Would The US Been Able to Win WWII Without the USSR?

[Jonneh]

Originally posted by SprayingMango
The United States would win no matter what, because WE WILL ALWAYS WIN!

End of story.

Just like you won in Vietnam.

[Curly]

Originally posted by Jonneh
Just like you won in Vietnam.

Zing.

[Mango]

Originally posted by Jonneh
Just like you won in Vietnam.

Wow Jonneh, you are so smart. How bout you pull your head out of your arse and learn some World History hot shot.


Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.

The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.

THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID.

Facts about the end of the war:

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification.

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives.

There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Newbie215
Fellas come on Russia was in the deperession as many countrys where, but russia was preety much in a depression before the great depression. Russia in world war two had 50% of her army with out a rifle every other solder was issued a wepon. There where maulnutritioned and lack of ablity to fight. a good resistance with 1/2 the army unequiped the russians where just another brick in the wall and was just a speed bump for the axis powers. The russians might as well had ran at them and preform a human wall for the others. Why do you think they lost so much land in WWI to whom went to Poland. Russia should haven't even been in WWII being changed in goverment. The russians where going through a civil war at the same time.

Heres a history lesson for you.

Civil war in russia-

Many people where opposed to the Bolshevik or, Communist, regime. These people included not only the loyalist to the Tsar (or Czar) but also the liberals and anti-Leninist socialist. Bolshevik or red army which intun demened a red scare OR red terror to influnce the Comunnist ideal. Russia is a jar full of jelly when it comes to the World wars 1&2 Lennin in ww2 wanted to join the leig on nations (the now day UN) but because russia removed it self from the war (ww1) they did no join. Leon Troski on the other hand in ww2 made a big influnce on the work programs.
Also not to mention the tank warfare russia would have never been able to compete. But now days russia has over 100,000 tons of resin and arsenic in a compound being seceretly raided by terrorest. Russia is the most feared county when it comes to chemical war fare. But the Mighty United States will allways be suprem.
I could go on and on and on but I got pms and e-mails

Dude that has got to be the funniest piece of Russian/USSR history I have EVER seen.

The Civil War was 1918 to 1920
Lenin died in 1924
Trotsky was kicked out of Russia in 1928 (or so) and died shortly after.
I will not even touch the enemy at the gates mentality.

[Johnny_Reb]

Mangos right, the Americans won every major battle in vietnam,however frequent use of ambushes and gorilla tactics caused a high loss of life on the american side. Nixon realized that there was a growing dislike for the war in the US(stupid hippes! )and needed to end it quickly. He then initiated many air strikes on the Vietcong which brought on peace talks. America then left the war and as we all know when we left the Vietcong overan South Vietnam. SV lost the war not the US.

As for WWII, ya I think in the end we would have won even without the USSR. At the rate our military was building we would have been able to eventually defeat the nazis, of course then the war would have lasted longer with a greater loss of life, but we wouldve still won

And Newbie you obviously dont know what your talking about, the Russians had a great army and were very tenacious. One former nazi officer once compared the German army to an elephant and the russians to ants, the elephant could kill millions of ants but the ants would keep coming and they would eventually overwhelm and eat the elephant.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

do we REALLY need another one of these threads? They all turn out the same...

[Newbie215]

just like we lost nam huh????

well it seems your not a us citizen so you may want to understand that nam wasent a war it was a joke *no offence*
but i got recordings of radio transmisions saying that the plane tht just took off had to land and change its bombs because washington said so even have recordings of a plane doing this twice the only reason we lost is because washington wouldent leave the troops alone to fight and it is also true we never lost the southern vietnamise did

[Newbie215]

Not to go back to WW1 but many feel ww1 and ww2 where combined with just a break in the middle.Not to say this but Germany only said that after the war. The only reason he said that because the population of the army. If you took 4 russians 2 would have rifles and 2 would have food not a good army to me. The Shiefenplan in WWI was the plan for a 2 front war, Russia and France they sent alot less to the Russian front...Not to mention the Russians military tatics at the time. The Russian might have just shot them selvs the germans had motorized cannon. The russians had peashooters.. The next time you say I dont know what im talking about say something agressive.

[1stdeadeye]

MAKE IT STOP!

*grabs head* *migrane sets in*

Not another one! Please make it stop!!!!

JReb,

The Soviets did not have a good or even presentable army at the onset of WWII. Stalin had killed a large percentage of the Armies officers. The Soviet army got better as the war went on as much through trial and error as desparation. Look at the huge advances the Germans made.

Also, the Russians were fighting a 1 front war. All of their man-power, efforts and resources were thrown at the Germans. We are one of two nations to fight a two front war in WWII. Unlike the Germans, we won!

Here is a question for you. Could the Soviets have stood if the Japanese invaded them from the east? Could they have fought a two front war? Probably not. The Japanese bombers would have hit all of those factories out of the German reach. The Japanese armies would have rolled north out of China into the underbelly of the USSR. Without their tanks and planes, no matter how determined, the Soviets would have been rolled.

As for Eric. The US and British are the ones who bombed Germany into ruin, not the Soviets. The US and British were bombing Germany while Germany was still on the offensive inside of the USSR. American and British bombing stopped the Germans from building their bomb among other things. No USSR, the Americans and Brits still would have bombed Germany hard. Ask Dresden!

[-J�ker-]

Originally posted by slateman


3. Two words: George Patton. As long as this guy was alive, the Allies had a chance. The Germans feared Patton above all other Allied Generals and Admirals. The reason was simple: Patton would have used the Germans tactics against them. Manuever warfare and the blitzkrieg tactics. Patton would have sped through Europe like he did through N. Africa and Scicily. [/B]

i really think patton is over rated... yea he was smart and good but... he coudnt take not winning doing it his way and he coudnt take the fact of him not winning the battle for us if he didnt.... just look at the battle of bastogne patton supposedly saved our airborne guys but really was they were kickin *** and givin it to the krauts.... this is just my opnion so please dont get mad if you disagree, oh and dont think i dont respect patton

[Collegeboy]

Most of you all are thinking just on the US ways of battle and thinking that if someone couldn't do what the US did, then that means they couldn't have won.

The US did not have the manpower that the Russians had, so they had to rely on bombing, the Russians didn't have the bombs that the US had so they had to rely on mass amounts of people. Comparison, the US lead Berlin invasion force had something like 125,000 or so, the Soviet lead invasion force had something like 2 million. That is one of the reasons why Ike let the Russians take Berlin.

There was no way that the Japanese could reach the Soviet industrial plants without a mid air refuel, so this being WWII, no it was not possible for them to do so.

But this is all planning on the premise that Japan would have attacked Russia, which is as far as my research goes is an non conclusion. Japan was turning their attention to the SE, to Indochinia. Then out to the pacific. The US would have eventually had fought the Japanesse when they incroached on their land, but the Japanese would have never attacked the Russians.

Also the enemy at the gates mentality that two men one gun is a complete falsity. Did the USSR have problems getting ALL their soldiers weapons, yes, but the vast majority did have weapons and more then enough ammunition.


And about Vietnam, To say the US didn't lose Vietnam is like trying to say that just because you fight in a war, if you leave just before it falls and are not there for the fall then you didn't lose. Never mind you didn't accomplish any of your goals. Never mind you could never have defeat the enemy. As my father says about Vietnam. How could you defeat an enemy who you didn't know if that child in the stroller is it, or that 99 year old grandmother is. Every Vietnam soldier I have talked to, and that is a lot, that has gotten over the emotional binds of fighting in vietnam, have said we have lost that war. You have to make alot better arguement then saying since we wasn't there for the fall then we didn't lose, to convince people that the US didn't lose Vietnam.

[Johnny_Reb]

Well your right about the beggining of the war, Stalin had over 40,000 officers killed, Germany took precious Western holdings from the Russians, and they lacked weapons. The Soviets sent many inexperienced soilders that learned on the battlefield to fight the Germans. Since they were untrained and inexpereinced, the Soviets had a high deathtoll and at the end of the war, the greatest. But while many of the soilders died, others lived, making up from their lack of training through expereince on the battlefield. As the war progressed the surviving Soviets were as expereinced as the German soilders.While the Germans came close they were never successfully able to take out the USSR, and I'm sure you know that the Soviets did more to stop the Germans than anyone else did.

As for Japan, according to "The World at War" DVD set the Soviets expected a Japanese attack all through the war. But Id have to agree with Collegeboy, the Japanese didnt want to take on Russia, only to increase their holdings in Indochina and the pacific.

[1stdeadeye]

Perspective!

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Most of you all are thinking just on the US ways of battle and thinking that if someone couldn't do what the US did, then that means they couldn't have won.

The US did not have the manpower that the Russians had, so they had to rely on bombing, the Russians didn't have the bombs that the US had so they had to rely on mass amounts of people. Comparison, the US lead Berlin invasion force had something like 125,000 or so, the Soviet lead invasion force had something like 2 million. That is one of the reasons why Ike let the Russians take Berlin.

Wrong. The US bombed because we did not have a foothold in Europe to launch an offensive from until D-Day. So we brought them death from above and destroyed their infrastructure and ability to support a war effort. After D-Day, we moved as many men in a s we could.

The Soviets obviously had the land to attack from and threw waves of soldiers at the German lines.

Each allied force fought the best way they could. I just take umbrage at your assertion that the USSR could defeat Germany alone while the US could not. The USSR would not have been able to stem the German supply lines if alone. The USSR would have faced advanced German jet fighters if alone. The USSR would have face Geman A-Bombs if alone. No nation can win a nuclear war. Think about it. If the British and Americans had not destroyed the German Heavy Water project, the Soviets faced the real possibility of being nuked!

If alone, the British and the Americans still would have overwhelmed German Industry via bombings. The Allies would still have won the battle of the Atlantic. The Allies would still have destroyed the German Heavy Water project. The difference for us would have been time. The war would have been much longer and if the A-bomb was brought to bear on the European continent to end the German threat, the devastation would have been far greater then it already was. My argument is simple. No American and British Operations, Germany has the nuke and uses it on the Soviets. The Germans still have their industry cranking out Tanks and planes to match the Soviets. The Soviets can not withstand a one sided nuclear war, no one could. The American bombers still devastated GErman industry. Longer war for us, but eventually, we are dropping the A-Bomb on Berlin. Again, no country can withstand a one sided nuclear war, Germany surrenders.

Seems like a pretty simple argument to me, why can you not grasp it! How could the Soviets withstand Moscow, Lenningrad, Stalingrad and their front lines being nuked! No one could!

There was no way that the Japanese could reach the Soviet industrial plants without a mid air refuel, so this being WWII, no it was not possible for them to do so.

If they are launching from bases within Northern China or caputred airfields in the USSR, they sure as hell could! How did US Bombers reach Japan, that is right, through captured island bases!

But this is all planning on the premise that Japan would have attacked Russia, which is as far as my research goes is an non conclusion. Japan was turning their attention to the SE, to Indochinia. Then out to the pacific. The US would have eventually had fought the Japanesse when they incroached on their land, but the Japanese would have never attacked the Russians.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You are basing your argument on the US not joining the European war. When you bring hypotheticals in to play, anything could happen. What if aliens landed in the middle of Moscow and abducted Stalin?

Also the enemy at the gates mentality that two men one gun is a complete falsity. Did the USSR have problems getting ALL their soldiers weapons, yes, but the vast majority did have weapons and more then enough ammunition.

Not until the later stages of the war.


And about Vietnam, To say the US didn't lose Vietnam is like trying to say that just because you fight in a war, if you leave just before it falls and are not there for the fall then you didn't lose. Never mind you didn't accomplish any of your goals. Never mind you could never have defeat the enemy. As my father says about Vietnam. How could you defeat an enemy who you didn't know if that child in the stroller is it, or that 99 year old grandmother is. Every Vietnam soldier I have talked to, and that is a lot, that has gotten over the emotional binds of fighting in vietnam, have said we have lost that war. You have to make alot better arguement then saying since we wasn't there for the fall then we didn't lose, to convince people that the US didn't lose Vietnam.

Do not go there. You are not the only one with family that served there. Your father is but one opinion. Quite a few in my family served. They have a different outlook on Vietnam. My father is convinced that politicians lost the war by keeping it limited. Did you know that one of the conditions for the 1973 peace talks was that the USS New Jersey had to leave the theatre of battle? The North Vietnamese were quite intimidated and devastated by 2000 pound shells hitting their country at the rate of three a minute for HOURS ON END! Did you know that the North Vietnamese were a few weeks away from surrender due to the incredibley heavy bombing they were under. Had Nixon not caved to political pressure and kept the bombing up, the NV would have been forced to surrender. My father worked in logistics during the war, so maybe his opinion is a bit more informed then your fathers? But that probably is not possible right?

[slateman]

The US didn't have the manpower that the USSR had. But the US had better soldiers (you see, they had actually been to some sort of training. That probably helped )

The Soviets never would have been bombed with an A-bomb. Germany was at least 6 months from figuring out that making an A-bomb with heavy water is impractical at best. To my knowledge (not that I'm an expert on these things) it has never been done. And knowing Stalin, he would have launched every soldier,sailor, and airman (or woman) at whatever facilty that he thought was developing it.

Joker: How dare you insult my god!!! If it were possible I would reach through the phone lines and strangle you!!!

There's no way Patton was over-rated. He wasn't well known enough to be over-rated. Was he a "glory hound"? Absolutely (but then, what god doesn't deserve glory? ).

How were the airborne guys "kickin *** and givin it to the krauts"? They were trapped, w/o adequate food, ammunition, or proper clothing. Yes the Airborne won that battle. But that was because all they had to do was repulse the Germans. If they had had to force the Germans out of their bunkers in mid December, they would have gotten their a**es handed to them. Within two days, Patton turned his entire army ninety degrees and raced towards Bastogne (BTW: Montgomery and Bradely said it woudld take at least a week).

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There was no way that the Japanese could reach the Soviet industrial plants without a mid air refuel, so this being WWII, no it was not possible for them to do so.

But this is all planning on the premise that Japan would have attacked Russia, which is as far as my research goes is an non conclusion. Japan was turning their attention to the SE, to Indochinia. Then out to the pacific. The US would have eventually had fought the Japanesse when they incroached on their land, but the Japanese would have never attacked the Russians.

I agree with you on the industrial bombing issue. However, Japan encroaching on the USSR from the East would have significantly changed the Russian's capabilities in WW2.

In fact, there was a large series of talks between the Nazi's and the Japanese about opening a front in the East, but because the Japanese did not, the Russians were able to send one of their military masterminds (Zhukov- who was instrumental in the defense of Moscow) with several large army groups from the East to the Western Front against Germany.

Along with this, one of the Allies' significant fears was that the Germans would be able to link up with the Japanese through what is now India-Pakistan-Iran with a German front in the Middle East/Caucasus' Area. But as the Germans were defeated in Africa, and German Army Group B failed to take Stalingrad (because most of it's armour had been transferred to) Army Group C in the Southern Caucusus, this was not possible.


You are also right about Japan's focus. They were looking more to the oil rich (one of the primary necessities of war, especially to an island country with limited resources) areas around Indonesia rather than expanding a front into Eastern Russia.



Pardon my ramblings...