wow, man))) Did you ever study at all? You know what you said just now? That USA won the ww2 war and your input to it was the most? Amazing. Probably all americans think the same way after watching a hollywood made film Pearl Harbor?
Americans may have contributed to what seemed like significant German losses, but the numbers show that far more Nazis died on the Russian front. I'm an American, and have not been subject to Soviet propaganda, and this is what I was taught. It's not that the Russians were a better military than the United States, but that they were defending their homeland and they were willing to sacrifice millions of their own men. Also, weather played a significant factor, just as it had 100+ years earlier when Napoleon entered Russia.
The reason why I went off on this thread is that I can not stand by and let some misinformed uneducated person spread lies, thats the problem with ignorance you see, they think they know the truth and they just simply state it as fact when in turn they are spreading lies and it is wrong! If nobody disputes these lies than some other person will come along and take them as fact. This is the problem with America today, misinformation, lack or proper education and a propaganda machine that has turned people into numbots!
Hitler most likely didn't even know he was an addict since it was his doctor pumping him. The main reason Hitler lost "the war" was because he was an idiot unable to listen to reason or anyone else. He also had syphilis - that didn't help either. There are many reasons Hitler lost "the war", too many to be covered in a single post or thread. That's part of the reason there are about 1 million books on the subject.
There are degrees of truth in some of your points - but only about 10% and it doesn't paint the whole picture. (I think you've watched 'Saving Private Ryan' too many times). Every nation claims they won WW2 and the USA is no different. Battles like Stalingrad make all our efforts on the Western Front look like a bar room brawl.
omfg! I cannot believe there are people on here arguing about which country defeated Hitler more than another! It was a joint effort. It took the combined forces of the Allies. One is not greater than another - it took everyone.
He obviously skipped history class (if he ever took one) and obviously does not even know that Battle of Stalingrad pretty much paved the way for the collapse of the Third Reich. This is a well documented undisputed fact. Maybe you can start with a lesson in Operation Barbarossa "The failure of Operation Barbarossa resulted in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany and is considered a turning point for the Third Reich. Operation Barbarossa opened up the Eastern Front, which ultimately became one of the biggest theaters of war in human history. Operation Barbarossa and the areas which fell under it became the site of some of the largest and most brutal battles, deadliest atrocities, terrible loss of life and horrific conditions for the Soviets and Germans alike - all of which influenced the course of both World War II and 20th Century history."
I agree, it was a joint effort, and I hate these "relative contribution" threads as much as you. I think a few things are salient: 1. Hitler's goose was cooked after Stalingrad. The drive westward revealed a Soviet generalship both brilliant and ruthless - ruthless in a way no western power could allow. I have mentioned a brilliant book in this regard, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany, 1944-45, by (Sir) Max Hastings. 2. The allied troops did a helluva job; Normandy (particularly the British and Canadian forces' successes at Caen, and American and allied penetrations into Bretagne and the Seine, despite significant intelligence lapses (hedgerows? What are those?); and, after, despite, I think, a strategic (generalship) error post-Normandy. Hitler's Last Gamble almost worked, and the grit displayed by American troops at Bastogne and after is a shining example of bravery and tenacity. 3. Allied air power gutted Hitler's ability to wage war. It is a common thing to armchair conjecture "which" cause was the "deciding cause." But I've never been a fan, really, of singular explanations either. My basic conclusion is if either the Soviets or the U.S. (but not both) had not taken part, Hitler would have lost - just much later. He didn't have the capacity for a limitless war of attrition.
This is the late part of the war correct? I believe in the early part of the war the Luftwaffe was totally dominating the allies.
Yes, this is what I was talking about. The strategic capability of U.S. airpower got to the heart of Hitler's industrial capacity. That said, my god, hand all honor to the British airman and citizenry during the Blitz. Hitler's intended prequel to "Operation Sea Lion" was thrown back on his face when Goering couldn't deliver. I am still amazed to this day and honor the British people for withstanding all the luftwaffe had to throw at them. I think this was the first real chink in Hitler's parade of successes, giving him the aura of invincibility, and it had an effect much larger than the British success itself. As much as it was a totally corporatist nation, Hitler's was a personal regime, of cronies. After the failure of the Battle of Britain, Goering - and his airforce - never recovered face in Hitler's eyes, and much needed resources were devoted elsewhere. If they had won, who is to say, not only would Britain have been defeated but the entire air arm would have received a massive influx of material and budgetary resources.
Being a history major I'm not even going to begin to debate with all this mis-information, I suggestion everyone read the below wiki entry about World War 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
Why not? (and what is the mis-information you're speaking to?). I dunno - political science PhD student, UC Berkeley, emphasis on Western European political economy and development (focus on Germany, Frederick the Great through post-WWII coalitions), hasn't stopped me from contributing my hot air. Dive in!
Yes, the Germans were heavily outnumbered. But, the Russians were horribly mismanaged. This made it a very even fight until the Germans equipment shortages and management troubles became greater threats than the Red Army. Ahem. Your post contained nothing but a personal attack. If you have nothing at all to contribute to the thread, please don't feel that it is necessary for you to post. The Germans didn't quit the war because of a loss of population, they quit the war because of a loss of the ability to fight due to lack of equipment and fuel. The Russians fought the war (once Hitler broke the truce with Stalin) -- the Americans won the war. Yet another personal attack with absolutely no basis. I have stated and defended each of my points and they have all shown to be truthful. You have made no points at all and your ceaseless personal attacks are completely in violation of the rules of this forum. That "idiot" was winning the war for several years. If fact, he was winning until the Americans joined the war to end it. See above. This is a discussion forum. You didn't expect discussion? What were you looking for here? So France's efforts were equal to Great Britain's efforts? I'm sorry McFox, but that's just ridiculously silly. It may make you feel good to spout such platitudes, but that's all they are -- platitudes. Yet another senseless personal attack. If the U.S. had not intervened, the war in the East would have turned into a cold war -- because the Soviets did not have the capability to wage an offensive campaign against the Germans. If Hitler and Stalin had not experienced their falling out, the U.S. would still have been able to defeat Hitler. Why? Because we were able to defeat their military-industrial complex. The Germans would have had more living troops at the end of the conflict, but they would still have lost. Yes, definitely. The Luftwaffe was the dominant air power until we were able to destroy their aircraft factories.
Will.Spencer, You do realize that Russia capture Berlin and officially ended the theater in Europe, the Amercians liberated countries that were seized by Germany, the Red Army did and should be credited with the major downfall of Germany itself, even though 40-50% of the supplies used by the Red Army were from the Allies. So in any respectable historians eyes the war was won by the ALLIES, not by any singled out country.
The Russians captured Berlin because Eisenhower left it for them. In Ike's own words, "Who would want it?" He made that decision because Roosevelt and Churchill had already gifted what was to become East Germany to the Soviet Union. That's a very nice [SIZE=-1]kumbaya. Let's all hold hands and cry as we remember the valiant French contribution to the war effort. [/SIZE]
Wow, you really are under educated apparently... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_Berlin The US and Russia were on a RACE to Berlin, knowing whoever captured it would have control and influence over that reigon, do you even know anything related to geo-politics of that time, do you UNDERSTAND about the cold war and how it built up RELATING DIRECTLY around Berlin and Germany? Most people think nukes were the base of the cold war, guess what, wrong it was a "part" of it. [SIZE=-1]kumbaya. Let's all hold hands and cry as we remember the valiant French contribution to the war effort.[/quote] [/SIZE][/QUOTE] Hmmm, lets look at the death toll of "military" units for the WHOLE ww2. This is KIA\MIA China 1.3 million Poland 130,000 U.K. 400,000 France 250,000 Australia 30,000 India 36,000 New Zealand 10,000 So. Africa 9,000 Canada 42,000 Denmark 2,000 Norway 10,000 Belgium 12,000 Holland 14,000 Greece 90,000 Yugoslavia 320,000 U.S.S.R. 9 million U.S.A. 300,000 (This is for Europe AND Asia) These are military deaths only, funny how US has the fewest, which would mean they didn't do as much fighting as other nations nor were weakened by being attacked, you assumptions are of a imperalist, just like Chavez and other leaders claim the US to be, thanks for making them right.
I was waiting for this repsonse to his comment, but he'll try to say the colonies won their independance all on their own
Yes another meaningless personal attack, clearly in violation of forum rules. Please read Personal Attacks Will Not Be Tolerated! before posting again.
If the Americans had no help from the French, I think the American still would have gained independence, it just would have been prolonged.