View Poll Results: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

Voters
88. You may not vote on this poll
  • United States

    40 45.45%
  • England

    14 15.91%
  • The USSR

    34 38.64%
  • China

    0 0%
Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 192

Thread: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

  1. #181
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    This "zero" for China made me think...

    OK, I am a proud American citizen, but I am also a 50% Pole, 1/4 German, 1/8 Russian, 1/16 Swede and 1/16 Lithuanian - and an immigrant in first generation. It is only too natural that for me the WWII means the invasion of my ancestral land, the slaughterhouse of Eastern Europe in 1939-45, and the Holocaust in particular, first and foremost.

    But for the USA, the war did not really start until Pearl Harbor, more than two years after Hitler and Stalin attacked and dismembered Poland...I would think that at least someone should what China and Korea were going through - and how much their resistance had slowed down the war machine of the Axis....
    The question wasn't to qualify each powers' contribution, it was to choose the most important. China, by most accounts, caved quickly and significantly. Sure they eventually got their act together and pieced together a decent resistance, but they hardly rank among the most important. It's like putting France on the list, important contributions by their resistance, but generally a non-factor.

  2. #182
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The U.S. had 13 low yield nuclear weapons in 1947. The combined destructive power of said weapons is dramatically less than the conventional damage suffered by Germany, the USSR or China during WW2.
    The lack of US weapons was artificial and the result of reduced interest in pursuing a more aggressive production schedule following the capitulation of Japan and the interlude between the end of the war and the beginning of East-West tensions. This rapidly changed which is why you jump from thirteen to fifty between 1947 and 1948, and from 50 to 170 between 1948 and 1949. By the time the USSR detonated its first weapon the US had begun to amass a substantial nuclear arsenal and when combined with its latent production capability can be fairly said to have had nuclear primacy from 1945 to the early 1950's.

  3. #183
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    The question wasn't to qualify each powers' contribution, it was to choose the most important. China, by most accounts, caved quickly and significantly. Sure they eventually got their act together and pieced together a decent resistance, but they hardly rank among the most important. It's like putting France on the list, important contributions by their resistance, but generally a non-factor.
    If that is the metric than the USSR didn't matter either given their initial capitulations and disastrous early campaigns. China is highly relevant because of its ability to consume Japanese attention and manpower which would otherwise have been directed into SE Asia and India (which almost happened) or towards the Soviet Union. Instead of a rapid campaign the Japanese never managed to subdue the Chinese (in large part due to Allied assistance) and pinned Japans strategic vision in place.

  4. #184
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    If that is the metric than the USSR didn't matter either given their initial capitulations and disastrous early campaigns. China is highly relevant because of its ability to consume Japanese attention and manpower which would otherwise have been directed into SE Asia and India (which almost happened) or towards the Soviet Union. Instead of a rapid campaign the Japanese never managed to subdue the Chinese (in large part due to Allied assistance) and pinned Japans strategic vision in place.
    I think you probably misread my post. I didn't say that anyone didn't matter, those are the words you alone used. I said the OP didn't ask us to qualify the actors' individual contributions, but to pick the most important actor. If you think China is the most important actor of WW2, have at it, but don't be surprised when people disagree with you. Same thing with Russia as it was primarily only relevant in one theatre of war and irrelevant largely at sea.

  5. #185
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    I think you probably misread my post. I didn't say that anyone didn't matter, those are the words you alone used. I said the OP didn't ask us to qualify the actors' individual contributions, but to pick the most important actor. If you think China is the most important actor of WW2, have at it, but don't be surprised when people disagree with you. Same thing with Russia as it was primarily only relevant in one theatre of war and irrelevant largely at sea.
    That one theater determined the entire war
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  6. #186
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    That one theater determined the entire war
    With respect to Russia's contribution, I think the greatest actor responsible for ending the war was Germany itself in attacking it and opening up another front that arguably wouldn't have existed otherwise. Losing the most people doesn't necessarily equal most important actor.

  7. #187
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,423

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    The question wasn't to qualify each powers' contribution, it was to choose the most important. China, by most accounts, caved quickly and significantly. Sure they eventually got their act together and pieced together a decent resistance, but they hardly rank among the most important. It's like putting France on the list, important contributions by their resistance, but generally a non-factor.
    Yeah, I consider China pretty much of a non-factor, also. Probably even more so than France. The Allies had a goal of liberating France, and including them in planning, etc., but not so with China. Not to the same degree. We never invaded China to drive the Japanese out, for example. Had China not been unavoidably included "by association", we'd probably have never bothered to make a significant effort to liberate them.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  8. #188
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Interesting read... thanks. Didn't know they rolled it in peas back in the day. Sounds good.
    They still do here - it's a little salty, but it's very lean and like having a pork chop with your breakfast. Very good winter comfort food on a cold, snowy morning.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #189
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    The lack of US weapons was artificial and the result of reduced interest in pursuing a more aggressive production schedule following the capitulation of Japan and the interlude between the end of the war and the beginning of East-West tensions. This rapidly changed which is why you jump from thirteen to fifty between 1947 and 1948, and from 50 to 170 between 1948 and 1949. By the time the USSR detonated its first weapon the US had begun to amass a substantial nuclear arsenal and when combined with its latent production capability can be fairly said to have had nuclear primacy from 1945 to the early 1950's.
    The USSR was responsible for roughly 6 million German deaths. Assuming you obtain 200,000 average deaths per nuclear detonation, you need 30 to match the destruction. The presence of jet interceptors means that some nuclear weapons will likely not get through, as well as possibly allowing the Germans to obtain a functional nuclear weapon themselves. That is definitely not achievable in 1945 whatsoever and probably not in 1946 either even with maximum nuclear production. The 25 million losses suffered by the USSR would require 125 weapons using the same calculation and they still won the war at that level of casualties.

  10. #190
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Most Important Allied Member of WWII

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The USSR was responsible for roughly 6 million German deaths. Assuming you obtain 200,000 average deaths per nuclear detonation, you need 30 to match the destruction. The presence of jet interceptors means that some nuclear weapons will likely not get through, as well as possibly allowing the Germans to obtain a functional nuclear weapon themselves. That is definitely not achievable in 1945 whatsoever and probably not in 1946 either even with maximum nuclear production. The 25 million losses suffered by the USSR would require 125 weapons using the same calculation and they still won the war at that level of casualties.
    If war was nothing more than a series of arithmetic problems it would be a much simpler affair. As it isn't your scenario doesn't add up.

    If the United States had decided to embark upon a nuclear campaign against the Soviet Union and brought bombs up to wartime production levels there is no plausible path for the Soviet Union to survive, let alone triumph. How do you organize the defense of any location when the concentration of organized resistance exposes you to the sudden and complete destruction of that formation? How do you defend your cities when a single failure will result in the annihilation of that city? How do you maintain political control of a country that is being reduced to unprecedented ruin on a daily basis? A nuclear offensive would have leveled the same level of loss and destruction that the Soviet Union endured for the duration of the Second World War condensed into a span of several weeks. Millions would have died, armies would have dissolved, cities would have disappeared, and unchallenged allied armies would have crossed the irradiated wreckage to Eastern Europe and beyond if they so chose.

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •