Today is the 70th Anniversary of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. 17 days later, the Soviets launched an invasion from the East and wiped Poland off the map. Not even two years later, the German-Russian alliance broke down, and the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. Over the next four years, the Soviets lost over 27 million people fighting back the Germans and toppling Nazi Germany. At the same time, the Americans pushed the Germans out of France and other Western nations hastening the collapse of the Third Reich.
World War II was the bloodiest war in history. It also required a huge sacrifice from all people of all nations to defeat Fascism. Because of the brave fight put up by the Allied Soldiers, the nations throughout Europe and the people in Japan live in a world without Fascism and militarism. It was a heroic struggle to liberate the world.
-Like I said yep it took only around that days like I said we never prepared for any kind of war and we were crushed, and yes strong in heart is the exact word to use here, we killed every Nazi with the last brink of strenght when we were crushed and slaved, and of course if you would know history you would know why we weren`t ready for any attacks.
Not to burst your bubble Gaga, but the Greeks weren't exactly prepared for war either, and yet managed to hold out against 4 different nations, for 219 days. Not to say that's a measure of a nation's greatness, but as you seem to using those criteria, Yugoslavia doesn't really rank particularly highly.
-LOL you are a blind retard to be honest, you are convincing yourself that I`m saying something else but the truth is you can`t respond so you comment randomly how bad I am by saying something I didn`t say, just retarded.
You refuse to provide evidence to backup your claim that 'everyone' thinks this way, while insulting me further. You see, if you actually have the facts on your side, you don't have to sling names like a petulant child.
and of course if you would know history you would know why we weren`t ready for any attacks.
I do. That's why I'm so entirely displeased with your completely inaccurate portrayal of the conflict & its participants.
-You see you are very blind, I didn`t say "everyone" as your brain thinks I said, so you are false repeating every time.
Fair point - but you're still not addressing it at all; you're completely avoiding your total lack of proof even now.
-No you don`t, and who cares if you are displeased anyway.
I know more about the second world war then you do; clearly from what you've written in this and other threads. I don't much give a damn if you don't care for my displeasure, but that's exactly why I'm making the statements that you don't know a shred of what you're talking about.
and really you can`t find out my knowledge about WWII on AG. And I don`t care if you disagree with me when I say something and you say I don`t know what I`m talking about.
No, but I can tell when you're talking crap about world war 2 on AG - and that certainly paints the picture that you don't know a darn thing. Should I think that you are actually quite knowledgable on WW2, but make assinine posts about it, or should I make the much more likely conclusion that your terrible posts reflect your poor education on the subject matter? The latter is the one to go with.
-Well some people from US always say how they saved the world on their own as they learn that in some of their books with chapters how Communists were bad etc.etc.
So, because 'some' people are idiots, you decide to make similarly idiotic blanket statements and downplay the critical roles that the western allies to the U.S.S.R. played in the war; helping to make victory even possible. That's why no one will bother taking you seriously - you're just as nuts as the people who think *only* the USA won the war.
I didn`t downplay US I just said that they weren`t the most responsible for winning WWII or that they did everything on their own
You say you're not downplaying the U.S.A.'s contribution, and yet you take every opportunity to take pot-shots at the country. Your first post in this topic:
LOL in US history books you can learn how USA did all the fighting and saved the world, and people think that Soviet propaganda is the worst of all.
And you blame me for not saying anything about WW2? I'm correcting your grevious errors on the subject.
Your third post:
look at Soviet Union and their civilian deaths, their military deaths, they were the one who defeated Nazism and still people think they were bad and that USA won which is really absurd
Other people discuss the subject matter with an air of civility, you just post crap with intent to flame.
You mean to tell me in that post that the U.S.S.R. was only comprised of good people led by a heroic leader who never did anything wrong? Why do you think people thought Stalin and his government were bad? Oh yeah - he killed more people then Hitler did in the holocaust. You want to talk absurdity? Read your own posts.
Also - despite your posutlate that the U.S.A. did not 'save the day' and it was the Soviets that did all the work, the U.S.A. did play a highly critical role, as did GBR in V.E.
Remove either from the conflict, and it becomes highly unlikely that the Axis forces would have still suffered a defeat at the hands of the Russians.
The U.K. provided a place in western Europe where the British, Commonwealth, and U.S.A. forces could invade western Europe and effectively divide, and pincer the German wehrmacht. If Britain had been invaded by the Nazis, or remained 'neutral' as you yourself posted as being - and I quote:
the best thing ever!
There would have been no staging ground for the equipment and men, no place to perform recon flights for accurate intelligence for western European defenses, and indeed, likely no reason for the U.S.A. to wage war in Europe at all. This would allow the Axis forces to concentrate their full power on the assault eastward - with no need to watch their back or fight a combined invasion, the U.S.S.R. may have very well lost the fight on the eastern front due to a higher concentration and focus eastward of German forces. With Britain standing resolute against the Nazis and casting aside neutrality & deciding to fight - without Britain, the European theater would have been very different indeed.
If the U.S.A. had decided not to involve itself in the conflict in Europe, Britain & it's commonwealth allies would not likely have had the manpower to liberate Europe from the Germans by themselves.
Hehe I didn`t say that, I just said that they were the most active.
No? So what was this meant to mean?
and that USA won which is really absurd
They did 'win'... they were on the winning side... so, what are you trying to say?
As for most active - I wouldn't agree with you on that either, but it would depend on how you define it. If you're purely talking casualties, you'd be right - but the U.S.A. did more training, supplied arms to both the Russians & the British, travelled across both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to wage war across the globe on two different fronts simulataneously whereas the Russians were simply invaded, and didn't have to go anywhere - the fight came to them.
They didn`t win by themselves, you cut off the first part of that sentence to make a replying comment.
It still makes as much sense if you include the paragraph:
-And 6 million is just 6 million, and yep that number has almost all civilian deaths which shows that they were too weak to defend or to form a rise against Nazis but look at Soviet Union and their civilian deaths, their military deaths, they were the one who defeated Nazism and still people think they were bad and that USA won which is really absurd,
So, you talk about civilian deaths, and soviet military deaths.. and then say it's absurd that people think the USA won. Two completely unrelated facts. Then, you go on to talk about:
If you judge who was damaged the most by civilian deaths than you should look at Soviets, US had the SMALLEST amount of civilian deaths of all world countries, then again Soviets also had the biggest amount of millitary deaths, but some people never say I respect Soviets and China for their biggest contribution for fighting off Nazi rule, in fact those people are retarded and even curse on their name because they were communists
US civilian deaths.. and China's contribution. What do these things even remotely have to do with the U.S.A. being a victor in the second world war? Like I said before - you're just taking pot shots.
Exactly, fight came to them.If Russians were on a safe island they would train, send equipment and soldiers all across the world too.
I voraciously doubt Stalin would have gotten involved in a conflict on the other side of the planet. If WW2 was started in North America where either Canada or the U.S.A. were the aggressors, what are the odds you think that the U.S.S.R. would have come to their aid? I'd say small to none.
In Russian front there were more Nazis so the fight was bigger, more casualties on both sides.
You mean to say more Germans. You quoted my post, but did you read the part where I said: "If you're purely talking casualties, you'd be right"? I already brought it up if you paid attention.
-Ohhh yes they would, what major force wouldn`t pass an oportunity to send few troops to "liberate" other countries, it would be a great move for Soviet Union as some countries would probably turn Communist after so much aid and support from them or they could like them much, and with a extreme smaller amount of casualties if Soviet Union were on an island like US that is, and that USA were on ex-Soviet Union`s lands, what a scenario huh.
The Soviets barely had the resources to feed, clothe, and arm their people when they needed to in their most dire hour - I don't think being as poor as the country was, they would have been able to mount any kind of effective force to 'assist' as you say. I'm doubt they would be interested either, given the cost of the investment and the negligible payoff. Stalin had just gained control of the country through one revolution; I don't think he would have been interested in putting the country in a position where they might rebel against him & his decisions.
His authority after the war was rock solid; but prior to the conflict? I don't think he could have convinced the Russian people that shipping wave after wave of men and equipment to the Americas as being somehow good for Russia in the poor state that it was already in.
Yes are you blind, USA was not the only victor so called "Allies" were, that`s why I was mentioning deaths of many different countries evolved, totally related facts.
-See again you say USA was the victor and you left China and Soviet Union behind and you quoted on them.
You call me blind, but you're just making crap up & trying to put it in my mouth. Quote me where I said the Soviets and China were not victors or I never said it.
If you re-read your own convoluted sentence, you never use the words 'eople think the USA is the only victor' - you only say:
still people think they were bad and that USA won which is really absurd
And you're wrong on both of those points - as the soviets were 'bad' and the USA did 'win'. Are you just so stupid that you can't even understand what you have written yourself?
It`s well known that 80% of German losses in WWII were caused by Soviets.
Don't be shocked if I don't take your word on that particular number. I'd like to see a valid source for that percentage, or you're just pulling it out of your ass.
the U.S.A. did more training, supplied arms to both the Russians & the British, travelled across both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to wage war across the globe on two different fronts simulataneously whereas the Russians were simply invaded
Canada trained most of the Allied pilots. At least the ones that weren't American, which was most of them. Canada travelled across oceans. And I don't recognize the American involvement in the Pacific as a good thing. They overreacted to an action that was supposed to prevent their entering into the war. If it wasn't for America's involvement in WW2 we wouldn't have nuclear weapons.
-Well if killing makes you bad USA was bad too and still is, in your opinion Soviets were bad, in mine they were good and they won too.
It wasn't so much just the 'killing' the made the soviets bad. It was how they ran the government, dominated their own people (and others in eastern Europe), and tallied up a civilian body count outside of war time. At least the U.S.A. wasn't hell bent on killing their own people like Stalin was. The U.S.A. sure as hell aren't innocent, but they're nowhere near as bad as Stalin's regime.
-I said if there was an island scenario but that`s way too imaginary now.
Yeah.. and in this imaginary island scenario are you giving the U.S.S.R. more food, wealth and production capacity? Like I said; putting them halfway across the world isn't going to change who or what the governing party is; I don't think they would have involved themselves in similar circumstances.
-Germany concentrated 80% of all their forces on Eastern Front, they were defeated there, Eastern Front was a war between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in WWII, and to quote Wikipedia:
I'm well aware of the ferocity of the eastern front - but you're still not explaning or providing a source for this '80%' number.
Canada trained most of the Allied pilots. At least the ones that weren't American, which was most of them. Canada travelled across oceans.
Canada's soldiers also did double the training; there weren't a lot of Canadian facilities for ground infantry, so many units trained with the U.S.A.'s soldiers. Then, when transferred to Britain, they redid the training with the British - this is one of the reasons why Canada's Airborne were considered highly elite - and it paid off; they were the only airborne unit to accomplish all of their objectives during D-Day landings.
And I don't recognize the American involvement in the Pacific as a good thing. They overreacted to an action that was supposed to prevent their entering into the war. If it wasn't for America's involvement in WW2 we wouldn't have nuclear weapons
They overreacted to their shipyard being bombed by the Japanese? Yeah... that's totally not an act of war. If the Americans had a reason to go to war on any front, it was with the Japanese in the pacific.
Why don't you think we wouldn't have nuclear weapons? The Germans were working on them near the end of the war, but they never completed the project. Shortly after the war, the Soviets had nuclear weapons too. You can't pin blame for fusion on the Americans - if like you say, we speculate a secnario where they weren't involved in the war, we would still wind up having them; either the Germans if they had managed to attain victory with no western front, or the Soviets.
And I don't recognize the American involvement in the Pacific as a good thing. They overreacted to an action that was supposed to prevent their entering into the war. If it wasn't for America's involvement in WW2 we wouldn't have nuclear weapons
No, we got pissed when pearl harbor was caught off guard, with japanese bombers blowing up everything.
If it wasnt for our campaign in the pacific, im sure things would have changed back in ww2
