World war 2 was not america's war

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]

Am i the only one that is completely taken back by the complete innacuracy of those stats?

RiseAgainst12

again, the falacy of statistics.

did he mean soldiers? Did he mean civilians? Both?

Also, the fact that there are five or more zeros at the end of each number is rounding it just a bit too much.

[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"] Enlighten us.mrbojangles25

again, the falacy of statistics.

did he mean soldiers? Did he mean civilians? Both?

Also, the fact that there are five or more zeros at the end of each number is rounding it just a bit too much.

[QUOTE="LZ71"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]

The US played a huge role in D-Day. Without US forces, would D-Day have been successful? Would it have even been attempted? The Russians would have defeated Germany. The question is how far in to Europe would they have gone. The Russians even had their eyes on Japan toward the end, which is one reason we wanted to end the conflict on that front as soon as possible. Then again, the Russians didn't keep any Chinese territory, so who knows. They might have decided to let France and other countries who were fighting the Germans be.

RiseAgainst12

The Germans ran in to major problems in Russia due to the weather and the scorched earth policy. I'm not sure the Germans would have been able to defeat the Russians. Of course, maybe you're right. If the Germans didn't have to fight on the Western front, they would have been free to send in equipment and supplies. Didn't the Russians start beating the Germans before the US entered the war though?

[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"][QUOTE="LZ71"] That's what I was trying to say in my post. Without the US, D-Day may have not been attempted, as the British were the only other Allied major fighting force left in Europe besides Russia. My thoughts would be that if D-Day wouldn't have happened, the war would have ended in late 1946, and a big portion of Europe would have been speaking Russia as a result. Then that changes the whole next 50 years greatly.psychobrew

The Germans ran in to major problems in Russia due to the weather and the scorched earth policy. I'm not sure the Germans would have been able to defeat the Russians. Of course, maybe you're right. If the Germans didn't have to fight on the Western front, they would have been free to send in equipment and supplies. Didn't the Russians start beating the Germans before the US entered the war though?

On the European front, it's hard to say. Near the end of Stalingrad, the Russians were getting things together, and were ready to push back the Germans. And at this time, the crossing of the English Channel had failed, but the British still hadn't fought back for Europe. When D-Day came though, it really put a hurting on the Germans, as they now had to deal with a full-scale assualt coming from both the east and west. Without the push from the France, I think that the war would have lasted longer than it did, but ultimately, the Russians would be able to defeat the Germans. Of course, this is a huge "What if" question, and no answer is more right than the other.LZ71

The US played a huge role in D-Day. Without US forces, would D-Day have been successful? Would it have even been attempted? The Russians would have defeated Germany. The question is how far in to Europe would they have gone. The Russians even had their eyes on Japan toward the end, which is one reason we wanted to end the conflict on that front as soon as possible. Then again, the Russians didn't keep any Chinese territory, so who knows. They might have decided to let France and other countries who were fighting the Germans be.

Russia wouldn't have been so successful without the western front being active.. Even the Russians knew they had no chance in a one fronted war against Germany.RiseAgainst12

The Germans ran in to major problems in Russia due to the weather and the scorched earth policy. I'm not sure the Germans would have been able to defeat the Russians. Of course, maybe you're right. If the Germans didn't have to fight on the Western front, they would have been free to send in equipment and supplies. Didn't the Russians start beating the Germans before the US entered the war though?

Britains death toll was actually 340,000 soldiers and about 80,000 civilians put it total dead at 420,000 ;)

[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]Russia wouldn't have been so successful without the western front being active.. Even the Russians knew they had no chance in a one fronted war against Germany.psychobrew

The Germans ran in to major problems in Russia due to the weather and the scorched earth policy. I'm not sure the Germans would have been able to defeat the Russians. Of course, maybe you're right. If the Germans didn't have to fight on the Western front, they would have been free to send in equipment and supplies. Didn't the Russians start beating the Germans before the US entered the war though?

[QUOTE="LZ71"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]

The Germans ran in to major problems in Russia due to the weather and the scorched earth policy. I'm not sure the Germans would have been able to defeat the Russians. Of course, maybe you're right. If the Germans didn't have to fight on the Western front, they would have been free to send in equipment and supplies. Didn't the Russians start beating the Germans before the US entered the war though?

psychobrew

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]

The Germans ran in to major problems in Russia due to the weather and the scorched earth policy. I'm not sure the Germans would have been able to defeat the Russians. Of course, maybe you're right. If the Germans didn't have to fight on the Western front, they would have been free to send in equipment and supplies. Didn't the Russians start beating the Germans before the US entered the war though?

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="LZ71"] If my memory serves me, I think the Russians turned the tables somewhere in early 1943, at Stalingrad, which is a year before the Allies invaded Europe.LZ71

One thing is certain -- once the Germans were on the defensive and backtraking, their offensives were inneffective.

Speculating is fun :D Most of the time a good discussion comes out of a not so good thread the mods lock it :( I am happy they didn't with this one. It is currently 5am thoe so i am out of the discussion for tonight :PRiseAgainst12

[QUOTE="psychobrew"] I'm not convinced Britain would have taken the initiative without knowing they had extra troops from the US, but maybe they would have. D-Day was a risky battle.RiseAgainst12

The French army was pretty much irrelevant in the war andeven with enough troops, D-Day was an extremely dificult battle. I'm not convinced they could have taken the beach without support from fresh US troops.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"] The war would have dragged on for quite a while longer.. But in the end Allies would have beaten Germany back (Seeing they kepted strong ties with Russia). Honestly the war was won Because of Hitlers own stupidity of opening up two fighting fronts. America didn't really win the war.. but it surely pushed the victory to a much closer timeframe and saved millions of lives in the process. RiseAgainst12

The sleeper cells did more harm than good. They started fighting before the rest of the Allies were ready.

The US only got actively involved after we were attacked by Japan...and the US didn't win the war alone. So, yeah...it never was solely America's war. But the US military did make a difference when they entered the horrible war.

Hence the name world war 2.

The French army was pretty much irrelevant in the war andeven with enough troops, D-Day was an extremely dificult battle. I'm not convinced they could have taken the beach without support from fresh US troops.

psychobrew

Hmm... World War 2. Hmm... perhaps it was the world's war, probably a couple of countries? Anyway, it was a 3 v 3 match for the most part. I'd say the two main forces you think of would be the Americans and the Germans. The US was the force that really turned the war and ended it while Germany is looked upon as the guy who provoked the war with the concentration camps and whatnot---> and they did make the first move into poland. AssassinFonce

Eh, Germany was a threat to everyone. They deserved what they got, and they'll never try it again unless they wanted to lose another war, like they lost 2 already. And plus America had Audie Murphy, who would have handled the whole thing if he didn't lose his mind first, thats why we had so less casualties.

Hence the name world war 2.

sonicare

Do not tell the OP. It will ruin a point he was trying to make. If any?

Hence the name world war 2.

sonicare

/thread. :)

If Russia did push and take Germany, they'd probably have gotten the Nuke before us or quick enough that it'd change the whole dynamic of the Cold War afterwards.

If Russia did push and take Germany, they'd probably have gotten the Nuke before us or quick enough that it'd change the whole dynamic of the Cold War afterwards.

xionvalkyrie

Russia could havedefeated germany on it's own. The sheer size of russia combined with it'svast industrial capacity, manpower, and sever weatherwill defeat any invader. Napoleon tried it in 1812, he failed. Hitler tried again in 1941. He too failed.

Americans don't think that. Where do some of you guys get your info about Americans!? This is a constant issue.

The Pacific Conflict was, but the Russians played the major role for the allies in WWII