Did the U.S defeat Hitlers Germany?

ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
edited October 2006 in A Moving Train
69charger wrote:
You should be thanking our Grandparents that you aren't speaking German right now.

Just saw this post of yours on another thread and felt compelled to respond.

Question 1: Are you aware that the USSR was involved in World war 2?

Question 2: Are you aware that 9 out of every 10 German soldiers who were killed in World war 2 were killed in Russia?

Question 3. Where was America between 1939 and 1941, when Britain was at it's most vulnerable and before Pearl Harbour dragged you in?

Fact: More people died during the battle of Moscow in 1941 than all of the British and American casualties in world war 2 combined.

Fact: More people died during the battle of Stalingrad in 1942 than all of the British and American casualties in world war 2 combined.

Discuss...
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456716

Comments

  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Nothing much to discuss. Some people buy the Hollywood version of history. I can't think of a single war the US have won, outright. Is there one?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    how about some sources for these "facts". US helped defeat Germany during WW2. without American the war would not have been won.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    Nothing much to discuss. Some people buy the Hollywood version of history. I can't think of a single war the US have won, outright. Is there one?

    The US Civil War ;)
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • UKDaveUKDave Posts: 5,557
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how about some sources for these "facts". US helped defeat Germany during WW2. without American the war would not have been won.

    Speeded up the end of the war yes but that's all, Germany broke it's back on Russia, it was only a matter of time... history would have certainly been very different afterwards though... and for the other Brits... Churchill was very keen on minimising their role in Europe after the war, so there was a lot of politics in how the war actually ended...
    Astoria Crew
    Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
    Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
    Katowice, Wembley 07
    SBE, Manchester, O2 09
    Hyde Park 10
    Manchester 1&2 12
    This is just g'bye for now...
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how about some sources for these "facts". US helped defeat Germany during WW2. without American the war would not have been won.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

    'The battle of Stalingrad was the largest single battle in human history. It raged for 199 days. Numbers of casualties are difficult to compile due to the vast scope of the battle and the fact the Soviet government didn't allow estimates to be run for fear the cost would have proven too high. In its initial phases, the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on Soviet formations; however, the Soviet counter strike cut off and annihilated the entire 6th Army (which was exceptionally strong) and parts of the 4th Panzer Army. Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties of all types among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies: 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured. In addition, and as many as 50,000 turncoat Soviets were killed or captured by the Red Army. According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered 478,741 men killed and 650,878 wounded (for a total of 1,129,619). These numbers; however, include a wide scope of operations. Also, more than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the 6th and 4th Panzer armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, the battle resulted in an estimated total of 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties, making it by far the largest in human history.'
  • The US Civil War ;)


    :D
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

    'The battle of Stalingrad was the largest single battle in human history. It raged for 199 days. Numbers of casualties are difficult to compile due to the vast scope of the battle and the fact the Soviet government didn't allow estimates to be run for fear the cost would have proven too high. In its initial phases, the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on Soviet formations; however, the Soviet counter strike cut off and annihilated the entire 6th Army (which was exceptionally strong) and parts of the 4th Panzer Army. Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties of all types among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies: 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured. In addition, and as many as 50,000 turncoat Soviets were killed or captured by the Red Army. According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered 478,741 men killed and 650,878 wounded (for a total of 1,129,619). These numbers; however, include a wide scope of operations. Also, more than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the 6th and 4th Panzer armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, the battle resulted in an estimated total of 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties, making it by far the largest in human history.'


    thats alot of death.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I dontunderstand your point. are you trying to marginalize US's involvment and help in defeating Hitler?
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I dontunderstand your point. are you trying to marginalize US's involvment and help in defeating Hitler?

    Yes. I'm putting it into perspective.

    Total U.S losses during world war 2 = approx 400,000.

    Total British losses during world war 2 = approx 300,000.

    Total Russian losses during world war 2 = approx 30 - 40,000,000.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    thats alot of death.

    So is this...

    The battle of Moscow

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow

    'Both German and Soviet casualties during the battle of Moscow have been a subject of debate, as various sources provide somewhat different estimates. Not all historians agree on what should be considered the "Battle of Moscow" in the timeline of World War II. While the start of the battle is usually regarded as the beginning of Operation Typhoon on September 30, 1941 (or sometimes on October 2, 1941), there are two different dates for the end of the offensive. In particular, some sources (such as Erickson[53] and Glantz[54]) exclude the Rzhev offensive from the scope of the battle, considering it as a distinct operation and making the Moscow offensive "stop" on January 7, 1942 — thus lowering the number of casualties. Other historians, who include the Rzhev and Vyazma operations in the scope of the battle (thus making the battle end in May 1942), give higher casualty numbers.[2][1] Since the Rzhev operation started on January 8, 1942, with no pause after the previous counteroffensive, such a stance is understandable.

    There are also significant differences in figures from various sources. John Erickson, in his Barbarossa: The Axis and the Allies, gives a figure of 653,924 Soviet casualties between October 1941 and January 1942.[53] Glantz, in his book When Titans Clashed, gives a figure of 658,279 for the defense phase alone, and of 370,955 for the winter counteroffensive until January 7, 1942.[54] The Great Soviet Encyclopedia published in 1973-1978, estimates 400,000 German casualties by January, 1942.[1] Another estimate available is provided in the Moscow Encyclopedia, published in 1997; its authors, based on various sources, give a figure of 145,000 German and 900,000 Soviet casualties for the defensive phase, along with 103,000 German and 380,000 Soviet casualties for the counteroffensive until January 7, 1942.[2] Therefore, total casualties between September 30, 1941 and January 7, 1942 are estimated to be between 248,000 and 400,000 for the Wehrmacht (GSE / Moscow encyclopedia estimate) and between 650,000 and 1,280,000 for the Red Army (Erickson / Moscow encyclopedia estimate).'
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Yes. I'm putting it into perspective.


    wow. america had just as much to do with defeating hitler as any country. very shitty of you to marginalize their deaths becuase some country had a higher death toll. well done
  • UKDaveUKDave Posts: 5,557
    jlew24asu wrote:
    wow. america had just as much to do with defeating hitler as any country. very shitty of you to marginalize their deaths becuase some country had a higher death toll. well done

    I think if you go to the top of the thread he was actually trying to prove the point that it wasn't down to any one country, specifically America and that the greatest burden was taken by Russia, not all of it but more than anyone else, anyone who thinks different is definately in denial....
    Astoria Crew
    Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
    Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
    Katowice, Wembley 07
    SBE, Manchester, O2 09
    Hyde Park 10
    Manchester 1&2 12
    This is just g'bye for now...
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    wow. america had just as much to do with defeating hitler as any country. very shitty of you to marginalize their deaths becuase some country had a higher death toll. well done

    I repeat: 9 out of every 10 german soldiers were killed in Russia. Russia liberated Aushwitz. Russia captured Berlin. Russian casualties were 100 times greater than America's.

    Therefore: When an American says that if it wasn't for America we'd be speaking German now, I tend to get a bit disgusted.
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    Meh, another US isnt that important thread. Whatever makes ya feel better about yourself I guess.

    US did not "speed up the end" of the war. By all accounts, the end started w/ the invasion on D-Day. Also, everyone in the US knows US forces were not the only ones that hit the beach that day. We arent that stupid.

    Britiain definatly held its own during the German airwar, no doubt about that. There were also american pilots/ planes invovled in the battle of britain also.

    Why did th US wait till pearl harbor? My guess is no money, depression, isolationism, not wanting to get involved, (same thing people are complaining about these days) (also from what I understand the US was selling stuff to both sides. I dont know much about that to be honest but its believeable)

    Its also widely known that Russia took a beating, and held off/ stopped Germany in Stalingrad. so your little "obscure history" lessons is actually common knowledge to anyone that picks up a history book, watches history channel.

    Also, the US was a major contributor along w/ Australia, Philipino, and Chinese forces on the Pacific front.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I repeat: 9 out of every 10 german soldiers were killed in Russia. Russia liberated Aushwitz. Russia captured Berlin. Russian casualties were 100 times greater than America's.

    Therefore: When an American says that if it wasn't for America we'd be speaking German now, I tend to get a bit disgusted.

    I repeat. without american involvment you might be speaking german.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Yes. I'm putting it into perspective.

    Total U.S losses during world war 2 = approx 400,000.

    Total British losses during world war 2 = approx 300,000.

    Total Russian losses during world war 2 = approx 30 - 40,000,000.


    out of curiouisty, do those russian numbers include the execution of all those russians we sent back after the war?

    i wonder how much GE made selling hitler weapons?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I repeat: 9 out of every 10 german soldiers were killed in Russia. Russia liberated Aushwitz. Russia captured Berlin. Russian casualties were 100 times greater than America's.

    Therefore: When an American says that if it wasn't for America we'd be speaking German now, I tend to get a bit disgusted.

    Actually sounds like you're the one that is getting yer butt hurt in thinking the US helped out Britain. I dont 'recall' Russian forces assisting in the Battle of Britain. If so, then please correct me.


    edit/also: I dont like it when people keep saying "if it wasn't for America we'd be speaking German now", i think its kinda childish in a way myself. But is does hold some truth.
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    El_Kabong wrote:
    out of curiouisty, do those russian numbers include the execution of all those russians we sent back after the war?

    i wonder how much GE made selling hitler weapons?


    Hmmm, do those stats also figure in those that were executed by Russian forces? ie: Polish?
  • UKDaveUKDave Posts: 5,557
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I repeat. without american involvment you might be speaking german.

    Russian maybe... not German...
    Astoria Crew
    Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
    Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
    Katowice, Wembley 07
    SBE, Manchester, O2 09
    Hyde Park 10
    Manchester 1&2 12
    This is just g'bye for now...
  • If Hitler did not get greedy (ie. fight the eastern front) things would be different today...but then again who knows what other countries may have felt the the force of a nuclear bomb (the most disgusting event in the last 100 years IMHO).....
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    UKDave wrote:
    Russian maybe... not German...

    This is what I think. Without US involvement Yalta wouldn't have gone the way it did in shaping post-war Europe. Churchill wouldn't have been able to bully Stalin. Like it or not, the US brought power to the table that wouldn't have otherwise existed.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    If Hitler did not get greedy (ie. fight the eastern front) things would be different today...but then again who knows what other countries may have felt the the force of a nuclear bomb (the most disgusting event in the last 100 years IMHO).....

    We really wanna turn this thread into another 'only country to drop the bomb, and if it was right/wrong for the time?

    I really dont understand why that is ALWAYS brought up when it has nothing to do w/ the thread subject. Its like a cheap shot IMO. An easy jab just for hte hell of it.
  • Solat13Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    If Hitler did not get greedy (ie. fight the eastern front) things would be different today...but then again who knows what other countries may have felt the the force of a nuclear bomb (the most disgusting event in the last 100 years IMHO).....

    Personally, I think the slaughter of 50 MILLION CIVILIANS by Germany and Japan during WW2 trumps the the use of the atomic bomb in terms of atrocities committed but that's just my opinion.
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 8/28/98
    - 9/2/00
    - 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
    - 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
    - 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
    - 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
    - 8/2/07, 8/5/07
    - 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
    - 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
    - 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
    - 9/11/11, 9/12/11
    - 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
  • UKDaveUKDave Posts: 5,557
    jeffbr wrote:
    This is what I think. Without US involvement Yalta wouldn't have gone the way it did in shaping post-war Europe. Churchill wouldn't have been able to bully Stalin. Like it or not, the US brought power to the table that wouldn't have otherwise existed.

    Yeah I agree, I don't think anyone is arguing there wasn't significant influence in that stage of the war brought in by the US both in the support of the UK effort and in helping the "balance" afterwards. Having a "balanced" Europe has always been part of British foreign policy, means we are less threatened...

    Going back to the reason for the thread (sorry Byrnzie if I'm wrong) it was to counter an inaccurate statement.
    Astoria Crew
    Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
    Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
    Katowice, Wembley 07
    SBE, Manchester, O2 09
    Hyde Park 10
    Manchester 1&2 12
    This is just g'bye for now...
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    I thought in war, noone won.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • UKDaveUKDave Posts: 5,557
    Solat13 wrote:
    Personally, I think the slaughter of 50 MILLION CIVILIANS by Germany and Japan during WW2 trumps the the use of the atomic bomb in terms of atrocities committed but that's just my opinion.

    I visited Auschwitz two weeks ago and I can't help but agree...
    Astoria Crew
    Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
    Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
    Katowice, Wembley 07
    SBE, Manchester, O2 09
    Hyde Park 10
    Manchester 1&2 12
    This is just g'bye for now...
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    Solat13 wrote:
    Personally, I think the slaughter of 50 MILLION CIVILIANS by Germany and Japan during WW2 trumps the the use of the atomic bomb in terms of atrocities committed but that's just my opinion.


    BUT..BUT..BUT..BUT.. The US dropped the bomb! It was the US!....They dropped the bomb...all thier fault!
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    Solat13 wrote:
    Personally, I think the slaughter of 50 MILLION CIVILIANS by Germany and Japan during WW2 trumps the the use of the atomic bomb in terms of atrocities committed but that's just my opinion.

    But those weren't committed by the US< so they tend to fall to the wayside in these people's minds. ;)
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    truroute wrote:
    By all accounts, the end started w/ the invasion on D-Day.

    Wrong! The turning point of World war 2 was Stalingrad. The German army never fully recovered from that defeat and was slowly driven back to Berlin. D-Day pales in comparison.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I repeat. without american involvment you might be speaking german.

    I repeat: You are wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.