Who won the war?


I recently used this film along w/ Geoffrey Robert's Victory at Stalingrad in an undergraduate course to illustrate the severity and enormity of the German-Soviet theater. The in-class discussions were interesting. Most students came into the class only vaguely realizing that there even WAS an Eastern front. I think that this is b/c in most American popular renditions of the war, the Russians only make a cameo in the last 2 mo.s or so to capture Berlin; What could loosely be described as the "Saving Private Ryan view" of WWII (please don't get huffy, I like that movie).

In light of this, who would you say was most responsible for the Allied victory? the East or the West? the U.S. or the U.S.S.R.? Eisenhower or Zhukov?

reply

Honest,unemotional and careful study of who? Studying what? Where are the facts in your study? We all know about the tremendous US help in the times of war, but no one can study unknown numbers or something that never happened as Soviet struggle against Hitler's Germany without US aid. Also, what arms are you talking about? What we know is that Soviet Union in WWII had more advanced weapons than any allie country in many fields and even Germans were copying their T-34 tank which features are bluprint for modern tanks even today. T-34 was most significant turning point on WWII modern weapons. What was the match for this tank in 1940 when it was designed? No tank was match for it. Let me remind you that it was the most-produced tank of the war - all in Soviet Union factories. Germans shaped their best tank "Panter" following T-34 design. Lets go to infantry equipment - Russian machine guns were even to beat German MP-40 in many aspects of urban warfare and cold weather usage. Do I have to mention ZIS guns? US had better planes by the end of the war but still Soviet Union wasn't much back in mass production of them. So your observation on arm supply as crucial factor of winning/losing the war is only what you see. As for all other forms of support - yes - they were important, but don't forget that USSR was also mass production giant even when speaking of the planes. During the war USSR produced about 120.000 planes, it's second achievement after USA, still more than German, from the factories moved to east far from occupied zones. So, one more time, yes, great American help did help, but if you are really careful about studies and "unemotional" as you say, count how many soldiers would Hitler need to keep his occupied territories in Russia and stopped them reorganizing with factories in the east. He didn't have these soldiers acording to all "careful" studies and even his generals. After analyzing the facts, the one is closer to say that America send her aid to be absolutely sure that war is going to end with her money and Soviet lives better than vice versa. And this is an opinion, my opinion, not a fact. Fact is, that US Army landed in Europe when Soviet army was already closing German borders (already in Finland at the day of invasion passing 20 miles every day, while the US army was happy with yards in Normandy, when any). As for the A-bomb, take a "careful" look how Werner Heisenberg worked on A-bomb as well but for the Germans. When Germany capitulated in May of 1945 nobody had a bomb yet. A bomb was dropped in August of the same year, on Japan, as you probably know. In WWII even three days were sometimes important for swift technical development of weapons and we are talking about three months here. Are you sure that America would be first to have that bomb if Red Army didn't enter Berlin in April of the same year? All in all, it's very funny as your "unemotional study" contain only emotions.

reply

WOW dusan have you ever heard of paragraphs? On topic though this discussion is pointless because it was a joint effort to win the war it was an allied victory therefore all allies contributed to the overall victory, each experienced heavy losses and fought brutal battles not just one individual country was responsible.

reply

Dear Mholmes-15, sorry for not being so stylish and literate as you, but I prefer facts, even if without paragraphs. Mutual Allie efforts have their share and heavy losses have their names and numbers, so wake up and take a good look of the topic before writing anything. Also, if discussion is pointless for you, you don't have to post the comment.

reply

The Germans would have never developed the atomic bomb. Werner Heisenberg and his group could not even calculate the critical mass of U-235. There has been a lot researched about this issue- simply stated; the Third Reich could not have developed the atomic bomb even if they had calculated critical mass correctly.

The Soviets could never have won the war without an enormous amount of assistance from the Western Allies. Heck, the highly vaunted (by you) Red Army did not even have bombers!! At least, bombers that were anywhere near the capability of even the B-17s. And certainly not bombers in the 1000 plane category.

The United States won WWII; mostly by our own efforts with a little assistance from our allies.

reply

USA won the war,

Soviet Union lost too much so it was disbanded 40 years later. Germany collapsed only to rise as one of the strongest countries in Europe later on.

But if you ask me, it's kind of unfair - the Americans fought a very small portion of the German armed forces.

The REAL war was fought on the east front - so the victor there should have been the real victor in the war. However, it wasn't the case in this conflict.

reply

US won which war? We were talking about WWII, collapse of USSR has connection with WWII probably as much as great depression had with war in Vietnam.

reply

"The Americans fought a very small portion of the German armed forces"- well, not a VERY small portion. North Africa, Italy, as well as D-Day and subsequent fighting along the western front certainly was a significant portion of the German armed forces though arguable not as much as the eastern front.

The Soviet soldiers fought well, at times, and I do not disparage their efforts. Still, the biggest obstacle to the German Army on that front was the sheer size of the Soviet Union itself. If the logistics pipeline to the German forces on the Eastern front had been more effective then I doubt they would have been stopped by the Soviet soldiers. The Soviet soldiers did divert the strength of the German Army long enough for the American and U.K. bombing effort to develop to fruitation.

Had their been no Eastern front the German Armed forces probably would have been smaller. That is why I doubt that D-Day would have been stopped; even without a Eastern Front. In any event, the biggest single factor for the success of D-Day was the total absence of the Luftwaffe that day. Due in part to Allied deception but mainly due to the Allied air efforts that had reduced the Luftwaffe size enormously from what it had been in 1941 -when the Battle of Britan was raging. Air superiority won WWII and the vast majority of it came from the United States.

reply

There is no doubt the SU won the war in Europe. When the allied landed in Normandy Germany was already beaten. They "just" saved Western Europe from becoming SU sattelite states.

reply

Correct, but not only the war in Europe, since German aspirations were not only European. Lets underline that other Axis armies - Japanese and Italian were not comparable to German. For four years of war against Japan US Army lost around 50 thousand men and for only 11 months in Europe against more than heavy crippled and outnumbered German army US lost 350 thousand soldiers and still didn't enter Berlin. This gives you the picture. Soviet Union didn't win only the war in Europe, but WWII with no factual doubt

reply

In fact, the U. S. and Britain kept delaying the invasion of Normandy for as long as they could. While at least FDR provided the Russkies with some supplies, they destroyed the Wehrmacht and many of Hitler's Panzer Divisions. After they invaded Eastern Europe who could blame them for keeping an adequate buffer zone between them and their historical enemy Germany.

D-Day kept Western Europe in the sphere of U.S. hegemony along with some covert C.I.A. black ops.

reply

The most responsible person behind the allied victory was obviously Adolf Hitler, who did too many drugs and thought too highly of himself and his own genius and thus opened a second (eastern) front.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Had any of the allies not been there there's a good chance the war would have gone differently, so attributing success to just a single country is a big oversimplification. BUT, I'd venture to say America did more for the war effort than Russia. I don't say that out of some nationalistic pride, but because we fought - effectively - on two separate fronts (edit: actually, I just realized Russia did that too, so credit where credit is due). Our breakthrough at Normandy freed up the Russians to advance West. Our industry supported a number of allied countries. And I hate to say it, but to a large extent Russian troops were just cannon fodder. They took huge losses, and without many gains.

But I'm not trying to portray America as the savior of the world; there's no denying Russia did its part. The UK was a great asset as well.

My mule don't like people laughing. Gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him.

reply

The U.S. did no where near as much for the war effort as Russia, in terms of fighting Nazi Germany. The North Africa campaign was a side-show, and the 1943 and 1944 landings in Italy and Normandy still were very marginal as compared to the eastern front. U.S. and British forced accounted for roughly 15% of German's killed, while the Soviet Union accounted for nearly 80% of German casulties. While American bombing campaigns, industrial suport, and relativley small scale combat certainly aided the war effort, the fact of the matter is the fighting and dying was done in Russia. In fact, Stalin was threatening to quit the war unless the Americans and British opened up a second front in Europe, becuase he felt the Soviets were taking a completley unpreportional share of the fighting, and then the allies felt the pressure to enter a European frotn.

reply

Well stated, Halomercenary. There are 20 million Russians who never saw war's end who, I'm sure would agree. Personally, I always thought the Soviets never received their due credit. When one considers the enormity of the casualties sustained, the achievement is even more remarkable and deserving of recognition.

reply

What is also forgotten is the number of casualties inflicted on the Germans by the Soviets. 9 out of every 10 casualty suffered by Germany was inflicted by the Soviet Union.

reply

9 of 10 German soldiers died on the Russian front. America had great difficulties against German army even when Nazi Army was heavy crippled by Soviets at the end of the war. Normandy was D Day only as a beginning set up of the cold war. Otherwise, Soviets were already on the Eastern German borders in June of 1944. UK gave tactical contribution to the war only, their army showed its 'power' at Dunkirk. The only significant war effort of the US were supplies towards USSR where UK fleet also played a pretty vital role. Allie military contribution in WWII especially on the ground is a Western propaganda fairy tale. German military spine was broken by the Red Army.

reply

I believe the Russians would have won the war even if the U.S. stayed neutral. After the loss at Stalingrad the Germans pretty much retreated towards Germany as fast as they could walk.

reply

the russians certainly played a pivotal role in the war... actually, scratch that, they were the most important, they tied down, like you said the vast majority of hitler's forces...

however, if the u.s. were not to intervene in north africa, there would not have been so many germans tied down fighting there (keep in mind that i'm not just talking about the germans who were already there fighting the british, but the germans moved a lot of troops into africa after operation torch).

were the united states not to bolster the allied ranks in africa, well, i'm not in any position to say with any authority whether the british, ANZACs, and free french would have won or lost. i believe they would have lost, but once again, that's just me. what i do know is if they lost, or if they lost sooner, that whole front would have collapsed and the important veteran units deployed there could have been redeployed to the east, which i think would have broken the russians' defense at stalingrad and elsewhere, leading to a german victory in the war.

once again, this is just me. i don't wish to marginalize anyone's role in the war - far from it, i really despise people who do. it's like, how can someone have the gall to say when a bunch of men were fighting and dying to defeat hitler, mussolini, and tojo, it didn't mean as the group of guys a couple miles down the road fighting and dying because they were of a different nationality? point is, every country that had a role in the allied war effort, whether by contribution of forces (no matter the size - it could be one fighter squadron, like mexico - and i understand they were some damn good pilots, or millions of men and tanks) or just economic, they each played an important part and i think it's dumb as hell to sit around and argue over whether the british or the americans or the russians won the war, because first, they all won the war - it was a team effort, and second, if you extract any one of the three, i don't really think the other two could have done it on their own.

baby can you dig your man?
he's a righteous man.

reply