• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most Important Allied Member of WWII

Most Important Allied Member of WWII


  • Total voters
    75
Well, provided they don't mind us referring to them as 'The Colonies', I'm cool with it.

Well they still speak Shakespearean English so you can;t blame them for being a few decades behind.
 
Based on the wording of some of the posts I sense that some posters confuse the question and believe it relates to the US's most important ally.
 
---------------
Tough to vote for Russia since they were allied with Germany--non-aggression pact, simultaneous invasion of Poland-- even though, as you correctly point out, Hitler turned on them.
The UK stood strong, but US entry meant Hitler was doomed.

There are some who believe Stalin knew he would be betrayed, but that he signed the pact to gain himself more time to prepare. For all his faults and evilness, he was sometimes pretty good at setting aside emotion and taking the cold pragmatic approach.
 
From what I've read, Stalin was in utter disbelief that Hitler turned on him and wouldn't come out and speak to the public for days.

As for your post #52, that's what I thought initially. I was the 2nd post, and either the poll wasn't up yet or I skipped over it. I said the UK earlier, but I'd probably say the US now. It would be very close.

There are some who believe Stalin knew he would be betrayed, but that he signed the pact to gain himself more time to prepare. For all his faults and evilness, he was sometimes pretty good at setting aside emotion and taking the cold pragmatic approach.
 
From what I've read, Stalin was in utter disbelief that Hitler turned on him and wouldn't come out and speak to the public for days.
I've read that as well.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't a little of both. He wasn't shocked that he was betrayed, but shocked at when or how soon he was betrayed. I have a hard time believing that Stalin was that naive to not see it coming at all.
 
Yeah, Stalin probably thought what everyone else did....why would Hitler attack him at that point in time. I'm sure Hitler probably knew how to play up to Stalin's ego as well in assuring him that he wasn't going to attack.

I've read that as well.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't a little of both. He wasn't shocked that he was betrayed, but shocked at when or how soon he was betrayed. I have a hard time believing that Stalin was that naive to not see it coming at all.
 
Last edited:
This is a no doubter, without the U.S. all the countries in Europe would be speaking German today.
 
This is a no doubter, without the U.S. all the countries in Europe would be speaking German today.

How would the US have launched the D-Day landings had Britain surrendered in 1940?

The contribution of the US was critical to the final victory, but so were the British and Russian contributions. All three were essential.
 
The truly outstanding performance of the U. S. Navy during WWII makes me believe the U. S. played the crucial role. All the allies gave all they had and held nothing back, but our navy made it all possible. We built that navy and manned those ships, and they were pivotal in delivering men, material, and destruction to Japan, Germany, and Italy. We fought on their soil - they didn't fight on ours.
 
How would the US have launched the D-Day landings had Britain surrendered in 1940?

The contribution of the US was critical to the final victory, but so were the British and Russian contributions. All three were essential.

If Britain had surrendered, we would have either sent troops to the eastern front, or done nothing.

If both Britain and the Soviets had surrendered, we might have fallen into a "phony war" where not much of anything happened, and maybe even some awkward peace was agreed to.

Even though Japan was also far away, it was the relatively small "island hopping" that made battle with them possible. An amphibious invasion of Europe would have had to be much larger and longer distance with no intermediate steps.
 
Stalin's war effort might've very well faltered if it were not for the resources provided by the United States' lend-lease program. Likewise, Japan could've wreaked some pretty serious havoc in Siberia if we had not been around to keep their forces otherwise occupied.

Ultimately, the Allied war effort in Europe could be looked upon as being a "hammer and anvil" sort of situation. The USSR played the role of the anvil, keeping the brunt of German forces locked in place, while the US and UK played the part of the hammer, coming in to slam them from behind.

Taken individually, neither element is especially effective. In combination, however; they are devastating.

Good afternoon, Gathomass88. :2wave:

Excellent post, and outstanding analogy! :thumbs: In addition, let's remember that it was Eisenhower who visited the concentration camps, and was so outraged with what he saw that he had the German villagers... who claimed they didn't know what was taking place inside those camps... visit the camps and take care of the surviving prisoners being held there. They truly may not have known what was taking place, or were in denial because it was so horrible, but they willingly did as he asked. :applaud:

My grandfather left me his entire collection of Readers Digest magazines from those times, and it is very sad reading, sufficient to make one cry in horror while reading the stories!
 
Good afternoon, Gathomass88. :2wave:

Excellent post, and outstanding analogy! :thumbs: In addition, let's remember that it was Eisenhower who visited the concentration camps, and was so outraged with what he saw that he had the German villagers... who claimed they didn't know what was taking place inside those camps... visit the camps and take care of the surviving prisoners being held there. They truly may not have known what was taking place, or were in denial because it was so horrible, but they willingly did as he asked. :applaud:

My grandfather left me his entire collection of Readers Digest magazines from those times, and it is very sad reading, sufficient to make one cry in horror while reading the stories!

Hey Polagra. :)

It is truly horrifying to see what human beings are capable of when they cut loose, isn't it? The Nazis weren't even the worst offenders in this regard historically speaking.

Thankfully, it seems that we are capable of good things as well.

Where WW2 is concerned, I simply wish that people would take nationalistic ego out of the equation every once in a while and look at things objectively. The war was always more of a group effort than anything else.
 
If Britain had surrendered, we would have either sent troops to the eastern front, or done nothing.

If both Britain and the Soviets had surrendered, we might have fallen into a "phony war" where not much of anything happened, and maybe even some awkward peace was agreed to.

Even though Japan was also far away, it was the relatively small "island hopping" that made battle with them possible. An amphibious invasion of Europe would have had to be much larger and longer distance with no intermediate steps.

Which is why IMO it would have taken 5 years longer at least to win, and possibly 10
I'm not at all sure the US populous would have put up with 5 more years of war, let alone 10.
Or even if we would have entered the war, if the UK went down and the USSR out of the picture later on...
But if they had, I think the US might have been able to retake Europe...might.

But it would have been far more difficult.
Especially since Germany would have gained access to the UK's tech, and also have more time to develop their own - we would have ended up still in the war in 1950s, and the dogfights would be between jet fighters. Probably a bunch more nukes dropped all over, since Germany was working on that **** too, not to mention the USSR and the UK (I think the UK, unsure).

Assuming Nazi Germany didn't break apart from within during that time - I know there were various internal disagreements, and several in-house assassination attempts on Hitler...
 
all make good points about the respective countries but the fact remains, the USA eventually would have won without the Russians and the British. Neither of those two could have won without the others in the alliance
 
Which is why IMO it would have taken 5 years longer at least to win, and possibly 10
I'm not at all sure the US populous would have put up with 5 more years of war, let alone 10.
Or even if we would have entered the war, if the UK went down and the USSR out of the picture later on...
But if they had, I think the US might have been able to retake Europe...might.

But it would have been far more difficult.
Especially since Germany would have gained access to the UK's tech, and also have more time to develop their own - we would have ended up still in the war in 1950s, and the dogfights would be between jet fighters. Probably a bunch more nukes dropped all over, since Germany was working on that **** too, not to mention the USSR and the UK (I think the UK, unsure).

Assuming Nazi Germany didn't break apart from within during that time - I know there were various internal disagreements, and several in-house assassination attempts on Hitler...

Excellent post. I think all of your scenarios would have been plausible.
 
all make good points about the respective countries but the fact remains, the USA eventually would have won without the Russians and the British. Neither of those two could have won without the others in the alliance

I always used to believe that Germany could have won had they taken their time and knocked off each country one or two at a time instead of stretching themselves too thin by taking on the entire world at once.
 

On the serious side, I would have to say England as that little country kept Germany at bay from 1939 to December of 1941 which gave the United States time to get ready. Then too, who knows what would have happened if Hitler honored his non-agression pact with the USSR. but there are so many what ifs, they could fill dozens of books.
 
The USA.

England 2nd

USSR 3rd.

The USSR has been given a huge share of the victory with revisionist history. Yes, they did a lot. A LOT. But they fought on one front and in one style of combat. The Eastern Front. They lost so many people because they were under supplied and sent hoards charging German machine gun nests with no weapons. The battles were huge and the costs high and they did a great job eating up a lot of German resources and men. Without the USA and England, Russia would have lost.

The USA fought on all fronts, as did England... almost. The USA supplied the world's Allies with everything and enabled both the UK and the USSR to survive. The USA fought naval battles, beach invasions, deserts and the bulk of the bombing.

England also battled in various theatres of war.
 
I always used to believe that Germany could have won had they taken their time and knocked off each country one or two at a time instead of stretching themselves too thin by taking on the entire world at once.

I don't believe they could have knocked us off

we had far more men
far more land
far more factories
and we only had a socialist for a leader-not a crazed racist nutcase
 
On the serious side, I would have to say England as that little country kept Germany at bay from 1939 to December of 1941 which gave the United States time to get ready. Then too, who knows what would have happened if Hitler honored his non-agression pact with the USSR. but there are so many what ifs, they could fill dozens of books.

Hey there pero! Are you in Thailand yet?
 
Hey there pero! Are you in Thailand yet?

Had me a little visit, going to stay next year. I have had a lot of things pop up down here in Georgia that precluded a more permenant move. But that Thai railroad still beckons.
 
On the serious side, I would have to say England as that little country kept Germany at bay from 1939 to December of 1941 which gave the United States time to get ready. Then too, who knows what would have happened if Hitler honored his non-agression pact with the USSR. but there are so many what ifs, they could fill dozens of books.

England did a ton. North Africa. Sicily. D-Day. Commando raids.

Germany would have eventually been at war with the USSR no matter what. Stalin had no delusions about that. What Germany should have done was not invade Poland and bypass them through Romania and Bulgaria. Take out the USSR and then turn towards France, sweep back to Poland and then to France.
 
Back
Top Bottom