? Kinda like, I dunno - getting out of the worst depression in the country's history?

Shiro
04-15-2002, 01:01 PM
>I see.... And so couldn't you also get from that that maybe
>America had other things to think of, too?
>Kinda like, I dunno - getting out of the worst depression in the
>country's history?

Don't forget that America was a free country in the war. The German had taken most of the European countries. Do you really think that a country which is taken by an enemy has power to help another country in problems?

stevey
04-15-2002, 01:02 PM
>>>The Russian steamroller brought Germany down on the eastern front. However, without US aid, it would not have been possible. The Russian staying power wasted many of Germanys resources on the eastern front and bound them there.

you're wrong. the whole point is it WAS POSSIBLE without American aid. the Soviets were holding their own (at least) without much help from anybody.

>>>>The US won the war. Their money supported Russia, their technology and bombers defeated the German troops and destroyed the factories, their Armies marched through France into Germany

1/4 of German armies were on the Western Front, 3/4 on the Eastern Front !!!

The US won the war eh.........its a common belief, i'm trying to dispell it.

Clyde
04-15-2002, 01:04 PM
I was under the impression it was pretty much a joint effort, don't know how much he knew but my history teacher at school said that the USA shortened the war by as much as 5 years but even if they had not entered he thought the allies would still have won.

stevey
04-15-2002, 01:06 PM
>>>>>>Can anyone comment on the involvement of European nations
>in the US's campaign against Japan?

why, its a different topic !!

The Commonwealth countries helped greatly
Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India..etc
also don't forget the Chinese
but the US did most......

Shiro
04-15-2002, 01:13 PM
Funny how people seem to forget Africa's role in the war.

Just a small fact. About 100.000 Algerians, Maroques, Tunesians and other North-Africans freed the way in Southern Italy so that the US troops could take in Rome.

Another fact. Sultan Mohammed V was asked by Churchill to bring up his divisions to help in Mid-Italy, where they broke the Gustaf Linie.

And finally. A lot of soldiers from Maroque and other North-African countries are burried here in the Netherlands, they helped to free the country.

In other words, there's too much countries who did great things. We can't just put it all on one country.

stevey
04-15-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
I was under the impression it was pretty much a joint effort, don't know how much he knew but my history teacher at school said that the USA shortened the war by as much as 5 years but even if they had not entered he thought the allies would still have won.

interesting point......my own view is.....
no us involvement -> stalemate on eastern front, british get sick of fighting and run out of money and come to some agreement, german and soviet people eventually get sick of fighting and depose Stalin and/or Hitler. peace with no victors in 1947/1948.
but who knows ??????

or........

British and Soviet scientists (instead of US/British) get the atom bomb first (Germans were miles behind), after a nuclear bomb on Berlin, Hitler is deposed, Soviets take over Europe. British think this is no better than Hitler taking over and are well miffed !!!

ygfperson
04-15-2002, 01:47 PM
it was definately a joint effort. the united states came out on top, though. britian got wrecked. russia lost 10+ million soldiers. the united states lost less than 1 million(maybe ~300,000, i haven't checked any records). the united states was fit enough to provide money to european governments.
world war 2 isn't about who won. it's about who absorbed the least damage.

stevey
04-15-2002, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Shiro
Funny how people seem to forget Africa's role in the war.

Just a small fact. About 100.000 Algerians, Maroques, Tunesians and other North-Africans freed the way in Southern Italy so that the US troops could take in Rome.

Another fact. Sultan Mohammed V was asked by Churchill to bring up his divisions to help in Mid-Italy, where they broke the Gustaf Linie.

And finally. A lot of soldiers from Maroque and other North-African countries are burried here in the Netherlands, they helped to free the country.

In other words, there's too much countries who did great things. We can't just put it all on one country.

reason is.....cos it was small compared to other countries. although i'm not disparaging them at all......
you will note that these people were part of the French Empire, ie were in the Free French army. thats why they were fighting.
but yes, few people know.

worse than that i feel is the contribution of the Free Poles being neglected. The Poles suffered more than most, losing >10% of the population killed (6.5 million) and being effectively taken over by communism after the war. few Free Poles were able to return to the country they fought for, due to the communists, so most settled throughout europe, mainly Britain.
thats why we have a large Polish minority, god bless em all...

Clyde
04-15-2002, 01:55 PM
"British and Soviet scientists (instead of US/British) get the atom bomb first (Germans were miles behind),"

The German's weren't that far behind, however Heisenberg (who was overseeing the development of the German bomb) always claimed that he would have sabotaged research if they had actually got past the development phase.

stevey
04-15-2002, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by ygfperson
it was definately a joint effort. the united states came out on top, though. britian got wrecked. russia lost 10+ million soldiers. the united states lost less than 1 million(maybe ~300,000, i haven't checked any records). the united states was fit enough to provide money to european governments.
world war 2 isn't about who won. it's about who absorbed the least damage.

WWII MADE america great !!! it made a fortune out of it !!
ie every tank/plane/ship that was provided to Britain in the Lend/lease program was PAID for !!

it wasn't a gift. Britain was still paying it back in the 50's !!
WWII destroyed Britain economically.
the marshall aid program after th war concentrated on building up germany and japan against communism and rebuilding europe generally, Britain as a supposed victor in the war received little aid.

current figures believed to be-"from The times-atlas of WWII"
25 million soviets
292,100 Americans
331,000 British
up to 10 million Chinese civilians, 1,324,000 chinese soldiers.

Shiro
04-15-2002, 02:06 PM
>reason is.....cos it was small compared to other countries.
>although i'm not disparaging them at all......
>you will note that these people were part of the French Empire,
>ie

Well, in that case, the Dutch, French, Portuguese and British helped the US against the Japanese, since some countries in the east of Asia where part of their kingdoms.

>were in the Free French army. thats why they were fighting.

Oh really? So they were only fighting because they were part of the French empire and they were not fighting because some country took their country in?

>but yes, few people know.

I guess it's also because history on our western schools is mainly about western history. You've been to Russia too, so you also know how little people in the west know about Russia. From the newspapers it seems we know quite a lot, but in fact we know just very little from what's going on there.

stevey
04-15-2002, 02:11 PM
>>Well, in that case, the Dutch, French, Portuguese and British helped the US against the Japanese, since some countries in the east of Asia where part of their kingdoms.

of course

>>were in the Free French army. thats why they were fighting.

>>Oh really? So they were only fighting because they were part of the French empire and they were not fighting because some country took their country in?

most of these countries wanted independance from France after the war, but they were armies raised by French money, in the French Empire. France wasn't their country. i'm only saying thats why they were in the war, its not that Algeria etc declared war on Germany, France did it for them you'll find...
but i'm not disparaging these men who gave their lives, and some may have loved the mother country.....

Shiro
04-15-2002, 02:17 PM
>no, most of these countries wanted independance from France
>after the war,

That's true, and not only after the war. Though I'm not sure if this counts for Maroque. As far as I know, sultan Mohammed V ruled Maroque and Maroque were independent. The army of Maroque wasn't part of the French armies during WWII.

>they were armies raised by French money, in the French Empire.
>not "their" country.

Well, if it is French money, I don't know. I think that in fact it is their money, which the French have taken. Just as the Dutch did in Indonesia, Suriname and those countries.

>and some may have loved the mother country.....

I'm quite sure about that. They were part of France. But they fought for their own country. Germany and Italy were just other invaders like France was. They were just the ones who wanted to take over the empire of France. So nothing would have changed for them. That was also a reason for them to fight.

stevey
04-15-2002, 02:23 PM
is MAROQUE what i'd call Morocco.??
morocco and algeria were combined in what was called "french north africa" at the time, so i dunno the situation. Sultan of Maroque may have been independant or semi-independant,
but certainly the free french were not taking a poll of these people to ask if they wantd to support france, thats my original point (niether were we for british empire folks- but canada, australia, new zealand, south africa, india etc all joined in willingly)

Shiro
04-15-2002, 02:33 PM
> is MAROQUE what i'd call Morocco.??

I think it's the same. I didn't know the English word. But it's the country at west of Algeria and right south of Spain.

Churchill asked the sultan for support of Morocco's army and he didn't ask France. Morocco was almost independent.

>but certainly the free french were not taking a poll of these
>people to ask if they wantd to support france, thats my original
>point (niether were we for british empire folks- but canada,
>australia, new zealand, south africa, india etc all joined in
>willingly)

Did South Africa join willingly? Wasn't there the Farmers War in South Africa?

Well, I don't think that colonialisation (?) is willingly. I cannot imagine people saying "yes, come here to rule us". Though I know from Dutch history that people in Indonesia didn't know the Dutch were going to rule. The VOC, the main Dutch company in Indonesia, was going to Indonesia for bussiness. The opened some offices there and worked together with the locals. Much later the army came and the war.

stevey
04-15-2002, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
"British and Soviet scientists (instead of US/British) get the atom bomb first (Germans were miles behind),"

The German's weren't that far behind, however Heisenberg (who was overseeing the development of the German bomb) always claimed that he would have sabotaged research if they had actually got past the development phase.

i think you'll find they were a long long way behind, at least from what ive been seeing on TV and read.
Einstein deserves a lot of credit for convincing Roosevelt that a atom bomb was feasable, a great many European and American Physicists also.
Hitler thought atom bombs were unfeasable (and to their credit some german scientists helped in that thinking) so instead the germans put most money into rocket science, VI, VII, jet fighters etc, which were wonderful weopons but the nuclear bomb ends all resistance !!!
the US set up the Manhatten project and brought in all European emigre scientists and british scientists to help their own men(another combined effort) and voila, US have the first bomb.
thank god Hitler didn't get one first !!
and all the rocket stuff was only good to base the US space program on !!
ps
the USA wouldn't have got the first atom bomb if they hadn't entered the war !!

stevey
04-15-2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Shiro
> is MAROQUE what i'd call Morocco.??

I think it's the same. I didn't know the English word. But it's the country at west of Algeria and right south of Spain.

Churchill asked the sultan for support of Morocco's army and he didn't ask France. Morocco was almost independent.

>but certainly the free french were not taking a poll of these
>people to ask if they wantd to support france, thats my original
>point (niether were we for british empire folks- but canada,
>australia, new zealand, south africa, india etc all joined in
>willingly)

Did South Africa join willingly? Wasn't there the Farmers War in South Africa?

Well, I don't think that colonialisation (?) is willingly. I cannot imagine people saying "yes, come here to rule us". Though I know from Dutch history that people in Indonesia didn't know the Dutch were going to rule. The VOC, the main Dutch company in Indonesia, was going to Indonesia for bussiness. The opened some offices there and worked together with the locals. Much later the army came and the war.

yes Maroque is Morocco.

similar to the East India company taking over India for Britain !!

yes, but i'm giving credit where credit is due,
Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand joined in against Hitler to protect Britain. all willingly, since they are independant nations, linked only by "the commonwealth".

india also, praps to a lesser extent since they wanted indepenance, they weren't independant ntil 1948. they had good reason to fight the japanese though.

Shiro
04-15-2002, 02:51 PM
>yes, but i'm giving credit where credit is due,
>Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand joined in against
>Hitler to protect Britain. all willingly, since they are independant
>nations, linked only by "the commonwealth".

Ah, that's what you meant. I thought you were still talking about the situation in North-Africa where the North-African certainly didn't join the French empire willingly.

So we talked about different things.

dbaryl
04-15-2002, 03:00 PM
Since the thread is about eh contribution, I think it's fair to say that it's not only based on who "kicked Hitler's butt most" but also on the losses by the countries.


Originally posted by stevey
worse than that i feel is the contribution of the Free Poles being neglected. The Poles suffered more than most, losing >10% of the population killed (6.5 million) and being effectively taken over by communism after the war. few Free Poles were able to return to the country they fought for, due to the communists, so most settled throughout Europe, mainly Britain.
thats why we have a large Polish minority, god bless em all...

and

current figures believed to be-"from The times-atlas of WWII"
25 million soviets
292,100 Americans
331,000 British
up to 10 million Chinese civilians, 1,324,000 Chinese soldiers.

I think the numbers above say a lot. To an average citizen of these countries it was not as important which country had the best fighter planes or the first bomb, but the loss of human lives was what counted, loss of the loved ones. Imagine: 10% of the population... or 25 million people from one country...

stevey
04-15-2002, 03:05 PM
oh well......

talking of colonialism, it is a bad thing but unavoidable probably in those days...ie if the dutch didn't take somebody over, the British/French/Belgians etc would.....a weak nation was going to be taken over....sad but human nature....

one thing is though, thinking about the British Empire, it is good that so many countries once belonging to the British Empire are doing well, stable decent democracies etc

Canada, NZ,Australia have strong friendly links with Britain, the Indians and Pakistani s dont hate us, America (not part of empire but a colony) don't hate us,
the British Empire was a good thing at the time, of course it passed its sell by date !!
apparantly it is the only empire in history given up voluntarily and where the native peoples do not hate the "mother country"

Clyde
04-15-2002, 03:06 PM
"i think you'll find they were a long long way behind, at least from what ive been seeing on TV and read"

Oh, I saw a play called "Copenhagen" (it's very good) which decribes the meeting Heisenberg had with Bohr, part of the dialog reveals that at several key points the German scientist were mere days behing their American counterparts.

Ok I just looked it up, and it seems they were very close up to the point (i think it was in 1942) when Heisenberg submitted a paper in which he "miscalculated" the critical mass, from that point German research toward the bomb crumbled... seems you were right :)

What's funny (well it's not that funny) is that Hitler got rid of all his best scientists because so many were Jewish!! If he hadn't Germany might well have produced the bomb.

EDIT: The more i read the more apparent it is that the Germans were very much behind....... hmm... maybe it was "artistic license"

stevey
04-15-2002, 03:19 PM
>>I think the numbers above say a lot. To an average citizen of these countries it was not as important which country had the best fighter planes or the first bomb, but the loss of human lives was what counted, loss of the loved ones. Imagine: 10% of the population... or 25 million people from one country...

it defies my imagination, it is truly appalling how many died....
the atrocities............

and correction, for the Poles it was 6.5 million, or 18 % of the entire population !!!!!!!!
18% of everybody in the country.......jesus.......

little known appalling facts ->

5 million Russian prisoners were captured
3 million were starved or worked to death or executed by the Germans
2 million returned home, 1 million died in labour camps on return to the USSR(Stalin thought them traitors !)

1 million Japanese prisoners were taken by USSR when they attacked Manchuria and other Jap conquests.
most were never seen again.(not that the japs were especially nice to their prisoners!)

stevey
04-15-2002, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
"i think you'll find they were a long long way behind, at least from what ive been seeing on TV and read"

Oh, I saw a play called "Copenhagen" (it's very good) which decribes the meeting Heisenberg had with Bohr, part of the dialog reveals that at several key points the German scientist were mere days behing their American counterparts.

Ok I just looked it up, and it seems they were very close up to the point (i think it was in 1942) when Heisenberg submitted a paper in which he "miscalculated" the critical mass, from that point German research toward the bomb crumbled... seems you were right :)

What's funny (well it's not that funny) is that Hitler got rid of all his best scientists because so many were Jewish!! If he hadn't Germany might well have produced the bomb.

EDIT: The more i read the more apparent it is that the Germans were very much behind....... hmm... maybe it was "artistic license"

hey look, i am ALWAYS RIGHT !!!! he he but seriously history is my pet subject, i'm not as daft as some folks think !!

re JEWS, yeah good point, Einstein of course was Jewish, and many other leading scientists, and they were not disposed to help Hitler !!!! good job, he'd have taken the world if he'd got it first, theres no doubt !!! hey Clyde, mebe there is a god !!:)

Brian
04-15-2002, 03:31 PM
Russia, they lost like a bzillion people. I say they "contributed" the most.

stevey
04-15-2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Brian
Russia, they lost like a bzillion people. I say they "contributed" the most.

contributions are not necessarily weighed in body bags, but thats what i think.

a fact that isn't always appreciated in the West.

14.5 million dead in uniform
7/10 million civilians

is a current estimate of dead.

and 1 million more russian soldiers died after the war (killed by Stalin)

counting the purges and starvation caused by Stalin, killing about 10 million people before the war.the suffering of the USSR people is incredible..............

ive been..
quote -> "my grandparents starved to death, my parents starved, at least under communism i'm not starving "
reply when i was in Russia having a go at communism...(thats a while ago for all you embryo's !!!)

Clyde
04-15-2002, 03:50 PM
"hey look, i am ALWAYS RIGHT !!!! he he but seriously history is my pet subject"

Heh, guess i should stick to science :)

Sentaku senshi
04-15-2002, 07:22 PM
Russia had a huge impact on the war because of there numbers. Well Britain was able to hold the Germans off, chances are they might not have been able to continue to do so, no less advance into Europe. The United States entering the war put an elephant on the scales of the war on the sides of the allies. Though to be fair, the war took a joint effort.

As for the atomic bomb the United States was far a head of everyone. Germany concentrated on rockets, not the Bomb. Also the Soviet Union got a leap in development as a result of a spy.

shtarker
04-15-2002, 07:37 PM
The result was clearly a joint effort between all countres fighting for the allies.
Except France, they were just plane useless.

Oh and as far as the war against Japan goes, thanks for your help "mother England".

Shiro
04-16-2002, 12:39 PM
>Except France, they were just plane useless.

That depends on what you call France. If you call Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia and some other African countries also France, which most of them were in those days, then France also did good things. And don't forget about the Legionnairs.

It seems many of you don't like France. Why? I like it, nice girls, nice country, nice cities, nice food and drinks and a great history. Many great mathemacians came from France. Fourier, Laplace, Langrange. Perhaps the only negative point is that the French can be quite egoistic.

ygfperson
04-16-2002, 01:48 PM
funny, no one asked who hitler was...

stevey
04-16-2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by shtarker

Oh and as far as the war against Japan goes, thanks for your help "mother England".

oh thats a bit unfair !!!!! i don't think aus was in any real threat of invasion was it ?????

stevey
04-16-2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
Well Britain was able to hold the Germans off, chances are they might not have been able to continue to do so, no less advance into Europe.

there wasn't a serious possibility of the german's invading Britain most historians agree on that now. (panic at the time though obviously !!)
D-Day took 2 years planning, and needed special landing craft and tanks and other equipment, together with virtually TOTAL sea and air superiority, combined with decieving them that the invasion would be at Calais.
total destruction of the RAF and the Royal Navy would have been needed to invade Britain and they couldn't beat the RAF.

As to advancing into Europe on our own.........not a snowballs chance in hell.....

shtarker
04-16-2002, 06:25 PM
>>oh thats a bit unfair !!!!! i don't think aus was in any real threat of invasion was it ?????

Yes there most certintly was.
Apart from fossil fules, Australia (partly through size alone) holds most of the natural resources in the reigion.
Fortunatly we just managed to hold them off just long enough, but this (as much as I hate to admit it) is where Amreica (and again the Soviet Union) starts seroiusly saving some buttts.