- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,767
- Reaction score
- 28,026
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Size is misleading. France didn't have the will.
None did, that is why Hitler ran rough shod over all of Europe in just a year or so...
Size is misleading. France didn't have the will.
Well?
Depressing as the fact is, simply having the most number of deaths does not mean they contributed the most, nor necessarily were the most important.The USSR. My opinion is that if one studies the history of WWII, one will find out that they are studying a history of Russian blood and sacrifice. Truly the scale of the Eastern Front itself is staggering, and it alone would qualify as the biggest war in history if set as a separate war.
I agree with this, though I also believe that they would have been able to outlast the Germans even without aid.Depressing as the fact is, simply having the most number of deaths does not mean they contributed the most, nor necessarily were the most important.
The USSR. My opinion is that if one studies the history of WWII, one will find out that they are studying a history of Russian blood and sacrifice. Truly the scale of the Eastern Front itself is staggering, and it alone would qualify as the biggest war in history if set as a separate war.
Depressing as the fact is, simply having the most number of deaths does not mean they contributed the most, nor necessarily were the most important.
I don't see how the USSR could have defeated Japan though.
Well?
Well?
This. We were the only country in WWII that was out of reach of the enemy. The ability to effect an enemy's logistical capability is the key to winning any war. It is said ""Amateurs strategy. Professionals talk logistics."The US. Our ability to produce massive amounts of material out of the reach of the Axis or Japanese bombers would have won the war eventually even with out the Soviets..
Well?
They would have swept through its continental holdings, though I agree that it would have taken them several decades at least to defeat Japan. They didn't have the air and naval power like the US
Great threadWell?
If you were to split WWII into Europe and the Pacific, I'd say USSR would own Europe and US would own the Pacific. But since you don't, I'd have to give the edge to the US, who came in at the right moment in Europe to open up a second front and simultaneously fought back Japan.
And don't forget the atom bomb. The fact that the US developed that in the war still has implications to this day.
The USSR. My opinion is that if one studies the history of WWII, one will find out that they are studying a history of Russian blood and sacrifice. Truly the scale of the Eastern Front itself is staggering, and it alone would qualify as the biggest war in history if set as a separate war.
On this Remembrance Day, I'll toss Canada into the mix - after losing over 60,000 soldiers in WW1 even though we were never attacked, we entered the fray very early, in support of our European friends, and lost another 40,000 soldiers in WW2.
Canada isn't just a fair-weather friend and to this day, when travelling in Europe, people will thank Canadians for their ancestors' help in these two great conflicts.