The French are Evil!

[Collegeboy]

I provided an official government document stating that Moscow was in a state of siege.

Russia in WWII didn't receive help from the US until they broke the siegeat Moscow and started to push the Germans out of Russia.

Even if we were fighting on one front it wouldn't have made a difference. We had enough troops our equipment and logistics wasn't as good. The US had a tough time pushing the remains of the German army back to the Rhine, imagine what would have happened if the US had to go against what Russia had to go against. They would have been pushed back into the sea. It doesn't matter if the US would have been invaded; we are talking about WWII and the US in Europe. For the US to defeat the Germans, they would have had to loose ALOT more troops then they did, and I don't see the populace approving of that.

Maybe some troops stayed fighting in a battle for fear of being shot, I do mean some. But the majority, vast majority of the army fought for their country, for their love of their country. Read any journal of the time and you will understand. That quote I provided is a good understanding.

The Russians did lose the Russo-Japanese war.

The Russian wore down and destroyed the German army. Without the US the war would have been a war of attrition, Russia would of bomb German factories while Russian factories were almost bomb proof (spread out in rural areas far away from the front) When Russia fought Germany at full strength they began to push them back.

A fan means I like to study it.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I provided an official government document stating that Moscow was in a state of siege.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I provided an official government document stating that Moscow was in a state of siege.

I gave you Webster's definition of siege. Moscow was never besieged!

Russia in WWII didn't receive help from the US until they broke the siegeat Moscow and started to push the Germans out of Russia.

No siege! Britan helped keep them afloat.

Even if we were fighting on one front it wouldn't have made a difference. We had enough troops our equipment and logistics wasn't as good. The US had a tough time pushing the remains of the German army back to the Rhine, imagine what would have happened if the US had to go against what Russia had to go against. They would have been pushed back into the sea. It doesn't matter if the US would have been invaded; we are talking about WWII and the US in Europe. For the US to defeat the Germans, they would have had to loose ALOT more troops then they did, and I don't see the populace approving of that.

You're underestimation of the American fighting spirit is sad. The US did not have a tough time pushing the Germans back. The US bombed the Germans, not the Russians.

Maybe some troops stayed fighting in a battle for fear of being shot, I do mean some. But the majority, vast majority of the army fought for their country, for their love of their country. Read any journal of the time and you will understand. That quote I provided is a good understanding.

The Russians did lose the Russo-Japanese war.

The Russian wore down and destroyed the German army. Without the US the war would have been a war of attrition, Russia would of bomb German factories while Russian factories were almost bomb proof (spread out in rural areas far away from the front) When Russia fought Germany at full strength they began to push them back.


With what bombers? The Russians had no heavy or medium bombers that could have reached Germany. The Germans would have continued to match and outclass the Russians. Also without the US, how long do you think it would have been before the Japanese backdoored Russia. All of a sudden, those unreachable factories would be reached. You can't have it both ways. The Russians fought one war! The US fought two wars at once! BTW, how would the Russians have dealt with the German Atom bombs?

[superdesk2007]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy


I provided info on the seige of moscow.

THERE WAS NO SIEGE OF MOSCOW!

And no I am not a fan on the revisionist history of Russia, I am a Russian history major and fan of Russian history.

And the Russians did not lose to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War either!

No if the US would have faced the Nazis with the Nazis in full strength and the US in full Stength the US would have lost. Allied air power helped, but didn't win the war. Russia if you had to pick one thing that won the war, won the war. But it was a collective effort that won the war with Russia doing more then either side.

FOOL! The US faught two wars at the same time. Could Russia have survived had the Japanese invaded from the East? Probably not. The US defeated the Japanese almost single handedly. Further, we supplied the Russians with the arms they needed to fight. Had the US not entered the war could Russia have won? Maybe. Had US planes not bombed the daylights out of Germany, the Germans may have completed their Atom Bomb. Do you think mushroom clouds over Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad would have forced the Russians to surrender?

Allied air power opened the door for the Soviet advance. The Soviets could not have made the progress they did if up against the fully supplied and armed German armies. If they could have, the Germans would not have moved so far into Soviet territory. Also, if Hitler had let his generals run the eastern front, the Soviets might very well have been forced to sue for peace. Hitler helped the allies win the war as much as anyone. That fool made decisions that allowed for the capture of 100's of thousands of German troops.

Air power never won a war? Hey WWII! Japan surrendered without a single allied soldier invading the mainland! Air power did pretty much defeat the Japanese in the end did it not!

I really don't want to argue with you, but air power alone can't win a war. We won because we island hopped, and we nuked Japan twice, and we would have nuked them again and again if they did not surrender. Wait, CB, was it Russia who nuked Japan or us? I will admit that air power played a huge part in the Pacific.

btw I'm m-98 accidently on as superdesk.

[m-98]

First, CB you may have some valid points but I can't find any so stop posting crap.

Second, the point of having allies is to have assistance in a war, not to say that such and such a country would have one without the other. We were helped by the Russians, British, free French and others, and we helped them in return

Third, we won WWII, so having these arguments won't change anything.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by superdesk2007


I really don't want to argue with you, but air power alone can't win a war. We won because we island hopped, and we nuked Japan twice, and we would have nuked them again and again if they did not surrender. Wait, CB, was it Russia who nuked Japan or us? I will admit that air power played a huge part in the Pacific.

btw I'm m-98 accidently on as superdesk.

You just made my point. We never had to invade Japan! A little death from above and boom they surrendered. I do not want to minimize the Army and Marines, but you can not win a war without air power!

Russia had none until the very end of the war when they flew copies of allied planes. It was American bombers and Fighters that took the fight to the heart of Germany first and hardest! Without knocking out the German industrial might, the Germans would have had the Atom bomb. Do you think Russia could have survived being nuked repeatedly?

[JaredTheBeast]

1stdeadeye

Forget Syria, Iran, and North Korea!
Maybe we should forget the three above and just invade France! It shouldn't take too long. We can send over a few cub scout troops and occupy them with the Brownies!

They really are no longer our allies!


Thats pretty funny bud.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by JaredTheBeast
1stdeadeye

Forget Syria, Iran, and North Korea!
Maybe we should forget the three above and just invade France! It shouldn't take too long. We can send over a few cub scout troops and occupy them with the Brownies!

They really are no longer our allies!


Thats pretty funny bud.

Correct, they are not allies, they and Germany are our rivals.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Correct, they are not allies, they and Germany are our rivals.

That is about that stupidest comment I heard in my life. How can a disagreement over a yet to be justified war, turn a person from an ally to an enemy. Looks like someone actually believes the Bush saying "you are with us or you are against us." When will it stop, will you be happy with the invasion of Germany and France, because since they don't agree with us, they must be pro-terrorist.

Back to WWII.

Russia had a pretty decent air force, enough to hold of German attacks. They lacked a long range bomber, but that isn't the problem. You are trying to mix two strategies together in one. The USSR doesn't rely on dropping bombs miles in the sky, then send in troops. They believe in air strikes against the target, artillery barrages, tank columns and all followed by massive troop movements. With the Soviets having a never ending source of men willing to fight, (Woman too) they can afford to do that. but the US can not afford to bring home body bags for the type of government we have.

WWII was won because of a combined effort on all sides of the board. No nation won it on their own, some did more for the effort then others, but none won it on their own.

We are talking theoretical analysis here. Could the US or Russia have defeated the Germans in WWII alone.

I will do the easy one first. There is no way the US could have defeated the Germans in WWII alone. No ifs ands or buts about. They didn't have the equipment to handle a fully equipped and fresh German army, the had troubles against a piece of a German army using green troops. Did the US actions on two fronts affect the war in the west any. Not really. The US didn't have man power shortage, they had a equipment problem. All that would have benefited the US if they was fighting a one front war would have been more troops. You have to remember that Europe received just about all the attention of the US until the fall of Germany.

Now on to Russia. Russia started pushing back the Germans before they even the US agreed to aide, not to mention before the saw the aide. The Soviets would of done their type of war, not the US type of war. Japan would not have invaded for they specifically told Hitler no, for their interest was in Indochina, not Russia. About the atomic bomb, it would not have made Russians stop fighting, it would have made them fight more. The Russians put their industries spread out far enough to where bombing them would not be a threat to Soviet Industry output, also they were further in to where the distance the Germans would of had to fly would have been too much. Maybe the war between Russia and Germany would have ended in a stalemate at the very least, at the most it would have ended in a Russian victory, for their was no way that Germany could have matched Russia in industry and will of the people after years of fighting and what not.

[aaron_mag]

Do you even realize how demented your post sounds? Russia didn't believe in an extensive bombing campaign? How about they couldn't perform an extensive bombing campaign?

The atomic bomb would have made Russia fight harder? I supposed the reason the Japanese surrendered is because their troops were not as fanatical as the Russians?

Do you realize that the army of Stalingrad might have escaped the Russian trap had that idiot Goerring not promised they could be supplied from the air and if Hitler hadn't been a moron and cut his losses?

I'm not saying that the Russians didn't come up with a brilliant strategy or that they didn't fight hard. Your strange rationale, however, that the Russians didn't need the rest of the alliance is extremely flawed.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Do you even realize how demented your post sounds? Russia didn't believe in an extensive bombing campaign? How about they couldn't perform an extensive bombing campaign?

The atomic bomb would have made Russia fight harder? I supposed the reason the Japanese surrendered is because their troops were not as fanatical as the Russians?

Do you realize that the army of Stalingrad might have escaped the Russian trap had that idiot Goerring not promised they could be supplied from the air and if Hitler hadn't been a moron and cut his losses?

I'm not saying that the Russians didn't come up with a brilliant strategy or that they didn't fight hard. Your strange rationale, however, that the Russians didn't need the rest of the alliance is extremely flawed.

The Japanese was fighting WWII for an imperialistic leader, much like Russia in WWI. Russians was fighting for their country, their heritage, their life. With the dropping of the atomic bomb, it would have only strengthened their resolve to beat the Germans.

They needed the rest of the alliance to cut their losses, but they still could have won on their own, a slight chance that they would come away with anything but a stalemate but out of all the allies they were the only one suited to defeated the Germans on their own.

[aaron_mag]

Yeah and the Japanese Emperor had nothing to do with the Japanese way of life. By the end the Japanese were not fighting for Imperialistic but to protect their country. But you are right that the Japanese were not willing to fight fanatically for their country. Its not like they were flying suicide missions into ships or anything.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
And no, if you all actually knew what you all was talking about, then maybe you could see where I am coming from, but since most of you all still think Russia and the USSR are the same thing, or that Russia was a communist nation, I can not discuss or even expect you to understand the Russian people.

It goes with the ignorance of the populace. Most Americans are ignorant of the Russians, and this thread shows it.

We think of Russia and the USSR as the same thing? We do not understand the Russian people? This coming from someone who claims everyone else puts words into his mouth? What is this mystic knowledge you have on the Russian people that prove that they didn't need our bombing campaign? Also why didn't this invincible Soviet army continue rolling across the rest of Europe even after they met up with the allies? Their leadership would have loved to do that.

You know when I graduated from college (the first degree which was in History and Economics) my father took me on a trip to India. I was young and idealistic and extolled the virtues of communism (which I am not saying that you are endorsing). There was a Russian women sitting next to us on the plane. She now lived in America and worked for AT&T. When my father explained to her my beliefs on communism she looked at me shocked like I was the biggest fool in the world (and I might have been). She then explained how communism was all about (in her delightful Russian accent) "you don't like it? Off to Siberia!" There was national pride in the Soviet soldiers but many of them were also fighting because of the "Off to Siberia" factor.

[Collegeboy]

The Japanese in WWII was fighting for their country in an imperialistic war, they were fighting for their leaders imperialistic war. They fought fanatical until the bombs dropped when they realized what they was fighting for.

There was no doubt what Russians were fighting for.

What the US's 100,000 men were going to stop the Soviets 2,000,000 at Berlin? They stopped because they got Berlin. The US feared that the Soviets would conquer the rest of Europe, but in the end when given the chance they didn't.

I did say most, so if you don't think that Russia and the USSR are the same thing, and if you don't think that the USSR was communist, then obviously I am not talking about you.

No the soldiers were not fighting for the off to Siberia. Chances are that woman grew up in the 1936 to 1938 era known as the "great" purges. (And know purging does not mean kill).

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


The Japanese was fighting WWII for an imperialistic leader, much like Russia in WWI. Russians was fighting for their country, their heritage, their life. With the dropping of the atomic bomb, it would have only strengthened their resolve to beat the Germans.

They needed the rest of the alliance to cut their losses, but they still could have won on their own, a slight chance that they would come away with anything but a stalemate but out of all the allies they were the only one suited to defeated the Germans on their own.

A stalemate is the best they could have hoped for on their own. Since they could not bomb the German industrial establishment, that meant that the German Jet fighters and bombers would have been available to use against the Soviets. Those unreachable factories would have been reachable. If the German's nuked the major Soviet Cities, who would have been left to organize and lead the Soviet war effort? Without the allied designs, what kind of planes would the Soviets had to fight the Luftwaffe? No, on their own the Soviets could have only hoped for a stalemate. The US had truly remote facilities where our production could have continued ad infinitum! We developed our own nuke that we could have used to force the Germans to capitulate. We still would have destroyed their industrial might because WE HAD THE BOMBERS!!!

As for Japan, you are wrong. They were far more fanatical then any other army in the war. Even after we dropped 2 Atom Bombs on them, they agreed to surrender only after MacAuthur assured them that the US would not arrest and prosecute their emperor. Further, we agreed to allow him to retain his throne. If not for that token of goodwill, the Japanese would have continued fighting in spite of nuclear annihilation!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The Japanese in WWII was fighting for their country in an imperialistic war, they were fighting for their leaders imperialistic war. They fought fanatical until the bombs dropped when they realized what they was fighting for.

See my previous post. The Japanese were still willing to fight to the end!

There was no doubt what Russians were fighting for.

The same thing every army in WWII fought for!

What the US's 100,000 men were going to stop the Soviets 2,000,000 at Berlin? They stopped because they got Berlin. The US feared that the Soviets would conquer the rest of Europe, but in the end when given the chance they didn't.

They didn't have that chance. THe Soviet Union was devastated by WWII. To continue the war against the Allies would have been folly. Some temporary gain at best. Do you really think that the US would have hesitated to nuke the Soviets? Our bombers and fighters would have laid wast to the Soviet Union. Guess what? The B-29's could reach anywhere in the Soviet Union! The Soviet's didn't have a heavy bomber until after the war and that was a stolen copy of the Superfortress! The Soviets desperatly needed to rebuild after WWII. You can't feed your people bullets and bombs! To prolong the war would have hastened the eventual destruction of the USSR. Why don't you argue with me that the USSR wasn't destroyed? And yes, I do know the difference between Russia and the USSR. Most people incorrectly use them interchangably.

I did say most, so if you don't think that Russia and the USSR are the same thing, and if you don't think that the USSR was communist, then obviously I am not talking about you.

IBID

No the soldiers were not fighting for the off to Siberia. Chances are that woman grew up in the 1936 to 1938 era known as the "great" purges. (And know purging does not mean kill).

Siberia was a death sentance, so those purges usually did result in deaths. How many Soviet officers and troops were killed by their own forces in order to scare the rest into fighting. More then you know! I have heard some scary stories from a young man named Vadim whose grandfather perished in WWII. Most RUSSIANS don't think to highly or layally about Stalin now (or then for that matter)!