The Russians were on their way to defeating Germanynin 1945. The Western Front was a sideshow for Germany compared to what was going on in the East.
Yes, by the Japanese and the Nazis or the Soviets.
Either way, Europe would've been a totalitarian colony, Imperial Japan would be a bellicose superpower, and yhe world would be much worse
Then why did Stalin keep pressuring the Allies to invade France?
No, it would still be going on.
The Allied advances in the east kept the Germans from focusing all their
strength against the Russians. (This is the source of Stalin's pressure on the Allies.) The battles in the east were really, really bloody, with heavy losses on both sides. The battles in the west were only really bloody. The Battle of the Bulge was hardly a sideshow.
Andrew Roberts' The Storm of War is a relatively new history that tries to give proper credit to the Russian effort in winning WW2. (If you're interested in this sort of thing, it's worth a look.
Q. Could the Nazis have won, had they done something differently?
Roberts: Absolutely. If they had not invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, and if they had instead thrown at the Allies even a fraction of the 3 million men they eventually unleashed against Russia, they would have chased us out of the Middle East and cut off access to 80 percent of the Allies' oil. We simply would not have been able to continue the struggle.
Dear Europe: We're still waiting for our thank you note. (In blue-black ink on cream-colored stationery, please.)
[quote]The Russians were on their way to defeating Germany in 1945.
Yes, but that was after 5 years of massive US/Allied aid. It's unlikely they could have held out, much less gone on the offensive, on their own.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Bump for history
[quote] Roberts: Absolutely. If they had not invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, and if they had instead thrown at the Allies even a fraction of the 3 million men they eventually unleashed against Russia, they would have chased us out of the Middle East and cut off access to 80 percent of the Allies' oil. We simply would not have been able to continue the struggle.
We had the atom bomb, though. More importantly we had the Germ and Hung scientists who escaped the Nazis and worked their asses off to create it. Could you imagine Berlin going the way Nagasaki did?
[quote] Would WWII Have Been Won Without US Involvement?
Nearly all of continental Europe would have turned communist--for at least a short time.
[quote] Dear Europe: We're still waiting for our thank you note. (In blue-black ink on cream-colored stationery, please.)
We extorted our thank you note--it was called the Marshall Plan. But the real gift was our Baby Boomer years of filling Europe with cars, washing machines, and coke. You know all those huge pensions that we can't afford now? In the 50s and 60s, making money was a snap.
The US must intervene in Syria or else it would be like letting the Jews continue being exterminated in Nazi Germany.
The Russians suffered far greater losses and did a great deal to defeat the Nazis. Most people don't know that, though, because our school textbooks like to glorify America's involvement.
Take a look at the Battle of Stalingrad, for example. The expected life span for an arriving Russian soldier during this battle was 24 hours.
"The death toll at Stalingrad was immense. About a half million Red Army soldiers died in the battle, more people than Great Britain or the United States lost in the entire war. Most of the civilians who stayed in the city perished, becoming just part of the estimated sixteen million Soviet civilians who died during the war." ~ PBS Behind Closed Doors.
Don't be so melodramatic R11. As awful as the recent events in Syria have been, I don't think they are anything like what happened to the Jews in WW2.
R12, the Soviets did have horrific loses and heroic last stands, but they only survived because American Lend-Lease aid and the Germans having to fight in Africa, Italy, and later in France prolonged the war and split their forces. If Germany had focused on them and rolled in before winter bogged them down, they'd have easily toppled the Soviets.
Yes, the Soviets suffered brutally. They still needed the U.S. The USSR needed the Allies to invade western Europe to draw German forces and attention off them. And the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand needed the US to be able to launch an effective invasion.
P.S. Part of the reason the Soviet losses were so vast was because of Stalin's not-a-step-back order. Soviet forces could not withdraw and regroup to form effective defense. If and when Stalin authorized a withdrawal it would usually come too late, leading to massive encirclements of Soviet troops. Most of those troops later died in POW camps.
World War II casualties by nation.
USSR - 20-30 million
US -- 400,000
Germany -- 7-9 million (4 million military)
World total 60-85 million
Yes US intervention finished both Pacific and European war a lot faster.
But I never get what it is about present day USites wanting to be thanked. It was your grandfathers who did all the fighting (and dying) like everybody elses. All present day peopel did was get it easy living off the profits of war loans and European economy being bombed away for four decades. No-one here won anything.
Hitler would have been assassinated before the end of the war. His successors would have sued for peace. Keeping some gains made but giving up a lot of what they had conquered.
The Soviets did not need our manpower but they did need our airpower and the resources Germany used to try to win the war in the west (V rockets and so on) could have been used in the east to much greater effect.
[quote] Part of the reason the Soviet losses were so vast was because of Stalin's not-a-step-back order.
Don't forget, too, that Stalin had purged the army of all the competent officers that he feared would over-throw him. The military hierarchy that he installed was deemed to be untried, unknowledgeable, and amateurish.
Not entirely true R21. Indeed, it was proof of Soviet military strength that was the big story of 1939, not weakness. In 1939 the Soviets went to war with Japan in Manchuria and Marshal Zhukov kicked Japanese ass, which came as a huge shock to Hitler, who like most people discounted the Russians the way the French are discounted by the USA today, and caused him to rush into the Non-Aggression Pact and partition of Poland.
Of course then the Finns had success against the Russians so Hitler learned contempt for them again, but the Russo-Japanese war changed everybody's strategic calculations and made sure Japan wouldn't support the German war in any meaningful sense.
[quote]World War II casualties by nation:
USSR - 20-30 million US -- 400,000 Germany -- 7-9 million (4 million military)
World total 60-85 million
wow Germany lost 7-9 million people? how many people were living in Germany at that time, what was the population. That's a very high percentage.
I'd always thought WWI was the bloodier war
The RUSSIANS WERE very strong but Stalin was indeed very stubborn too in his strategies. But remember Americans were ffighting in BOTH Europe and ASIA too.
Estimates of WW2 losses vary a lot, especially for the USSR. I once read an estimate of 40M russian deads. This was based on an analysis of russian census (sp?).
The losses of both the UK and the USA are below 400.000. Especially the British generals understood that the UK couldn’t afford another WW1 massacre. Russian generals didn’t care about a couple of hundred thousand extra deads.
Although there was very limited fighting in the West/South before D-day, al least compared to the East, the Germans were forced to keep large forces in the West and South.
Defence against allied air attacks tied large numbers of German fighters and 88mm guns (one of the best guns of WW2) which were very much missed in the East.