user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
John Wayne and Robert Mitchum
That would offend me if I was Russian
USA, you are avoiding the question.
The US fought and won in the pacific, europe, and africa. I guess the war would have ended sooner if you Russian "Heroes" helped the US in all the Theaters they fought in.
The war would have been lost without Russia. It might not have been lost without America, but if Russia won without America, Europe would have been communist, which would be pretty bad.
Nice to see Russia winning...
GO RUSSIA
Russia was gone. It was the Americans who saved them when Hitler had Moscow, by attacking another German line to make Hitler pull troops from Moscow you retarded Euro Trash! Russia would not even have been around to take Berlin if it was not for the U.S. Not to mention, the U.S. kept Stalin from marching back across Europe and claiming it for Russia!
No, I am not retarded. But if I was I would be glad I wasn't american, because I would be excecuted
Germany would have, had they not spent so much money to exterminating the Jews.
Germany's economy is shite at the moment and the only reason why it still exists is western investment during the Cold War. Britain did not suffer twice the amnount of casualties - dumb shit. It's true that Russia caused the most damage to Germany but look how badly they suffered for it. For every Germany soldier killed by a Russian, 6 soviet soldiers were killed in return. I agree that Britain did more damage to the Germans than the Americans. We won the war in North Africa. I have listed on another similar ballot the extra resorces that could have been pumped into the Russian campaign if not for the British
Toxacated - If anyone kept Russia in business it was up. Russia only needed help in the early years.
duh - The war wouldn't have been won without Britain - stupid fuck. We quite possibly kept Stalin in business in the early years and the defeat in North Afric was a huge defeat for the Germans and lets not forget Enigma (shortened the war by two years) and we stopped the Germans getting the atomic bomb before America.
actualy we did suffer twice as many casualties as the americans. which shows that we probaly did twice the ammount of damage too
I think we did MORE than twice the damage.
usa: u ignorent toss pot america weren't touched during the war 2o million russians died bitch, and culture ! americans don't know wot it is
hemel_chap
that was because there wasn't. Not to mention the Russians didn't need American tanks. T34's were far superior to ANYTHING we had.
TOXICATED - Germany never took moscow! - incidentally America didnt even want a war with Germany- they want ed to trade with them. Roosevelt wouldnt have declared war on Hitler- Hitler declared war on them . D-Day was in relatively inconsequential to the war in the west. As for the pacific, it wasnt just Americans fighting. And the only reason that the Russians ddint kick Russia and Britains ARSE at the end of ww2 was because they though the US had another atomic bomb. Russia 's armies would have cut through Britains and the US's like a knife through jelly
America barely helped. They got in at the end and balanced the war. England really took care of hitler in the end. But u know who I think won. I think Cuba won WW2.
Guest_c9a90, Germany isnt the biggest economy after the USA, according to most independant sources the order is USA, Japan, India, China, Britian and then Germany. But if you take into account relative spending powers and other economic factors, the order is more like USA Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Canada etc etc. I'm not just saying that because i'm British, we have, though recently, overtaken Germany in the world economy. Britain is on of three Trillion dollar powers in europe. Also, due to president Bush's really sensible economic policies, the Pound is rapidly approaching being twice the value of the US dollar, I.e. $1.94 to the £GB, rather than $1.2/£GB as it was under Clinton. Your economy is still the best, but be careful, you're loosing it, guys.
The Allies as a whole, not just the USA. Get your facts from history, not a Hollywood movie.
yes Japan did conquer a whole forty mile line expanse of Chinese territory from a country that is a couple of thousand miles wide therefore they conquered China.
A German plane flew over New York so I guess the Germans conquered America.
Guest_eab05
No you're the stupid fuck.
The USSR didn't need your fucking tanks.
The T-34 and Stalin tank remained superior to anything the allies had throughout the war.
They didn't need your aircraft neither.
The Il-2 Shturmovik was a highly proficient aircraft.
In fact you have failed to mention the thing that Stalin valued over any other American assistance, the deuces.
Hitler would have won the war in the east regardless of American assistance if he had not been so occupied with taking Stalingrad which was of very little value yet he sacrificed the 6th Army trying to take it.
Hitler kicked his ass anyway.
18 million russian soldiers died at the hands of the Germans.
Even Stalingrad which was hailed as a great Soviet victory the Soviets still lost 2 million men in exchange for just 300,000.
The sole reason why Russia beat Germany was not American assitance it was the sheer bloody numbers that Stalin threw against the Germans.
The German Army in terms of quality remained better than any other army of significance throughout the war but eventually the numbers the Allies had available coupled with the combined industrial might of Britain, Russia and of course the US was what overcame Germany.
Aye, the USSR pushed the farthest due to shear numbers but also they did not give a shit how many were killed. Here in the UK we see one death as a national fucking tragedy, but the USSR lost 20 million men in the war (not counting the purges). Also, Guest_b44ab, yes the Pacific War was overall the USA's war, but for fuck's sake, there WAS NO WAR in the Pacific until Japan attacked Pearl, soyour comment 'Japanese because the Japanese practically kicked the livin shit out of every other allied nation until the Americans came in the war' doesn't stand as they Japanese began kicking arse at the time the USA joined the war. And for the record, the USA got it's arse raped by the japanese until Coral Sea, which was actually a draw. Ever heard of ABDA, the invasion of the Philippines or Guam?
Russia wasn't fighting a two front war, America was. America had less casulities than the Soviets and produced more war time goods. True the Soviets took more land however the land was mostly farmlnad and was perfect for taking mass lands at once. Fighting in the country side in france with all the Hedge roses takes time. Also the Americans respected the Geneva convention and all the surrendering Nazi's wanted to be captured by the Americans so they had a human rights record.
However in a war in which 36 million people died there is really no true winners only the grateful for being alive.
Guest_33a36
LOL
An American thinking he has superior knowledge on WW2 to anyone else.
No
Hollywood knowledge doesn't count.
The doolittle raids were a battle.
hmmm.
too easy.
Where did you hear of the doolittle raids anyway.
Pearl Harbor is my bet.
doen5167
The issue isn't really who took more land. People who hold this view of war success are often poor tacticians and many armys have found this out the hard way in the past.
The issue is who defeated the most enemy and it is Russia by a long way. 9/10 Germans who fell, fell to the Russians.
You're forgetting the whole little japanese war in the pacific and the fact that the Americans also helped out in Africa and Italy (i'm not saying that we took all the terrortory but we helped) So the Americans fought in more areas of the war. True we didn't kill as many germans however we still accomplished are mission, if you base who really won the war on puer death counts the the real winner would be Germany over Russia and we all know that didn't happen. The Americans got more with losing less so that makes them win.
doen5167
no what i meant to say was that Russia contributed the most to Germanys defeat simply because they killed far more Germans than we did.
America did little on Africa or in Italy.
In fact I would have preferred that the US had kept its forces out of Italy and just supplied us instead.
1/3 of those Japanese forces were stationed in China and Russia duly kicked the crap out of them after Germanys defeat.
And the British contributed in the Pacific.
The Burmese Campaign
Forgotten by our own as well.
It we are are going to say who won the war from a contribution to casualty ratio then the clear winners are Norway. With British training, supplies and assistance the Norweigens blew up the heavy water plant at Norsk suffering practically no casualties they also had the best resistance in Europe.
Who won the war in the sense of who came out it the best.
Undoubtably America.
Americas economy doubled during the war.
Non of its cities lay in ruins unlike practically every European city.
Who contributed the most to Axis defeat.
Russia without any doubt.
Dispute if you wish
But it will be in vain.
Guest_38608
Yes without doubt America's industrial might was its biggest contribution to the war.
But Russias war effort did not need America's supplies. It was the British who kept Stalin in business by the time American supplys started arriving in significant quantities they were no longer needed.
The bread and butter of Russias victory were produced in Russia by the Russians, the T-34s and the Sturmoviks as well as Russias overwhelming man power.
In fact you fail to mention the thing that Stalin valued more than anything else he received from America, the deuces.
Also the Russians were part of the Allies.
Italy and Africa were finally won when one man entered the battle field that was Patton. But you english patriot has mae my points we came out of the war the best so we were the true winners. And for the Soviets the entered in the summer of 1945 in the war against the Japanese just so they can have some say in what happens to Japan after the war. I also wasn't the one who brought in the body count ideas i believe it was it was you that brought it into this conversation, and Norway come on don't bring them into a debate about anything related to military might. It's just wrong.
doen5167
LMFAO
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Africa and Italy won by Patton.
LMFAO
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Jesus Christ.
I haven't laughed so much since last night.
Pure Enertainment
I take it that you know absoloutely fuck all Africa and Italy.
Not to mention you were all ready in the war before we invaded Italy.
So things wern't FINALLY won because we wern't there initially.
I'd go into a rant but quite frankly my foot is getting so tired from kicking so much American ass and so easily too that I think it needs a rest.
I mean Jesus Christ how many Americans am I going to have to make a fool out of before you'll stop.
I brought out the casualty figures and then you said you acheived a lot from much lower figures.
ie a contribution to casualty ratio and if we are going to do something like that Norway is the clear winner.
Rommel was kicking the crap out of everybody in Africa including the Americans before Patton got there, you think that Montgomery was going to beat Rommel don't make me laugh. Now on to Norway i said that you can't count Norway because look at what they did, really nothing, so there not counted look at the whole picture less casulties more land taken more solidears killed from every part of the war. God i'm getting tired of always having to take the time to teach you Brits what really happened.
P.S. This conversation is very refreshing because for once on B&W people are debating points and not just hate, thanks E.P.
Clearly you are even worst than everyone else I have humiliated about their world war two knowledge.
Right Im going to copy and paste from a previous discussion but really on world war arguments. Im about five hundred and zero against everybody and most of those were against Americans who like yourself are confident in their knowledge but clearly no fuck all and then I give them a good ass kicking.
Its become my standard procedure.
So Rommel was kicking everybodys ass before Patton.
So the first great advance was invisible was it.
Tobruk.
yes Rommel gained it but Rommel sacrificed so much to take it that he almost destroyed himself.
Alam Halfa.
Invisible also
Battle of El Alamein.
Didnt happen did it.
The second great advance.
Done without any American help.
Heres my paste now.
Some other dumbass brought this argument up.
2. Africa. Africa. LOL. LMFAO. You took a severe beating from the French-Arab forces. Then at Kasserine Pass you got the shit kicked out of you. You contributed nothing to the African campaign
3. Italy. LMFAO. Brilliant performance at Anzio, guys. Yeah you did well at Monte Cassino didnt you. Had the easiest advance route and the least resistance yet achieved the least and General Clark decided that letting the German Army escape, meaning that the fight in Italy continued right up until the end of the war instead of ending it in June 44 was more important than his thirst for personal glory. WELL DONE
As you can see for people with genuine knowledge you're just too easy.
P.S
You cant really say Norway did nothing because if Germany had got hold of the Atomic bomb it could have been a war changing event.
Note that word "if" Germany would of never gotten the Bomb in time. And if the Norweigans didn't take out the power plant someone else would off.
Who would have done it.
Ok.
I'll give you a full account of what happened.
British commandos and some British trained Noreweigens blew up the heavy water plant at Norsk. The aim was not only to stop the production of heavy water but to blow up all of Germanys supplies of heavy water.
While they did stop the production of it they didn't blow up all of the heavy water. The rest was sunk while in transit. If it hadn't been blown up then it couldn't have been done. It was being taken to one of those underground complexes in Germany which couldn't be destroyed by Allied bombers. These were so heavily guarded that no unconventional force would be large enough to get to the plant unmolested therefore it couldn't have been done. It would have had to be taken by a convential force which means that it couldn't have been done until at least March 45 and considering that the Americans finished theirs not long after this and that Germany was ahead in the atomic bomb race at this point in the war and that by late 44 they had a plane capable of reaching New York (a prototype actually flew over New York undetected it was also the first ever stealth plane and it's design is still used by the American military in it's B2s) this meant a lot to the war effort.
The British Lanchaster or a american flying fortress
Guest_33a36 you numbskull, all those battles took place AFTER Coral Sea, except the Doolittle raid which was not- it was an army-navy AIR RAID. I said 'the USA got it's arse raped by the japanese until Coral Sea'. UNDERSTAND motherfucker. AFTER Coral Sea Japan didn't win any full scale battles, like Midway, Philippine Sea, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, Leyte Gulf, the retaking of the Philippines. Coral Sea was a draw because both fleets withdrew. HOWEVER, it was a tactical victory for the Japanese (look at the tonnage lost by both nations) but a strategic Allied victory because the japanese expansion was stopped for the first time (I say Allied because the Australians took part at Coral Sea as well- who could forget them?). And I'm afraid I know things about the Pacific War, I take a personal interest in it. And no, no-one could challenge the Nihon Kaigun until the US build up of arms post- Midway. Take ABDA for proof of that.
yeah I agree.
Let's stop bitching.
This may sound hypocritical coming fro me.
But the rest of the world hates us.
So why are we bothering going for each others throats.
Lets give France the V's
ps. I will only stop bitching if you yanks will.
I tried this once before and it didn't prove popular and pretty soon I was back bitching.
Says Toxacated:
'It was the Americans who saved them when Hitler had Moscow, by attacking
another German line to make Hitler pull troops from Moscow you retarded Euro
Trash!'
First of all, is your name supposed to be 'toxicated'?
Anyhow, this is ignorant nonsense. There was no point in the war when the
USA was attacking German lines while the Germans were simultaneously
besieging Moscow. The closest the Germans got to Moscow was before the USA had even entered the war, let alone deployed troops in Europe. Perhaps you are getting confused with the battle of Kursk in 1943, where historians have speculated that Hitler withdrew some forces from the Eastern Front in uncertainty because of the allied success at Sicily. But Kursk was really the last throw of the die for the Wehrmacht anyway. Stalingrad was the real
death knell, and that had come months before. The Red Army were prepared for Operation Zitadelle at Kursk because of the information gained from the Lucy Ring. Even with victory at Kursk it would have been extremely difficult for the Wehrmacht to succeed in the USSR. Your analysis is patently false.
You would do better pursuing the line that US equipment and supplies made a big difference to the Soviet war effort. This was probably the US's single biggest contribution to the war in Europe, followed by strategic bombing. Troop engagement comes in third place.
There is no doubt that the most significant factor in the defeat of Germany was the unbelievable efforts of the Soviet soldiers and citizenry. This is
not only with respect to fighting battles, it's also about the astonishing achievements relocating production facilities eastwards after the shock of
Barbarossa.
Says England Patriot:
'We won the war in North Africa.'
But certainly not single-handedly. For a start, Indian, South African, Australian and Zew Zealand troops made up much of the commonwealth forces fighting the Panzerarmee Afrika. Secondly, fortunes changed significantly after the arrival of US equipment, including Shermans, which were better than the tanks used up to that point by the British-lead troops. And the endgame in Africa involved significant deployments of North American forces following Operation Torch. Without them, securing North Africa would have taken much longer. With the Americans and Canadians on board, the fight could be taken to the Axis territory in a way that would not have been possible with the existing commonwealth armies in North Africa. On top of this, fresh military ideas came into the mix from the Americans, Patton in particular being a superb general.
The Doolittle raid was actually an extremely significant moment in the Pacific War. It achieved very little militarily, but this wasn't its purpose. It was primarily (one could argue) a propaganda op, but it also had the important knock-on effect of altering Japanese strategy in the war. Previously the Japanese had been concentrating on isolating Australia from the USA. After the raid, priority was switched to defending the home islands from US attack. The Japanese went on the back foot and never regained the initiative. It was a gutsy, daring operation that may have seemed like a failure at the time but can be viewed in retrospect as a huge success.
'Rommel was kicking the crap out of everybody in Africa including the Americans before Patton got there, you think that Montgomery was going to beat Rommel don't make me laugh.'
Umm...he already had. The second battle of El-Alamein, in which Montgomery's 8th Army ground the German forces into defeat and retreat, started on November 6th 1942. The US forces didn't land in North Africa until November 8th, at the other end of the northern edge of the continent. So your comment appears to make no sense.
If you want to push the "US won the war" line, you'd be far better off arguing that US equipment was vital to the Eighth Army's defeat of the Panzerarmee Afrika. Certainly Montgomery got lucky inasmuch as he took over command just as the (more than decent) American equipment and tanks were arriving.
Oh, sorry, I think the 2nd battle of El Alamein actually began earlier than that. October 23rd 1942.
Do a google search for 'wikipedia alamein second'. That'll put you right.
Kaitain
The commonwealth troops played more than their part.
Australia and New Zealand were very significant and the South Africans in the air were the best pilots of the war.
But to say the Shermans shifted the balance is pure crap.
The Cromwell which was the tank that was being issued when the Shermans started arriving outperformed the Sherman in every aspect except the gun which was a six pounder (more than capable of dealing with panzers) and it had slightly thinner armour and the reliability which although important in the desert is hardly crucial.
The deuces I will remain grateful to America forever and the Dakotas and liberty ships because that for me was Americas war effort more than its fighting ability.
Without North American forces it would have taken much longer.
One reason
Just one reason why.
Are you even aware of where they were deployed or where Rommels forces were or the line of retreat or anything.
Without this the fight could not be taken to the Axis
Blah Blah
Do you know how badly Rommels forces were after Tobruck, Alam Halfa and then El Alamein.
They were destroyed.
In total disarray
In total retreat
After Alam Halfa there was no way back.
In addition to that comment we numbered twice Rommels forces.
Rommel wrecked himself at Tobruck and then Monty wrecked him at Alam Halfa and then again at Alamein a few weeks later. After this to quote Rommel himself
The Africa Corps is finished as a force in Africa
He was defeated at Tobruck, Alam Halfa and Alemein. (before the torch landings)
In his words
Also you somehow missed the RAF winning air superiority.
Did that not contribute to Rommels defeat
And British dominance in the Mediterranean.
That as much as three quarters if Rommels supplies never made it to him apparently not because youve quoted that Rommel didn't care for boring aspects of warfare such as logistics yet you fail to take note of how little was sent to Rommel and what was sent to him was normally sunk.
Yet you put this down to a blind spot in Rommels overall tactical awareness
No its just that he never had the supplies he needed to finish the job.
Yet you quite happy to quote Shermans made a significant difference despite having slightly thicker armour and being a bit more reliable.
But the Cromwell was faster and had the added benefit of not setting fire at the drop of a hat.
The gun of the Sherman cant be seen as a point in its favour as both tanks guns were capable of destroying every kind of German tank deployed in Africa.
Can I also add something on the Doolittle raid
He considered it a failure.
Because he lost the planes
What a character
I like Doolittle and McArthur.
What the hell are you talking about Anonymous? I aren't anti- American, I don't judge people omn where they are born. I was making a point. The Pacific War was overall the USA's war. But at Coral Sea the Australians did sortie. That was all I was trying to say. The USA didn't fair well in the Pacific until post- Coral Sea. Non of the Allies did. Look at the Java Sea and Sunda Strait. But after Coral Sea the country did. And I know that that the UK was a breaking point in the Atlantic for some time. And how can I forget that the USA is one of the only countries left to like the UK. But don't judge me or any other Briton on the actions of their government. I don't do it to others. I don't try to put Americans down, my feelings for them are as for all nation's peoples, they are here just to live as they will. All I ask for in life is that people get along, regardless of what happened in the past. Leave the past where it is and learn from it.
"I dont see anyh Nazis walking around Washington DC" What the hell is George W Bush then? A nice, tollerant, anti-militaristic democrat? he fixed an election, declaired war and introduced the amasingly repressive Patriot Act. Did you know that sice Patriot II was passed, you can be arrested, held indefinately without charge and denied the right to see a lawyer? Also, the police/FBI are not obliged to inform your family/next of kin that you have been arrested in this manner. Basically, you could disappear. Sounds rather like Romainia under Causcescu to me, you know, the little men in the grey suits call at your house, and your never seen again. that is fascism for you, and your 'president' just completely stripped you of your freedom.
As for " dumb ass sold us Alaska for a buck and half," actually it was seven hundred thousand dollars, and that was in the 19th century. What was Alaska good for then? Oil hadnt been disovered yet.
And the Germans never took moscow, and even if they had, they probably wouldnt still be there, you fool.
Hey Blokie, don't let that liberal Euro media influence you! The Patriot act hasn't affected anyone's lifestyle hear the U.S. People are hard on Bush, but you know how we Americans are, we make big statements! You can understand if Big Ben was taken out along with 3,000 of your fellow lads! I don't see the reasoning behind all this (over)detailed talk about who won the war. WE ALL PLAYED OUR PART! Germany was too powerful, so we had to have an accumlative effort...of course without France's help! All they did was give Germany a closer vantage point to bomb England!
sorry, robert_t, i just get really pissed off when idiots claim WWII was not a team effort.
Americans pretty much are uneducated and extreme natinalists. They hate to know anything about rest of the world. If it doesn't proclaim American supremacy it means anti-american and therefore is evil.
by vrm on Mon Apr 26, 04 2:46pm
[+]
I agree with you vrm...to a point. Unfortunately the Americans that are the most vocal usually know jackshit about anything and therefor make the rest of us look bad. I think (and I hope Im right) that the majority of Americans are open minded and not interested in World Domination, then again, the people voted for Bush, so I may be wrong.
Hey Duckhead soup, find out for me who Osama is rooting for in the 2004 Presidential election? I'll vote for the other guy! Translation: GO BUSH!
Osama also wants a cure for kidney disease, should we make sure we dont find that because he wants it.
Already, people are letting that jackass make decisions for them.
Robert T, I like the "duckhead soup" seriously, it's more original then the predictable and lame "dickhead", too kindergarten.
When you say that jackass making decisions for them, you must mean bin laden. Like he made Spain's decision to vote the way he wanted them. And please D.H., let's stick to the issue here...Hey wasn't it WW2? lol
Robert T, yep, I meant Osama as the Jackass.
Yeah the issue was WWII. Well, from what I know and my knowledge doesn't compare to England Patriot (angry old man), Kaitan and doen5167 so I will try to answer with the limited knowledge I have. "Who really won WWII?"
I dont think there is a single entity that won it. Preperation H suggested that since Britain suffered twice the casualties the US did, they enflicted more damage, yeah maybe, but if I am not mistaken, the US before they were in the war in 1940 were already shipping in supplies to Britain. I know that they had on order tons of planes, anti aircraft guns and ammo, would Britain of been able to sustain its amred forces without the help of the US? If the question was who sacrificed the most then the US would totally not be in the equation, I think the US lost 50K? But I do know that we were intrumental in the war before we were even in it (I am not saying we won it, I am saying that we all needed each others help)
Russia won. The cost were incredible number of Russian casualties, but they won.
IMHO, Russians are the best fighters on earth. they have an iron will. i guess it's all the cold weather that makes you like that.
Japan was controling 1/7 of the earth's surface and America bombed them which ruined everything for Hitler. Without Japan he had practically nothing. Sure he had Italy but they weren't as powerful as the Japanese. Plus they didn't control as much land...
|
|
