quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I don't agree at all with your theory about the Second World War in Europe.
 
1. The United States provided just under eleven percent of the war resources used by the Soviet Union, but the real importance of this is a) when they were delivered, b) that they were delivered, c) that they were delivered on credit.
Ten percent is a pretty small part of anything.  On the other hand ninety percent is a pretty big part of anything.


2. The divisional count ignores the point of water barriers used as defense,
I would agree that the English channel is a significant water barrier.
When the Allies invaded Europe Germany met them with what they had that was not mandatory for the eastern front.
 
 
and most importantly of all, the significant numbers of top German air assets that had to be kept in the west.
What percentage of German air assets were delegated to the defense of Europe? 
 
On the Eastern front, the Germans primarily fought in the air with outdated aircraft like the ME109 (and rarely the more advances G model), because they were a match for the Soviet YAK-9 and LaGG-3 ... and used the superior FW-190 and ME-109G in the West. That there were not superior numbers in the west, was primarily due to them being shot down by British and American fighters. To ignore the notion that these fighters, if deployed in the East, would have cleared the sky of the Red Air Force, is to ignore reality.
I only ignore reality while in the throes of passion[;)].
 
I hold the view that all powers shared equally in the defeat of Germany, and to belittle any one, is primarily just spin, or making numbers mean what you want them to mean.
More dirt was recovered by the Russians.  More body bags were filled with German soldiers by the Russians.  By any measure the Russians did the "heavy lifting" in WWII
 
Expanding to the hypothetical, a case can be made that the Soviets might never have beaten the Germans without the Western Allies, while the British and Ameircan might well have beaten the Germans without assistance from the Soviets.
This hypothetical would only be possible through the copious application of mind altering substances.
 
 
 The Soviets were seriously outclassed in the air, by aircraft that they were never forced to face, and didn't have the strategic bombing assets to limit production of these assets. A sky filled with FW-190's and ME-210 ground attack aircraft, might have made things highly hazardous for the advance Red Army.
This would have taken fuel that the German did not have.
 
 The alternate case can be made that by far, the primary casualty causing arms of the Western Allies, was air power and artillery. This is especially true of the Americans, who come in at close to 90% casualties caused by air assets and artillery.
You plucked this number from where?
 
 Simpley put, massive numbers of divisions were not needed, as these were not the primary killing arms. The Germans were not encouraged to field large numbers of divisions in the West, only to see them carpet bombed. Most importantly, the Western Allies had the ability to seriously disrupt production, and had a multi-flexible navy. A strong case can be made that the Western Allies could have eventually beaten the Germans alone.
Not in any rational context.
 
That said, I wouldn't have wanted to live in a British city, is the war would have lasted in to early 1947. 
The world of "what if" is not where I live.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I recalled reading it was 16 divisions. The web site i have just found quotes 20. Either or it will still amount to more than 20 Divisions in Europe.

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Italy/

I agree about Pakistan and Iran, i was merely pointing out that "IF" they made a pact, they already have nuclear weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

To anyone who belives that the Arabs dont pose a threat to western society has forgotten that last 30 years. Most recently 9/11 and 7/7.

quote:


Iran and Syria control Hizbullah and Hamas, which means they also control Lebanon, Gaza, and pretty soon the West Bank.

quote:


Al-qaeda is currently fighting Hizbullah opponents in Lebanon...how long before an official alliance is declared?

quote:


a Hizbullah/Al-Aqeda alliance would command enormous resources, more than enough to topple the fragile governments in Pakistan and Lebanon. pretty soon they will control many of the smaller states Qatar, Bahrain, etc...
They are becoming united very quickly, under the banner of War. War has always been the only thing that brought Arabs together.

quote:


As for FB are you trying to tell me that Saddam didnt support terrorism? didnt allow free movement through his country for terrorists? That he didnt pay $250,000 to the families of suicide bombers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

um you also for got that the germans where only 19 miles from the russian capital 
Yup...it was just 19 miles outside of Moscow the Russians stopped the "supermen" cold, pulled their knickers down and  spanked them like little girls.
 

no person can fight a war on two fronts that was the Mistake of germany had they just went more east stopped rebuild they could have taken russia
If they coulda they woulda...they couldn't so they didn't.


they had the first jet aircraft they had some of the best armor
If that were true then how was it possible for the Russians to defeat the vaunted German tanks at Kursk (the largest tank battle in history) with the Tu 34 (which most military historians will concede to be the best battle tank of WWII)


they had great general just a dumbass leader.. and some other stupid people in simple terms they really could have taken over europe
They did take Europe it was Russia that spanked them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

what stopped the germans was the cold russian winter the king tiger tank was a much better tank
Since the Germans and the Russians were both fighting in the same snow how was it that the Germans suffered more from the cold than the Russians? 
According to the links you posted the T34 was more durable, less vulnerable, 50% faster and 300% greater range, more easily maintained in the field  etc,etc,etc.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/main_battle_tanks.asp

tu34
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=38

tiger tank they made one called the king tiger but did make alot of them
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=72

jet powerd flying wing

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=105

quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

this tales a little more of the tanks
http://battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

Thank god the British gave us this preview of what will happen.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20137025/
Note the following:
As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down.
Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.

You may want to take a look at our own history with civil wars, and apply your thinking to it.  Civil wars always produce the behavior that you describe.  What if the French and the English had decided that we needed someone to come in and enforce peace in 1861?  Do you really think that our forefathers would have been thankful for it?  The longer we stay there, the more hated we are going to be.  As I have said before; the best thing we can do is cut them a check, wish them the best of luck, then pack up and leave.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

To anyone who belives that the Arabs dont pose a threat to western society has forgotten that last 30 years. Most recently 9/11 and 7/7.

Iran and Syria control Hizbullah and Hamas, which means they also control Lebanon, Gaza, and pretty soon the West Bank.

Al-qaeda is currently fighting Hizbullah opponents in Lebanon...how long before an official alliance is declared? a Hizbullah/Al-Aqeda alliance would command enormous resources, more than enough to topple the fragile governments in Pakistan and Lebanon. pretty soon they will control many of the smaller states Qatar, Bahrain, etc...
They are becoming united very quickly, under the banner of War. War has always been the only thing that brought Arabs together.

As for FB are you trying to tell me that Saddam didnt support terrorism? didnt allow free movement through his country for terrorists? That he didnt pay $250,000 to the families of suicide bombers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Again, it's not the 10% number that is significant, as much as when it was delivered, that it was delivered (since the Soviets had no actual way to come get it), and that it was delivered on credit.
Lend lease was started before the U.S. entry into WW II.  It was a ploy by Roosevelt to entice Germany into a provocative move.  Thus the stuff being paid for or delivered was of minor importance.
 
You place far too much emphasis on raw numbers, in my view. Good thinking when discussing the American Civil War ... not so good when discussing modern conflict.
The numbers are there.  Germany sent the overwhelming majority of her manpower to Russia.  Thus my statement that Russia did the majority of the fighting still holds.
 
And of course, like any good debate, I saved the better points for the rebound. [;)] The 10% (just under eleven in truth), doesn't include foodstuffs ... delivered to the Soviet Union via American shipping.
Why would you think that the ten percent (some sources say seven percent)did not include the food stuffs
Care to speculate how long the Red Army could have stayed in the game, without shipments of "vittles" delivered by the United States?
Perhaps my math is wrong but four and a half million tons seems to work out to about six ounces a day.  If you have nothing that is something...but if you have something that is just six ounces a day.
 
I notice that we are now backtracking to "who did the heavy lifting" as opposed to "The U.S. played an infinitesimal part in that conflict."
I do not have a problem with either term.  That the U.S. supplied lend lease to the Russians is not in question....that those supplies amounted to more than a small fraction of what the Russians used is a matter of record.
Your argument that the Russian air force was inferior in pilots or equipment is less than factual.  The Russians used the Yak and the Ilyushin with devastating effectiveness.  It is instructive to note that the Russians second highest ranking ace flew a P 39 which was considered by American pilots to be a slow flying coffin.
 
 
 I would say most educated people would support the former statement, and dispute the latter. The contribution of all the Allies was equally important.
Argentina was one of our allies in that war and their only contribution was the ODESSA.
Here is a list of what we gave them and how much it cost.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Your argument that the Russian air force was inferior in pilots or equipment is less than factual.  The Russians used the Yak and the Ilyushin with devastating effectiveness.  It is instructive to note that the Russians second highest ranking ace flew a P 39 which was considered by American pilots to be a slow flying coffin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Your argument that the Russian air force was inferior in pilots or equipment is less than factual.  The Russians used the Yak and the Ilyushin with devastating effectiveness.  It is instructive to note that the Russians second highest ranking ace flew a P 39 which was considered by American pilots to be a slow flying coffin.

I never made that point.
 
I made the point that the Red Airforce was outclassed by aircraft they never had to face, because these aircraft were primarily used against the U.S. Army Air Corps, or more importantly, destroyed on the ground by American and British aircraft, and/or destroyed in factories before ever leaving the ground.
 
The Red Airforce had a huge numbers advantage, good aircraft, and brave pilots. If there had been no participation by Western Allies, there wouldn't have been a large advantage in numbers, more and higher quality German aircraft would have been available on the Eastern front.
 
I'm at a loss as to what you are trying to prove here. It seems unacceptable to you, that all parties played a vital part ... for whatever reason. That said, resorting to the tactic of counterpoints, to points that were never made in the first place, was pretty old the first three-hundred times you tried it. [;)]