Who won the war? - Stalingrad (1993) Discussion

[–] phletch 19 years ago

This is such a ridiculous question. Sure, the Soviets might have failed without U.S. help, but likewise, the U.S. probably couldn't have done it without the help of the Soviets, to say nothing of the British, Australia, Canada, and a plenty of others.

The whole premise of the question is nonsense and represents a vast oversimplification of historic events. Not that I shouldn't expect that here.

reply

[–] facepaint 19 years ago

chill out war nerds

reply

[–] BULLMCCABE 19 years ago

Nobody "wins" a war.
They just lose less.

"Remember boys, flies spread disease... so keep yours closed."

reply

[–] epicknight7 19 years ago

Nobody "wins" a war.
They just lose less.

I second that!

reply

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

Nobody "loses" a football game.
They just score less.

I second nothing.

The Apple Scruffs Corps Hon Mbr 05
Chuck Norris expects Spanish Inquisition

reply

[–] barodanyet 19 years ago

Russia won, but at great cost.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cowboysfan178 17 years ago

Soviets won the war for the allies but I don't think the allies 'won' because the Axis Powers inflicted over 50 million deaths (military and civilian) to the Allies while Axis lost just over 15 million (military and civilian). I don't consider that winning really....

reply

[–] dennistraberg 19 years ago

It was the combined forces of the Allies that won, If Hitler had left Soviet alone, they would have won the war....It was the two front-war that lost the germans the war...Idiot Hitler..... Both the Allies and the russians, did their part....

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] usrhlp 19 years ago

To be honest, the people who won the war were the polish followed by the British.

If the polish had not stolen enigma and the british had not cracked it, we would have been fighting blind.
So in short you are all wrong!

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Molotny- as I agree with your post somewhere above about Russians being the best at defending their homeland (no doubt, they are unconquerable with their spirit, their weather and infinite land mass :)), and good point with Pavlov's house. But with the opinin above I could argue whole day.

First: Poland falling in 3 weeks wasn't falut of polish lack of spirit and will to fight, but because of relatively small army comparing to germans and lack of tanks or air units comparable to those from german side. Technology wasn't the good side of polish forces, but we had some brillant constructions which couldn't be used fully (let me remind you, that polish industry also suffered from great crisis in '29 and we had only 20 years our freedom after 123 years of occupation, so whole industry wasn't so advanced as german because it was still developed and modernized). Ever heard of great bomber "Los" (Elk) which was heavy bomber with it's huge armament and armor (but wasn't produced in huge numbers and carpet bombers aren't really useful when you're defending) or good TP-7 tank (with two 360degree movable towers, built and modified on french renault tank) which was more than a match to not so well armored Pz I's and Pz II's... And not bulit in huge numbers, unfortunately.

Next- about partisans. Never heard of Major "Hubal"? If not, see wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Dobrzanski

This guy is a legend in Poland, and maybe the first partisan commander in WWII, fighting with his men even year after the capitulation of Poland, destroying convoys, railroad and even tank columns and escaping the german troops. Pitty he was caught, but still- he was THE MAN.

And let me remind you about AK (Armia Krajowa, Home Army in english). Again, wiki is the main help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Krajowa

They were fighting from the first day of capitulation, were responsible for many attacks on german support lines when Nazis were fighting in the east with Russia. They've also organised the largest uprising during the War, Warsaw Uprising (which failed because of Russians I might add).

Why did Germany defeat Poland in september 1939? Because of French stagnacy. Hitler sent all his troops against polish, while his western border remained undefended. If only french (who declared war with Hitler on september 3rd) had sent their troops through souther border to Ruhr and Saara, Germany would be defeated in no time and war would end in 1939. But becasue of western hesitatin we had a rough time for 6 years. Thank you o great frnech army, which was larger than german, which had some reserves and... was defeated in same time as smaller Poland because french gave hilter time to rebulid his army. Ever wondered why psychotic nazi corporal attacked France nearly a year after invasion on Poland? Because his army was crippled, polish gave some hard fighting, despite their lack of troops, planes and tanks.

Oh, and I forgot the most important part- Hitler didn't invade Poland alone. When he was a good pal with Joseph that time, good red uncle invaded from the east on september 17th, when whole polish army was occupied with defending the western part of our Homeland. That's what I call a real "knife in the back".

So please, don't BS about polish bad fighting and fast defeat, cause nothing annoys me so much.

Oh, and about polish brave fighters after the capitulation- I don't want to waste keyboard anymore, so just see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II

Battle of Britain? Withouth polish, czech and many other who escaped before nazi could get them, british wouldn't have anyone who could fly their planes.
Enigma? Without polish mathematicians, who deciphered Enigma juest before the war, britihs navy would have a really hard time with german U-Boats.
Polish Intelligence? We were the first who gave the west information about concentration camps.

Not to mention polish brigades, battalions and later- armies fighting both for western (Norway, Normandy, Monte Cassino, Market Garden) and eastern (from Lenino to Berlin) allies.

Oh, and on the End Note, some polish inventions which had their big part in defeating germans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II#Technical_inventions

Nuff said.

reply

[–] bradstory 19 years ago

Indeed! More than one German vet has mentioned that the Poles were the bravest and fiercest opponents they fought against. Often it was the inferiority of their equipment or a numerical disadvantage as the reason why they lost.

Germany losing over 16,000 of their best trained troops in five weeks was hardly a bloodless campaign!

reply

[–] joesophuller 19 years ago

any aircraft is a low altitude aircraft if you try hard enough. the russians built their own airplane that played a great deal in winning the war, it was the il-2. the il2 was a much better fighter bomber than anything the americans had. soviets also sent the first man into space, yuri gagharin. Also, the p38 was never meant to be a fighter bomber. it was meant to be a fighter.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] esc1989 19 years ago

Had the Americans and British not been also involved in the war from the west Europe as we know it today would have been completely different, I doubt the Soviets would have stopped at Germany but seized the chance to take over most of the Free World (France, Italy, Spain, UK) would have fallen and the Soviets continued there onslaught. The basic answer was that only because of the Soviets major advances in the east that the Germans poured many of there best divisions into Poland and eastern Germany, leaving veterans to stop the Americans and British. The East is definetly the major contributer to the victory yes.

reply

[–] aintd5 19 years ago

All of you, just ask yourselves a very simple question: What if USSR was not involved at all and Germany would not have to fight anoyone at that side. Would Germany have lost? - Highly doubtful, no reason for it. USSR won the war, American, British, etc. losses are funny numbers when compared to USSR losses, all Germany's major forces were thrown at USSR. "Allied invasion" was only possible because USSR draw most of the German fire to itself. The invasion made no difference whatsoever, USSR was already advancing on all fronts, the invasion was made ONLY out of fear that USSR would occupy entire Europe, never was it intended as the means "to help". Ask any German veteran about who do they think beat them; you will not be hearing "US" or "Britain" in 90% of the replies. US and Brits played a part but just get your facts and numbers right.

reply

[–] ionbulgar 19 years ago

Don't forget that America aided the Soviet Union with raw materials. I agree with you that the USSR won the war but if UK was conquered by Germany and they would attack after that USSR which was alone, I belive they would have defeated her.

reply

[–] assassin007 19 years ago

Don't forget that America aided the Soviet Union with raw materials. I agree with you that the USSR won the war but if UK was conquered by Germany and they would attack after that USSR which was alone, I belive they would have defeated her.

You're very wrong, my friend.

Remember that Stalin was working to greatly improve the Red Army. If the Germans invaded the UK, their casualties would be enormous. So if they invaded the USSR it would be probabaly be around 1943 or maybe even early 1944, and by that stage the Red Army would be a much better equiped and trained fighting force. The Germans would be defeated within weeks IMO.

reply

[–] JamesRyan_X 19 years ago

In your very naive opinion. What kind of propaganda do they teach you guys?

My page http://americatheawesome.tripod.com
You will LOVE America!

reply

[–] assassin007 19 years ago

In your very naive opinion. What kind of propaganda do they teach you guys?

It's a well known fact that the Red Army was being improved. So if the Germans invaded in 1942/43 or later (we'll assume this was after a very tough invasion of Britain), they would have faced a much more formidable fighting force and would have been probabaly been defeated.

And if I am "naive", than perhaps it's because I, like all Australians, are being fed American propaganda on a daily basis.

reply

[–] JamesRyan_X 19 years ago

Why are you under the assumption that the Red Army would have improved that much by 1944 if Germany had never attacked them beforehand?

My page http://americatheawesome.tripod.com
You will LOVE America!

reply

[–] generalderflieger2 19 years ago

assassin007:

It's a well known fact that the Red Army was being improved. So if the Germans invaded in 1942/43 or later (we'll assume this was after a very tough invasion of Britain), they would have faced a much more formidable fighting force and would have been probabaly been defeated.

And if I am "naive", than perhaps it's because I, like all Australians, are being fed American propaganda on a daily basis.

Sorry mate, as a fellow Aussie, I have disagree with you! Even if Hitler had waited a year because of an invasion of England, which if it had happened in Aug '40, would not have tied Germany up for years, Russia would still have gotten hammered. At least in the first year or two, just as happened in history. Even with the Fuhrers blunders and constant changing of strategic aims in the East, Germany still would have beaten Russia if Stalin had not finally learned to trust in his Officer Corp. Initially he refused to take advice and tried to run the war himself, but slowly he allowed the Generals to make their own decisions, which, perversely, was the opposite of what Hitler did. Stalin stopped trying to micromanage the war, while Hitler started to do just that.

Even with the improvement of things in the Russian military, it was still up to Stalin how this new improved army would have been used, and it wasn't until it was clear that he was losing and would lose the war that he allowed other more trained men to take charge. He still would have behaved the same way in a war that started later, until the same lessons were forced onto him. Germany, with another year under her belt would have been in even a stronger position to invade Russia, and that would have given them a year or so to run riot in North Africa, which then could have quite easily been taken with the forces that otherwise would have been used in the East. With the med and North Africa secured, the middle east would have laid open to Germany! As would an attack from the south of Russia been an option for Germany.

Stalin still would have blundered until he was almost knocked out, no matter how late the war started, IMHO!

[21.27 - sun, sydney]
Troy
"Watch out, it's the Netstapo!"

reply

[–] gaelforce10 19 years ago

I somewhat agree, it was the sheer tenacity of the Soviets and their ability to send & sacrifice every men women and child to the cause that overwhelmed the Germans. The Russians suffered losses of gargantuan proportions, whilst such losses would not have beeen tolerated in the US or even Britian at the time. I suggest that you all read Antony Beevors excellent book " Stalingrad" to get a true picture of this particular conflict.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gaelforce10 19 years ago

I agree 100%

reply

[–] Jhr_Gustaaf 19 years ago

Hitler and Stalin both made thier treaty knowing it would be broken, it was just a question of timing. Stalin expected Hitler to invade Britain first. He thought he had another year or so. He made the alliance, trained the german Army, and built the Panzers for Hitler to gain time to build up the Soviet industrial machine, and get some R&D at Nazi expense. By the time the USSR was invaded, their tanks had avanced as far beyond thier old Panzers they built for the Germans as the Panzers were ahead of the western Shermans. Stalin was also counting on Germans taking losses against britain.

As for the British-German alliance against Russia, that was a centerpiece of Bismarks foreign policy. Wilhelm II torpedoed that just prior to WWI. You want some juicy Alt History? No treaty of Versielles, no Nazis. Anglo-German empires own or leverage pretty much everybody, except maybe china, japan, S america, USA. Peace through Superior Firepower, USA stays isolationist, nobody gives a *beep* about japan/china until they spill into thier conflict spills into Anglo-German holdings in the mid Thirties or Forties. Oh, and africa is colonially screwed. No war to distract european empires from minor posessions.

reply