• 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
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder what that extra month or two Hitler spent putting down the rebellion in Yugosolovia before his invasion of the USSR cost him. Starting that invasion in April or May instead of June 22nd, probably made the difference between taking Moscow and not. But even so, Stalin had already moved a lot of factories east of the Urals. Who knows.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Probably not. Distance would have been a factor, also. We might have been able to invade Europe, but I don't think they would have ever been able to launch an invasion across the Atlantic. Note that I said "used to believe". Though if they had never declared war on us, and had knocked off Britain, and not otherwise provoked us, we might have coexisted.
 
Perotista said:
I wonder what that extra month or two Hitler spent putting down the rebellion in Yugosolovia before his invasion of the USSR cost him. Starting that invasion in April or May instead of June 22nd, probably made the difference between taking Moscow and not. But even so, Stalin had already moved a lot of factories east of the Urals. Who knows.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of what ifs. What if Japan had won Midway and the battle of the Coral Sea? An invasion of California would have happened. The USA would have been seriously screwed for a long time.
 
Bodhisattva said:
There are a lot of what ifs. What if Japan had won Midway and the battle of the Coral Sea? An invasion of California would have happened. The USA would have been seriously screwed for a long time.
Click to expand...

Hawaii I could see, but not so sure about the west coast.
 
radcen said:
Hawaii I could see, but not so sure about the west coast.
Click to expand...

the US military was worried enough to prepare coastal defences along the West Coast. There was a large bunker and gun emplacement where I grew up in Southern California prepared to deal with the Japanese should they attack.
 
Bodhisattva said:
There are a lot of what ifs. What if Japan had won Midway and the battle of the Coral Sea? An invasion of California would have happened. The USA would have been seriously screwed for a long time.
Click to expand...

uh the Japanese would have lost 300,000 men invading california. everyone would have been well armed. mines everyplace. massive artillery embankments
 
Bodhisattva said:
the US military was worried enough to prepare coastal defences along the West Coast. There was a large bunker and gun emplacement where I grew up in Southern California prepared to deal with the Japanese should they attack.
Click to expand...

Precautions, yes. Doesn't mean it could have been pulled off.
 
TurtleDude said:
uh the Japanese would have lost 300,000 men invading california. everyone would have been well armed. mines everyplace. massive artillery embankments
Click to expand...

Our Army was not even well armed... there were no mines and very few artillery placements.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Our Army was not even well armed... there were no mines and very few artillery placements.
Click to expand...

the population was and we were cranking out mines like corn cobs

behind every blade of grass-a rifle

ever heard that before?
 
TurtleDude said:
the population was and we were cranking out mines like corn cobs

behind every blade of grass-a rifle

ever heard that before?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it would be a good idea or a success... just that it was a worry and that we were not prepared.

Not sure how some corn huskers would have faired versus the suicidal fanaticism of the brutal Japanese though...
 
I find it deeply offensive there is no Canada.
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think if anyone should complain about the historical record, either maximizing or minimizing their contribution, it's the UK. The US and USSR get fair shakes from prevailing popular opinion due to their contribution. Perhaps because it represents their ultimate defeat on the world stage by attempting to sustain war across the entirety of their empire against three enemies, but nothing in WW2 is possible without the UK.
 
Bodhisattva said:
There are a lot of what ifs. What if Japan had won Midway and the battle of the Coral Sea? An invasion of California would have happened. The USA would have been seriously screwed for a long time.
Click to expand...

It would have been impossible for Japan to invade the continental US. For one, an armed civilian resistance and Japan had little in the way of armored tanks.
Secondly, they've specialized for jungle warfare, not for the kind of warfare they'd face in California. They had inferior weaponry too and inferior tactics. The proof of this lies in the fact that that they failed their burmanesse campaign once the british started creating their strategies for jungle fighting which were superior to japanesse jungle tactics. Couple that with superior weaponry and training, and the japs would have lost.

Bodhisattva said:
the US military was worried enough to prepare coastal defences along the West Coast. There was a large bunker and gun emplacement where I grew up in Southern California prepared to deal with the Japanese should they attack.
Click to expand...


Of course they prepared. When you see the storm of war coming, you prepare for anything. The brits made all sort of naval defenses to prevent an invasion of their mainland only to realize that if the nazis were to ever land, it would be through air superiority, not naval warfare.
 
Ben K. said:
I think if anyone should complain about the historical record, either maximizing or minimizing their contribution, it's the UK. The US and USSR get fair shakes from prevailing popular opinion due to their contribution. Perhaps because it represents their ultimate defeat on the world stage by attempting to sustain war across the entirety of their empire against three enemies, but nothing in WW2 is possible without the UK.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The UK did amazing for such a small country. Fighting in Burma, North Africa, the Middle East, Iraq, Greece, Italy, Commando raids, bomber raids, their navy, the French Underground, the Battle of Britain, etc. etc.
 
Rainman05 said:
It would have been impossible for Japan to invade the continental US. For one, an armed civilian resistance and Japan had little in the way of armored tanks.
Secondly, they've specialized for jungle warfare, not for the kind of warfare they'd face in California. They had inferior weaponry too and inferior tactics. The proof of this lies in the fact that that they failed their burmanesse campaign once the british started creating their strategies for jungle fighting which were superior to japanesse jungle tactics. Couple that with superior weaponry and training, and the japs would have lost.




Of course they prepared. When you see the storm of war coming, you prepare for anything. The brits made all sort of naval defenses to prevent an invasion of their mainland only to realize that if the nazis were to ever land, it would be through air superiority, not naval warfare.
Click to expand...

Agreed on most levels... anything else?
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Eastern Front was huge. The Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in the war with Hitler. In purely military terms, the USSR would have beat Germany alone. The contribution of the USSR was huge just in the fact that Hitler decided to declare war on the USSR. If Hitler did not declare war on the USSR and if the USSR did not fight alongside the Allies, war in Europe would have been much, much more difficult for the United States. The USSR depleted Germany's resources and manpower. I don't think the Allies could have won without the USSR.

I didn't realize it was 'revisionist' history to say that the USSR had a huge part in the Allies victory in World War 2.
 
zstep18 said:
The Eastern Front was huge. The Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in the war with Hitler. In purely military terms, the USSR would have beat Germany alone. The contribution of the USSR was huge just in the fact that Hitler decided to declare war on the USSR. If Hitler did not declare war on the USSR and if the USSR did not fight alongside the Allies, war in Europe would have been much, much more difficult for the United States. The USSR depleted Germany's resources and manpower. I don't think the Allies could have won without the USSR.

I didn't realize it was 'revisionist' history to say that the USSR had a huge part in the Allies victory in World War 2.
Click to expand...

Revisionist history is in people giving them more credit, and sometimes all the credit, just as you basically did.

Also, this is the most important Allied member of WORLD WAR II... not just of the European battlefield.
 
zstep18 said:
In purely military terms, the USSR would have beat Germany alone.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't. Stalin was so demoralized during the war. He started to apply death penalty on his own soldiers if they surrender, he forced simple people to not leave the city so they would defend themselves. Except Russia all other countries of USSR was fighting with Germans because they were living in terrible conditions under communism regime.
If Britain and USA wouldn't help USSR with aids and courage Stalin, he would have given up too easy.

The Nazi machine was so huge and strong that could stand that war for longer.
They started to loose simple due to the lack of oil. Their tanks went out of game in Russia.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The United States. Primarily because it was the only nation truly fighting the Japanese while also engaging in the war against Germany and Italy.

The Russians never engaged the Japanese until they were already about to surrender, and then only to get a share of the spoils in the east.

The British were fighting a holding action on both fronts. There never would have been a victory in Africa, or Italy, or a Normandy Invasion without the USA. Stalin kept begging the USA to open a second front in Europe to take the pressure off and we did first in Africa, then Italy and finally France.

Without the USA in Europe, who knows what the outcome would have been. Without the USA in Asia, the Japs would have won.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
I would disagree. People forget that the Atomic Bomb wasn't invented for use against Japan, but against Germany. A U.K./U.S. Bi-lat effort would have taken much longer, and we would likely have ended up reducing much of the European continent to ash, but we still would have won.

The U.S. is the indispensable member of the Big Three: with it, they win. Without it, they lose.
Click to expand...

Essentially.

All the major allies were important, very important, but America more so. Things would have ended up very badly if you remove American troops from the war. It's quite simple.
 
zstep18 said:
In purely military terms, the USSR would have beat Germany alone.
Click to expand...

In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food.

Between June 1941 and May 1945 3,000 Hurricanes were delivered to the USSR along with 4,000 other aircraft, 5,000 tanks, 5,000 anti-tank guns and 15 million boots in total 4 million tonnes of war materials including food and medical supplies were delivered..

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Van Basten said:
Essentially.

All the major allies were important, very important, but America more so. Things would have ended up very badly if you remove American troops from the war. It's quite simple.
Click to expand...

How badly would it have ended without Britain or Russia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom