Originally posted by RobertBurns
Tyriffic I'd argue we Single Handedly won WW2.

Not because we were the only ones fighting (obviously we didn't do nearly as much as the Soviets).

But because our march was the fatal blow. Because without our March Hitler would eventually have devestated the Russians while keeping the Britts at bay or even destroying the Britts as well.

Absolute nonsense.

Hitler signed his own death warrant the day he ordered the invasion of Russia, "Operation Barbarosa". Historically, there have already been many attempts at conquering Russia, all of which have failed.

Russia has one natural advantage: it has the land mass to support an nearly endless withdrawl, not to mention vast natural resources reserves. As happened in WWII, the Russians, even when faced with overwhelming military agression, simply has to pack up (and they did, including the factories), and head east... and keep heading east.

The Germans quickly learned that although they had a superious military, A, they did not have the resources to essentially chase the Russians across the entire continent, and B, they were totally unprepared for fighting a war in near arctic conditions once winter arrived. This was yet another major miscalculation for Hitler, that he for some reason thought he could subdue the entire Russian countryside before the onset of winter. Launching such an offensive while still battling a war with the UK (never mind the US) was absolute stupidity.

Once Operation Barbarosa was underway, it became a battle of attrition. The Germans lost men and material, the Russians continued to withdraw, and had the resources to supply more than the Germans lost. The Germans would have had to draw men and material away from thier western front in order to maintain thier Russian campaign.

Although the arrival of US forces, as well as US assistance to the Russians indeed helped the situation, and likely cut 2-3 years off the war, the Russians would likely have won the war in time, simply by wearing the Germans down.

Correction on WW 2 history for Americans and Brits. The Russians won the war for the Americans and the Brits. The Eastern Front was the war, the Western Front was a secondary front that did not come into real play until latter in the war after the bloody battle of Moscow. The war was lost in Lenningrad and in Stalingrad. Most of the Panzer divisions were in the East. Most of the Luftwaffe was in the East. Had the war in the East be won, then neither America and the UK combined been able to liberate Europe. Never ever forget, in World War 2, the big front was on the East.

No, not utter non-sense. Please people don't try to educate me in an "idea".

It's just that, ideas are not UTTER NONSENSE, they are works in progress.

And frankly, the idea that the Eastern Front was the "real war" is a load of crap.

The Russians were lucky because the Winter froze the German Armor, which they promptly attacked in one of if not THE largest Armor campain of the war. (They= soviets).

This pushed the Germans completely back...however this was in '43.

When we had already been fighting them for nearly 2 years.

Because of us the Britts held N. Africa. Without us it could have been a 50/50 shot at German or Brit. Might have taken longer who knows.

But definately because of us Italy was now a new theater of combat. This was a serious drain on German material and personell.

Because of this they could not focus on counter assaults on the Russians.

So they succeeded in causing massive casualties but not in routes, because of the drain on men and material.

Because we were supplying Russia AND Brittain with planes and munitions, the German Luftwaffe was torn in two, being less effective in all cases.

By '43 the luftwaffe was little more than a defense against air.

By '44 there was little worth in the luftwaffe at all.

Before '43 the luftwaffe still had powerful influence on ground forces.

Thanks to the US the luftwaffe became a tattered rag.

Because of the britt spitfire the britts did not fall...but our Mustangs were by far more help when they arrived.

And the Russians recieved a LOT of planes from us.

So anyways...my idea stands as still viable.

This seems so familiar...

My source is men such as Galland, Hartman, Rudel. As for the planes, all the Russians ever received from the USA was P-39's and a few B-25's. The only reason they got the P-39 was that neither the RAF or the US air forces wanted the dog. During the war, the Luftwaffe destroyed about 50,000 Soviet aircraft. America sent only 10,000. Aircraft built exclusively by the Soviets, the Il-2, Mig 3, Lagg 4. (50,000 Il-2's were built.) Also do not forget the T-34, a very excellent tank - built in Russia. If you want the straight scope on the war, read what the Gemans had to say.

As for the planes, all the Russians ever received from the USA was P-39's and a few B-25's. The only reason they got the P-39 was that neither the RAF or the US air forces wanted the dog. Posted by Jagdflieger

A dog it was, only in the sense of dogfighting... it was a hell of a groundattack/tankbuster aircraft, and took a very heavy toll on German armored vehicals.

Also the real reason the war was lost in the East was not because of any failure of military strategy. It was the policy of "Slavs are slaves". Once the soviet people learned what the Nazis had in store for them (political, social, ethnic annilhation), they were commited to winning the war in the East regardless of the cost. It was a matter of survival. By mid 1942, the war in Russia became unwinable for the Germans because of this policy. Why do you think the seige of Lenningrad failed for the Germans? The Russians had no choice but to win. For them it was literaly victory or death.

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by RobertBurns]

Jagdflieger your point is void.

The Germans felt the same way. They had to win or die.

It may not have been prevalent among all Germans, but neither was it among all Soviets, many of whom were holding much contempt against Stalin.

Russians did indeed use the P-39 as a tank buster till the advent of the much vaunted: Ilyushin Il-2: a 'true' tank buster or low level armored aircraft- not a fighter aircraft, per se'.

[Edited on 5-7-2003 by Seekerof]

If that's to me seeker, I was referring to a different set of aircrafts because I didn't see Dragonrider's quote.

But I corrected it, by the edit...the quote completely voided what I was even rambling about lol.

Please do not hand us that crap about Hitler screwing up the development of the German jets. Of all his crimes, this is one that Hitler is innocent. The whole story of how Hitler messed up jet development was a lie concocted by Galland and Albert Speer to hide their and the RLM's role in the affair.

What are you talking about.

Hitler didn't screw up anything about the Jet.

He simply did not CAPITALIZE ON IT.

That was simply because the Me 262 was not available for combat use until 1945. Hitler realized the potentials of jet aircraft.

I agree. The new Me was in the works for combat when the hammer started to fall on the Nazis.

i think we're all forgetting who won the war- the 1st canadian army(or at least i wish i could proudly say that), we won the battle of the atlantic and covered more ground than any other unit on d-day