PDA

View Full Version : OT: BBC Talking Point on the old WWII debate



AWL_Spinner
05-04-2005, 03:07 AM
Not wishing to spark it up here again but some of you more informed historians may want to post a comment on the BBC?

BBC: Who Won WWII? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm)

Oh, and anyone who gets a comment including Oleg or IL2 included should win a special community prize http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

carguy_
05-04-2005, 03:28 AM
"The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces' mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success than if we had not such help."


Somebody tell me what is wrong about this sentence.

Finkeren
05-04-2005, 03:28 AM
There isn't really much to comment about, the numbers speak for themselves. The western allies role in defeating Germany was mainly military production and diversion. Not much controversy in that, it's widely accepted that USSR won the war on the battlefield while USA won it economically.
No contribution can be said to be more important than the other in the defeat of fascism, because all were essential, from the local partizan to Frankie, Whinnie and Jossie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AWL_Spinner
05-04-2005, 06:28 AM
Ah, they've posted the first batch of comments.

Anyone here responsible?

SnapdLikeAMutha
05-04-2005, 08:13 AM
I think Stalin put it best:

"America gave money, Britain gave time, Russia
gave blood." (paraphrased)

VW-IceFire
05-04-2005, 08:47 AM
Having studied the question and having attended a full semester of classes on the topic of warfare in Europe I think its fair to say that the Russians had the largest piece of the pie.

Germany directed alot of resources at Russia. Had Germany been only engaged by the Western Allies the war might have lasted quite a bit longer...potentially with the D-Day invasion being turned back in Normandy under the pressure of far more German tanks and troops.

On the other hand, the resources directed by Germany against the Allied bomber offensive was also vital as was the industrial contribution of the United States. I think the ultimate answer, one that doesn't just pander to the actual act of war but the overall situation places all of the major allied powers in positions of helping to achieve victory.

geetarman
05-04-2005, 08:55 AM
All made their contributions, which led to the German defeat. Simple as that. The war against Japan was no sideshow as well.

AWL_Spinner
05-04-2005, 09:15 AM
Lots of related stuff in the British media this week.

Here's another article you might find interesting.

Witnessing the surrender. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4497947.stm)

Jodl's words are sobering.

horseback
05-04-2005, 10:58 AM
Had the Germans not invaded the Soviet Union and maintained friendly relations with the USSR while conducting all out war with the British Commonwealth and the US (we'll assume, for argument's sake, that everything else happened on schedule), consider what the Western Allies would have done with all the production capacity that went to the Soviet Union (or to the bottom of the ocean en route to Murmansk).

We might have recognized that the Sherman wasn't the ideal tank for armored vs armored combat, and replaced it with something better (the Pershing?) that much sooner.

The United States would have had somewhat more excess manpower sooner, to commit to North Africa, Italy, France, and the bombing campaign.

Curtiss, Bell, and other smaller aviation companies could have moved their production capacity to more effective types like the Lightning, Thunderbolt, Corsair or Hellcat by mid 1943.

The British civilian population could have eaten much better, with US raised beef, grains and vegetables shipped with the excess cargo capacity freed up.

My point is that there was a great deal of material and energy that went into supporting the Soviet Union, and while it was certainly more profitable to have them as an ally, the resources allotted to them by the British and Americans would still have been applied to the war effort against the Germans and Japanese to good effect.

We would still have won without them.

cheers

horseback

arcadeace
05-04-2005, 11:07 AM
Horseback sometimes I wonder why you post here. You're a notch above most.

F19_Olli72
05-04-2005, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
consider what the Western Allies would have done with all the production capacity that went to the Soviet Union (or to the bottom of the ocean en route to Murmansk).

But thats still only a fraction of the recources Germany or the Soviet put in at the eastern front. So sry to say, your point is moot.

Arcadeace hehe, someone call the mods before the real flagwaving begins. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arcadeace
05-04-2005, 11:44 AM
Oh I haven't waved my flag in a long time Ollie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You're waving something here tho, but you can certianly give a better response http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
05-04-2005, 12:31 PM
Olli, check the figures: the Soviets rode into combat almost entirely on American made trucks (450,000 heavy trucks-and Jeeps, and cars), they wore uniforms made as often as not in the US, their war machine was fueled by the American oil industry, and a great deal of the food that they ate was raised in American farmlands and transported across thousands of miles/kilometers by the US Merchant Marine, and protected solely by the US and Royal Navies.

Oh, yeah. We also provided thousands of fighter, medium bomber, and transport aircraft as well as artillary tubes, armored vehicles and millions of tons of ammunition. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that American aircraft generally took more materials to make than their smaller German counterparts.

I'd question the fraction label; even with a six month head start, I suspect that the US material contribution to the Eastern Front equalled close to half of the Soviet material contribution, or one third of the total.

These not only directly supported the Soviet military, but freed up industrial and agricultural production capacity in the Soviet Union which would not have been available otherwise. They would not have been able to be as productive as they actually were without our support.

cheers

horseback

BuzzU
05-04-2005, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
I think Stalin put it best:

"America gave money, Britain gave time, Russia
gave blood." (paraphrased)

The US didn't give blood fighting Germany?

Stalin was an idiot.

tjaika1910
05-04-2005, 01:26 PM
If the western had to do more of the battle they still would have won. (as long as the germans did lose BoB. USSR and Nazi germany was allies at that time. USSR had attacked Poland in cooperation with Germany and had also lost a lot in the war against Finland.

What if Churchill would go to war against both? Would we see at separate peace between the allies and sovjet when Germany eventually attacked USSR? A prolonged war in europe would mean that the germans would face nuclear bombs.

A such what-if scenario leads to:

A defeited USSR, maybe democratic after Stalins collapse.
Heavy fighting on french (and scandinavian ?) soil. Even more bombing in Germany, also nuclear. Difficult to build up a stable Germany (too ruined) while there wouldnt be any cold war between the east and the west. Who knows?

Tater-SW-
05-04-2005, 02:09 PM
The Soviets gave more blood than they should have. The idea that total death toll somehow picks who "won" is absurd.

(made up numbers as an example)
A picks on B, and kills 10 B for every A in combat. C then attacks A and kills 5 A for every C killed. That's C:A:B of 1:5:50 B takes 50 times the casualties of C in defeating A. Sounds like they just don;t know what they're doing, or don't care about wasting men.

The Western Allies lost fewer men per goal achieved BECAUSE they spent materiel. Had they had less "stuff" they would have had to throw men into the meat grinder instead. I prefer throwing away "stuff" to men. Stalin, the greatest massmurderer in history, didn't care about wasting "cheap" lives instead of expensive "stuff."

Oh, and don;t forget that at the start of the war the Soviets were co-belligerants with the Germans. Germany AND the CCCP invaded Poland. Why they still get a pass for that, I'll never understand. Heck, I'm not sure why they got a pass for it then.

tater

LeadSpitter_
05-04-2005, 02:53 PM
russians destroyed the most german armor when pushing germany out of russia and scarified the most ground troops, very stupidly i must add.

American and british lend lease ac production helped russia alot when moving aircraft factories and tank factories back giving them a chance to rebuild and start massproduction again

British canadian and americans bombers destroyed the fuel production, factories, war plants and unfortunatly the civilian population to destroy german moral which cripled the german airforce and made the germans turn against the nazi party.

Germans were doing the same thing with the v1 v2 and v3 along with bombing civilians.

It took many nations to defeat the germans, countries like the czechloslavakia wound up in worse shape in russian control then under german control.

The french resistance and others played a huge roll in regaining france back

dont forget the germans axis powers finnish italian slovakian romanians japan then other allied nations abyssinians australians philipeans chinese and many others.

To say one country aided the most or won wwii is just ridiculous it took all allied nations to win the war.

Regaurdless stalin was just as bad as hitler maybe even worse but both were crazy individuals same with hirohito.

F19_Olli72
05-04-2005, 04:50 PM
Arcadeace, my comment wasnt directed to you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifIt was a general statement regarding the subject in this thread.


Originally posted by horseback:
Oh, yeah. We also provided thousands of fighter, medium bomber, and transport aircraft as well as artillary tubes, armored vehicles and millions of tons of ammunition. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that American aircraft generally took more materials to make than their smaller German counterparts.

Um you seem to forget were talking about Soviet here. They built 10 000 of Il2s alone. Just think of the rest of the airforce? I certainly dont have the numbers but even you have to admit the lend lease planes was a small part of it.

Do i think Germany wouldve won? No, but the war might have dragged on and on and if Soviet didnt get involved Germany might have gotten their crazy projects going. V1, V2 etc who knows what they wouldve come up with.

Also Germany wouldve done like the Soviets. Put their factories in the east so it wouldve been harder for the allies to bomb them.

92SqnGCJimbo
05-04-2005, 06:09 PM
well ive done..

Copperhead310th
05-04-2005, 10:42 PM
I've said this here before and so i guess it bares repaeting.

Hitler's stupitiy was in attempting to wage a war on to fronts that germany was NEVER ecomomically and logistally capible of winning.
there had nither the resources or production abilities to defeat the west and the east at the same time. now had Hitler invaded england as was planned...and secured the west BEFORE breaking the non ag pact then they may have had a chance. thankfully.....Hitler was a compleate moron.

Freelancer-1
05-04-2005, 10:58 PM
I think I'm having a deja vu.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8891018713

Franzen
05-05-2005, 01:06 AM
I'm not taking an easy way out. I have given this much thought. I truly believe no one won the war.
I think everyone lost the war. The losses on all sides were too great to say either side was victorious. In a prolonged war there can be no winners, only losers.

How do we keep score? There comes a point when war is not feasable anymore. Once we pass this point there can be no winners, only survivors.

This debate has gone on for many years and will continue to go one. This fact alone shows there were no winners. Had there been a winner, there'd be no debate. It's interesting that immediately after the war the Allies claimed victory. Sixty years later the Allies are debating about it.

Fritz Franzen

RIPelliottsmith
05-05-2005, 02:30 AM
I dunno which is more repulsive...americans bragging about lend-lease, or russians dismissing it.

One of the great co-operations in human history, and still people gotta drag it into the gutter.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Hooray for the americans and soviets of 1941 - 1945. Both deserve a big S!

Monson74
05-05-2005, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
I think Stalin put it best:

"America gave money, Britain gave time, Russia
gave blood." (paraphrased)

The US didn't give blood fighting Germany?

Stalin was an idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US did give blood but for every American soldier KIA there were 60 Russian. Stalin an idiot? He came out of WWII owning almost half of Europe...