who won the 2nd world war

reply to post by triplesod

Hi there. This was actually a PUN. Ever heard of that one? I'll assume that you are an professor of English language; so can therefore criticize others in regard to their use of grammar, spelling etc.
Look you are just baiting me, so give me your greatest insults in perfect execution....I am waiting, MATE!
The pun was also to be read in an ironical fashion.
At any rate, I have apologized to Gawds- weather he decides to accept and forgive/move-on; is his/my business, not yours. I am sure he doesn't need to you to re-enforce his point of view; he's a competent debater himself.
Anyhow, I still stand by my comments no matter who on this board is a active service-person etc.
These comments were relayed to me by Grandfather, and his brother. Both were WII veterans and are deceased now. They both had the same point of view on this matter and had absolutely nothing to gain by creation of tall-stories. My Grandfathers brother was actively involved, fighting in Egypt, my pop trained horses for the cavalry here in Australia.

reply to post by SLAYER69


sorry brunt of the fighting was done by the russians and british (this i include the british empire, which of course means canadians, austrailians, new zeleanders, british indian army, africans etc etc), not the americans,. The ameircans where the economic backbone of the alllies. Also as for d- 90% of the ships at normandy where british, thats near 3,500 ships imagine the size of the uk navy then and her economic power. in 1944 she had over 1000 ships in the pacific fleet, big navy yes.

remember ww2 started in 1939 for the brit and in 1941 for the russians, the american started fighting the japs in pacific from 1943 on wards in land battles, but compared to the battle in burma and malaysisa they were small fry. See battles in the pacific was massive but in terms of numbers of men they were very small.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Mulberry]

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Mulberry]

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Mulberry]

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Mulberry]

reply to post by Mulberry


"Also as for d- 90% of the ships at normandy where british, thats near 3,500 ships imagine the size of the uk navy then and her economic power."
As far as numbers go, most of the "ships" at Normandy were landing craft, and almost all of those were built in the United States. (If you want exact number and types, I can provide them in 24 hours or less, just gotta check the books.)

Originally posted by lunarminer
Military power is not measured by the size of your army or in the number of casualties you sustain. True miliary power is measured by the number of casualties that you inflict on the enemy.

Keeping that in mind, realize that in Gulf War I and II that the US inflicted casualties at a rate near 1000 to 1. No other military in history has done that. The US did it twice, three times if you count Afghanistan.

Well, that's what happens when you fight 3rd world nations, hardly a comparison to WWII. In fact West Point studies have concluded that the Germans inflicted 150% casualties (in relation to German losses) on American forces whether in attack or defense despite America's overwhelming numerical advantage. So by your reasoning Germany was a greater military power.

Also, if you would like to compare the US and USSR. The USSR was in Afghanistan for 9 years and lost about 13,000 troops and hundreds of thousands of sick, injured, and wounded. Many of the USSR losses were due to diseases and poor sanitation.The US has been there a little less than 8 years and has lost 606 total. No massive losses due to disease or poor sanitation.

It would be interesting to see what American casulties would be if Russia was massively arming the hotile tribes to fight. It would be just like Iraq and probably worse. But hey who's making comparisons.

Getting back to WWII, the US fought a war on two fronts against Germany and Japan. The USSR did not. In fact the USSR did not participate against Japan at all until the first atomic bomb was dropped, the war in the Pacific was basically over at that point. The US contribution to the victory against Germany was decisive, not just from troop involvement but also in arms shipments to Great Britain and the USSR.

Once agian it was the SOviets which crushed the German military. The German forces arrayed in the Western Front were tiny compared to the forces in the East. In fact even though Germany's weakest and least numerical forces were arrayed in the West, it still took the Allies a long time to make it to Germany.
America may have been fighting 2 wars but they were not on 2 fronts. The frontlines were thousands of miles from America making her immune to any kind of significant attack. Hence why America's primary roll was to supply the fighting allies and incinerate German and Japanese civilians in their cities so as to induce terror on an industrial scale.

The US victory against Japan was almost singlehanded, except for the contributions of the Australians and the New Zealanders, and a few Royal Navy ships.

It was primarily a naval war, once again most of Japans' soldiers were tied down in China, not fighting the US.

Od course if you want to argue with the Chinese and Russians (and their 30-40 million dead) about who bore the brunt of both conflicts, I'm sure they would enlighten you.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by rogue1]

[edit on 19-4-2009 by rogue1]

Well I would have to say without a doubt that the Nazis won the war.

On the surface on the map they appear to have lost the war. In reality they simply dispersed the hierarchy to form fifth columns in other countries throughout the world.

If you truly consider how Fascism has caught on in most of the ‘free’ and ‘democratic’ countries I would say they won the war brilliantly.

Please keep in mind Nazis and Germans are two different things. Points on a map have little relevance in wars of ideology where it is primarily the war for the mind and thoughts, or hearts and minds as they say that matters.

I content the United States and Great Brittan are Fascists states today. Therefore the Nazis won the war.

Sorry.

if you think about it WW2 was just an extension of WW1,witch is still being fought. i can see a thread from duke ferdanand to sept 11.it gets a bit thin at times but it is still there.it's easy to see after the creation of ISRAEL.look im not an antisemite,but you can trace our modern problems from T.E. LAWRENCE in 1914 all the way to now. who won WW2? it's not over yet.

Insider, the real super power, as you have alluded to was and still is the international bankers. It wasn't a money game. It was a power game; the master beating the slave into submission.

The people of every country involved lost - big time. When you lose a loved one you have lost a part of your world. When they are lost in a stupid war it adds to the anquish.

Even if the "Axis powers" had been declared Victors, the world would still be the same. Only the names would have changed. There would still be the Eruopean Union - notice that Germany seems to be the big power there.
There would still be the United Nations, because this was all about the NWO run by the real powers that be.

I would tend to agree with your basic premise that the USSR bore the brunt of the major fighting in the European Theater of Operation during the second world war. Afterall, the USSR did tie up most of the Axis forces in the European Theater.That does not, however, belittle the efforts that the US, or the British, Free French, Canadians, et al, also contributed to the efforts to destroy The Nazi's of Germany or the Fascists of Italy and their allies in the European Theater. If it wasn't for that, there is a very real possibility that Stalin's USSR may have made a seperate peace with Nazi Germany, thus freeing Germany from a three front war to concentrate against the US and Britain. So it was the TOTAL TEAM EFFORT that allowed us to overpower the Nazi's.

Originally posted by rogue1

It would be interesting to see what American casulties would be if Russia was massively arming the hotile tribes to fight. It would be just like Iraq and probably worse. But hey who's making comparisons.

Yeah we keep hearing you make these statements without facts to back them up. If we are to go strictly by the casualty numbers Iraq and Afghanistan have been disasters.

www.Wikipedia.com

1. Afghanistan
10/2001 - 4/2009 Total US Casualties KIA 635

2. Iraq
3/2003 - 4/2009 Total US Casualties KIA 4.274

3. Soviet-Russian Losses in Afghanistan
1979 - 1989 (Soviet figures) KIA 14,453

4. Vietnam
1964 - 1974 Total US Casualties KIA 58,209

5. Korea
6/1950 - 7/1953 Total US Casualties KIA 36,516

[edit on 20-4-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by insider15


Thanks to Operation Paperclip, the NAZI's did! Go Figure!

The march of the Fascist Brownshirts of America is about to begin...

HISTORY is Repeating because the controlled Media is hiding crucial historical facts on behalf it's master... the CFR and the op bosses the owners of the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve System

This is why there will never be true unity. Even after a massive union of men, supplies, and determination, in the end, we just bicker about whose balls are bigger.....

The Wehrmacht were finished in the Soviet Union when Von Paulus' Army Group South became entrenched in Stalingrad,and thank god they did,otherwise they would,as originally intended,have moved South to take the Caspian Oilfieds,where they would have linked up with Army Group North and Centre,effectively cutting the Soviet Union in Two.To assign the tag of victor and vanquished under those circumstances does IMO seem to be too simplistic,terrible errors costing millions of lives and causing unbelievable suffering contributed in no small way to the conclussion of WW 2,the one good outcome was the destruction of Nazism,unfortunately that other totalitarian regime that was the USSR did flourish in the aftermath.

Having read a fair amount of this thread, the only salient point to come out of it seems the ordinary people lost. Because once again we allowed ourselves to be used as sandbags for the agrandisment of others.
On December 24th 1914, the greatest opertunity of for ordinary folk to take control of their destinies occured. The soldiers of three armies put down their weapons, exchanged gifts and played football. It is one of the saddest episodes in human history. True liberty was within our grasp. Washed away in the blood, sh*t and mud of the trenches because some war mad **** ordered the british artillery to open up forcing men back into their trenchs. We have lost and paid for every war since.

To Answer to OP's question.
The U.S. won. The war gauranteed her status as a super power. War booty (von Braun et al) put her on the moon. To this day she is still the pre-eminent military power in the world.
The USSR, came second. The war gauranteed her staus as a super power. She took over central and eastern Europe. However her absolute disregard for her fighting men made her campaign one of the most wasteful in history.
Germany, came joint third. She lost the war but inward investment afterward positioned her perfectly to take advantage of the peace.
The commonwealth countries, Aussie, Canada, New Zealand etc, also third. It boosted their status in the world without domestic harm.
Britain came fourth. She ended up on the winning side but it cost her her empire (on the face of it anyway). A severe dimunition of her international status, and it took her along time to recover financially.
Poor Japan comes last, nuked when she'd already lost and was suing for peace. Don't believe the "death for emperor" garbage. She was even prepared to send the crown prince to Moscow to try and get the russians to intercede on her behalf. Alas, someone had to justify some very expensive toys so...........BANG!!!!!. What goes around comes around though and a strong case can be made for Japan coming out on the winning side in the Korean conflict, in that it got her industries back up and running again to supply the US war effort and she hasn't really looked back since.

Originally posted by rogue1

Well, that's what happens when you fight 3rd world nations, hardly a comparison to WWII. In fact West Point studies have concluded that the Germans inflicted 150% casualties (in relation to German losses) on American forces whether in attack or defense despite America's overwhelming numerical advantage. So by your reasoning Germany was a greater military power.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by rogue1]

Let's take a look at a few things that you said. On the issue of Iraq being a "third world nation". Not so fast there, during the first Gulf War, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world, the US was fifth.

Iraq had the latest Soviet made equipment, numerical superiority in tanks and ground forces. Baghdad had the most extensive air defenses anywhere in the world with the exception of Moscow.

While much has been made about the existance of WMDs, they did indeed have them during Gulf War One. In fact chemical and biological rounds had been distributed among the artillery units at the front.

Iraq's economy was strong, it's military was well trained and experienced, and it's population was well educated.

So, what was that about a "third world nation"?

You're second point about the German military inflicting 150% casualties on US forces? I'd like to see some documentation of that because the numbers don't add up. During WWII, the US military was about 11 million men at its peak. Gemany had more than 13 million. The US had only about 6 million in the European theater and Germany had more than that on the Western front alone. The US suffered about 416,000 deaths from combat operations on both fronts. The Germans lost more than 5,500,000 total military dead, the Japanese lost 2,100,000 troops. So using the 150% number that you quoted then US actions resulted in only 200,000 German military dead? Somehow that number doesn't seem right.

I think that you are misinterpreting figures from the Battle of the Bulge and assuming that they apply to the entire war.

I would also like to point out that the Japanese had over 8 million in their army and navy. Two million in their navy alone. So, the US did not have numerical superiority in any theatre of operation until after the defeat of Germany. What is also interesting is that the deadliest battles of WWII from the American perspective occured in the South Pacific, with the exception of the Battle of the Bulge. So, the Germans did not inflict that many US casualties in WWII, and those that they did inflict were mostly bomber crews and ground troops in the Battle of the Bulge.

I guess those US troops just couldn't shoot straight?

I think it's a bit to early to ask that question...

Originally posted by lunarminer

Let's take a look at a few things that you said. On the issue of Iraq being a "third world nation". Not so fast there, during the first Gulf War, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world, the US was fifth.

Iraq had the latest Soviet made equipment, numerical superiority in tanks and ground forces. Baghdad had the most extensive air defenses anywhere in the world with the exception of Moscow.

Incorrect, they didn't have close to the latest Soviet equipment. For one the SOviets never export their best equipment and the most modern equipment Iraq has were T-72's. The majority of Iraqi air defences were guns and not SAM's and the SAM's they had were by far the latest.

As for being the 4th largets in the world, that's what happens when you use conscription, the quality of the soldiers was what you'd expect from a conscript army and most didn't want to fight, hence the mass surrenders.

And yes Iraq is considered 3rd world.

While much has been made about the existance of WMDs, they did indeed have them during Gulf War One. In fact chemical and biological rounds had been distributed among the artillery units at the front.

So what ? were they used ? NO.

Iraq's economy was strong, it's military was well trained and experienced, and it's population was well educated.

So, what was that about a "third world nation"?

Iraq's economy was strong You have to be joking, you do know why they attacked Kuwait becauase they were BANKRUPT. It seems we have a different idea of what a strong economy is

You're second point about the German military inflicting 150% casualties on US forces? I'd like to see some documentation of that because the numbers don't add up. During WWII, the US military was about 11 million men at its peak. Gemany had more than 13 million. The US had only about 6 million in the European theater and Germany had more than that on the Western front alone.

Incorrect the Germans were outnumbered by a massive degree by men and material on teh Western Front. Almost all of their best formations were fighting the Soviets as well as the bulk of their equipment was on the Eastern Front. The Soviets wre seen as by far the tougher enemy.

Documentation...google westpoint military studies about WWII you'll find it, somewhere.

The US suffered about 416,000 deaths from combat operations on both fronts. The Germans lost more than 5,500,000 total military dead, the Japanese lost 2,100,000 troops. So using the 150% number that you quoted then US actions resulted in only 200,000 German military dead? Somehow that number doesn't seem right.

Well firstly you don't seem to know the definition of a casualty it includes death and injury preventing a soldier to continue fighting. The vast majority of German soldiers were lost on the Eastern Front. AS you are using figures from wikipedia

it also states the Germans lost 4.3 million men KIA on the Eastern Front.

On the Western Front ie Western Europe the Germans lost baout 400 000 dead and they weren't just fighting America

that was a coalition of countries. To out this in perspective Germany lost more men in the Battles for Moscow in 1941 than the entire Western Front.

I think that you are misinterpreting figures from the Battle of the Bulge and assuming that they apply to the entire war.

Not in the slightest. My figures are accurate and the Westpoint studies back it up. The Germans were jsut superb fighters.

I would also like to point out that the Japanese had over 8 million in their army and navy. Two million in their navy alone. So, the US did not have numerical superiority in any theatre of operation until after the defeat of Germany.

No you used the KMT and Communists to tie down the bulk of the Japanese armies in China. You fouhgt but a fraction of their armies in the island battles. Those figures for the navy include everything from battleships to barges and Japanese marines. By 1943 onwards the US Navy was bigger than the japanese navy. America's succes ultimately came from air dominance.

What is also interesting is that the deadliest battles of WWII from the American perspective occured in the South Pacific, with the exception of the Battle of the Bulge. So, the Germans did not inflict that many US casualties in WWII, and those that they did inflict were mostly bomber crews and ground troops in the Battle of the Bulge.

Hmm the navy wasb't fighitng in the Ardennes

lol.

Anyone with any knowledge of the WWII German Army will tell you if RUssia had been defeated an invasion of Europe would have been impossible. ANy attempt would have been met with annihilation. America's greatest contribution to the European war was being a massive factory safe from enemy destruction.

Originally posted by rogue1
Incorrect, they didn't have close to the latest Soviet equipment. For one the SOviets never export their best equipment and the most modern equipment Iraq has were T-72's. The majority of Iraqi air defences were guns and not SAM's and the SAM's they had were by far the latest.

Well, you are just wrong on this point. The Iraqis had Mig 29s, Su 27s, upgraded T-72s, and plenty of SAMs. The Mig 29 was the Soviet front line fighter at the time.

As for being the 4th largets in the world, that's what happens when you use conscription, the quality of the soldiers was what you'd expect from a conscript army and most didn't want to fight, hence the mass surrenders.

Not all of Saddam's military was conscripts, the Republican Guard were highly regarded and feared, until we destroyed them running away from Kuwait City.

And yes Iraq is considered 3rd world.

Now, not then.

While much has been made about the existance of WMDs, they did indeed have them during Gulf War One. In fact chemical and biological rounds had been distributed among the artillery units at the front.

So what ? were they used ? NO.

We haven't used our nukes since WWII but you still have to calculate them into the total military power available. The fact that the chemical warheads were distributed shows intent to use them. It has been reported that some chemical weapons may have been used by some Iraqi units. The fact is that most of Saddams frontline troops were out of communications with Baghdad and that the order to use WMDs was given but not received by most units.

Iraq's economy was strong

You have to be joking, you do know why they attacked Kuwait becauase they were BANKRUPT. It seems we have a different idea of what a strong economy is

Actually Saddam attacked Kuwait because he needed a military victory after fighting to a standstill against the Iranians. He needed to maintain his strongman image. The US made the mistake of telling him that we had no strategic interestes in Kuwait. The same mistake that caused the Korean and Vietnam wars as well.

By the way, a country with huge oil exports is never bankrupt.

Incorrect the Germans were outnumbered by a massive degree by men and material on teh Western Front. Almost all of their best formations were fighting the Soviets as well as the bulk of their equipment was on the Eastern Front. The Soviets wre seen as by far the tougher enemy.

Your original claim was that the Germans were outnumbered by the US military and that is incorrect. Only by combining US, UK, and Canadian forces do you come up with a number that is greater than the German strength and when you add in the Italians the Axis again has the upper hand in numbers. That is not including the Vicci French or para-military forces in the occupied countries.

Documentation...google westpoint military studies about WWII you'll find it, somewhere.

I asked for your source, and it is your responsibility to provide it, not mine to go and look for a report that may or may not exist. Everyone on ATS knows that it is the poster's responsibility to provide documentation.

Well firstly you don't seem to know the definition of a casualty it includes death and injury preventing a soldier to continue fighting. The vast majority of German soldiers were lost on the Eastern Front. AS you are using figures from wikipedia

it also states the Germans lost 4.3 million men KIA on the Eastern Front.

I do in fact understand the meaning of the word casualty. I found numbers for killed and wounded separately and I chose to use the KIA numbers. Trust me, your case is not improved by the use of the wounded numbers. The US suffered far fewer wounded than the Germans.

On the Western Front ie Western Europe the Germans lost baout 400 000 dead and they weren't just fighting America

that was a coalition of countries. To out this in perspective Germany lost more men in the Battles for Moscow in 1941 than the entire Western Front.

I have to call BS on that 400,000 number. The Germans lost about 4.5 million army troops from both fronts and while the Russians like to claim that they killed every one of them, the truth is something else. The Russians had a high death toll because they used human wave tactics against the Germans. The Germans on the other hand were smart enough not to do that. The Germans lost between 4 and 8 thousand troops on D-day alone. They would have lost many times that in the weeks that followed. Taking into account that the war lasted about 10 months after that, the German troop losses on the Western front would have to be in the millions.

Even accepting the 400,000 number, the numbers don't add up to 150% casualties for the US. The US Army suffered about 235,000 deaths from military action for the whole war. If we accept that a majority of these were in the European theater (this is a big assumption and one that may not be true) Then action against the Axis forces resulted in roughly 200,00 combat deaths and this number includes aircrews.

So, I fail to see how the 150% casualty number could be true.

Did you mean Stalingrad? There was a battle for Moscow, fought by factory workers. :lol The main German forces never got to Moscow because of Stalingrad.

My figures are accurate and the Westpoint studies back it up. The Germans were jsut superb fighters.

Yet you haven't provided a link to that study so that the rest of us may verify that fact.

No you used the KMT and Communists to tie down the bulk of the Japanese armies in China. You fouhgt but a fraction of their armies in the island battles. Those figures for the navy include everything from battleships to barges and Japanese marines. By 1943 onwards the US Navy was bigger than the japanese navy. America's succes ultimately came from air dominance.

I didn't use anybody, I wasn't alive in the Second World War. :LOL The communist troops were on their famous Long March and withdrew into the interior of China to sit out the war and plan for their eventual takeover of China after the war. The Nationalist Chinese forces were engaged with the Japanese but with the support of US and Allied troops. For instance we had over 50,000 troops in Indochina fighting the Japanese. The UK had Indian and British troops fighting in Burma. So, we had a lot more land battles going on than generally noted and someone who claims to KNOW the history of WWII should recognize that fact. Also, The battles in the South Pacific that took so many American lives were the battles of Okinawa, Battle of Lette Gulf, and Iwo Jima. These were tough hand to hand land battles not naval battles as you would like to claim. They were fought by Army and Marine personnel.

Hmm the navy wasb't fighitng in the Ardennes

And as I pointed out above, the Navy didn't fight the battles that I referenced either.

Anyone with any knowledge of the WWII German Army will tell you if RUssia had been defeated an invasion of Europe would have been impossible. ANy attempt would have been met with annihilation. America's greatest contribution to the European war was being a massive factory safe from enemy destruction.

And anyone with any knowledge of WWII will also quickly point out that without the US and its involvement in WWII, Great Britain would have been lost. If that had happened then the Russians would not have been able to withstand the German military. They would have been equally screwed. Also, without the huge arms shipments that the US delivered (using military power by the way) neither the USSR nor the UK could have made it. So, I would say that it a huge contribution even without military involvement.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by lunarminer]

[edit on 23-4-2009 by lunarminer]

Originally posted by lunarminer

Well, you are just wrong on this point. The Iraqis had Mig 29s, Su 27s, upgraded T-72s, and plenty of SAMs. The Mig 29 was the Soviet front line fighter at the time.

Ok so you seem to think you know something, in fcat all export versions were downgraded the Soviets always sold an expert version if their equipment whihc was far les than they themselves employed and MIG-29's were few in the Iraqi airforce.

Not all of Saddam's military was conscripts, the Republican Guard were highly regarded and feared, until we destroyed them running away from Kuwait City.

Most of Iraq's Army were conscripts

And yes Iraq is considered 3rd world.

Now, not then.

Actually Iraq was considered a 3rd world country then.

While much has been made about the existance of WMDs, they did indeed have them during Gulf War One. In fact chemical and biological rounds had been distributed among the artillery units at the front.

So what ? were they used ? NO.

We haven't used our nukes since WWII but you still have to calculate them into the total military power available. The fact that the chemical warheads were distributed shows intent to use them. It has been reported that some chemical weapons may have been used by some Iraqi units. The fact is that most of Saddams frontline troops were out of communications with Baghdad and that the order to use WMDs was given but not received by most units.

You're point being what....

Actually Saddam attacked Kuwait because he needed a military victory after fighting to a standstill against the Iranians. He needed to maintain his strongman image. The US made the mistake of telling him that we had no strategic interestes in Kuwait. The same mistake that caused the Korean and Vietnam wars as well.

Complete BS. Iraq attacked Kuwait because they called in the debts Iraq had incurred frim Kuwaiti funding for the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq was BANKRUPT ( do some research !!). Iraq accused Kuwait soon after of stealing oil as a pretext to invasion.

Your original claim was that the Germans were outnumbered by the US military and that is incorrect. Only by combining US, UK, and Canadian forces do you come up with a number that is greater than the German strength and when you add in the Italians the Axis again has the upper hand in numbers. That is not including the Vicci French or para-military forces in the occupied countries.

Well according to you the US was the only country fighting the Germans on the Western front So you acknoledge many other countries were fighting the Germans on the Western Front....good for you ignoramus

I asked for your source, and it is your responsibility to provide it, not mine to go and look for a report that may or may not exist. Everyone on ATS knows that it is the poster's responsibility to provide documentation.

Well hell where are your sources.....wikipedia doesn't count.

I do i fact understand the meaning of the word casualty. I found numbers for killed and wounded separately and I chose to use the KIA numbers. Trust me, your case is not improved by the use of the wounded numbers. The US suffered far fewer wounded than the Germans.

Well please link to your sources of what US forces inflicted on the Germans....you haven't !

I have to call BS on that 400,000 number. The Germans lost about 4.5 million army troops from both fronts and while the Russians like to claim that they killed every one of them, the truth is something else.

Ignorance is bliss, in actual fact the Rusians mastered manouvre warfare from 1943 onwards your ignorance of the use of human waves attacks is apparent.

The Germans lost between 4 and 8 thousand troops on D-day alone. They would have lost many times that in the weeks that followed. Taking into account that the war lasted about 10 months after that, the German troop losses on the Western front would have to be in the millions.

Cpmplete BS where are your sources ... you have nothing but an ignrant perspective of WWII. have used your same "Wikipedia" sources to prove you wrong.

Even accepting the 400,000 number, the numbers don't add up to 150% casualties for the US. The US Army suffered about 235,000 deaths from military action for the whole war.

You still don;t understand what a casualty means do you ? how old are you ?

So, I fail to see how the 150% casualty number could be true.

You fail to see many things including a grasp of basic WWII history. Next you'll be telling me America won WWII by itself.

Did you mean Stalingrad? There was a battle for Moscow, fought by factory workers. :lol The main German forces never got to Moscow because of Stalingrad.

Not to call you a complete moron but the Soviets moved 500,000 Siberian troops to defend Moscow in 1941 not to mention 100 of 1000's of regular Red Army soldiers already there, are you truly are stupid, At least read something about the Eastern Front.

I didn't use anybody, I wasn't alive in the Second World War. :LOL The communist troops were on their famous Long March and withdrew into the interior of China to sit out the war and plan for their eventual takeover of China after the war.

You idiot the Long March was in 1949.....WWII ended in 1945.



[edit on 23-4-2009 by rogue1]

reply to post by rogue1


You might want to review the ATS rules on manners and decorum.

I very clearly laid out my case, you can disagree, you obviously do. That is your right.

However, you seem to think that your view of history on the Gulf War and WWII are the only correct version. I won't disuade you from your view.

I made no mention of Wikipedia, you brought that up. I visited over a dozen websites to find the report that you cite, and I can't find it. I am doubting that it exists.

As for casualties, I very clearly pointed out that I found separate numbers for wounded and KIA, rather than add them up in my head, I chose to use the KIA numbers. I can find no definitive information on how many German casualties were inflicted by US troops and how many by Brits, Canadians, French, etc. If you have source for such numbers then by all means share it.

I do think that it is interesting that when I challenge your numbers you get mad and call me names, rather than giving a link to your source. Hmmm.

Makes me think that you don't have a source.

As for the US being the "only" combatant in WWII, I made no such claim or anything like it. So, I am a bit confused where that came from? My point is that the revisionist have tried to diminish the role of the US in the war since 1945. I want no part of that, the US played a key role in the war. Winston Churchill thought so and I think that he is an expert on the matter.

Originally posted by lunarminer
I made no mention of Wikipedia, you brought that up. I visited over a dozen websites to find the report that you cite, and I can't find it. I am doubting that it exists.

Your figures are verbatm from wikipedia. My mistake you won't be able to google it, because you have to buy the book/study. THe author is David Glantz who is an expert on this subject.

I guess wiki can't screw up his bio so here it is - en.wikipedia.org...

It was one of his studies for the US Army.

casualties, I very clearly pointed out that I found separate numbers for wounded and KIA, rather than add them up in my head, I chose to use the KIA numbers. I can find no definitive information on how many German casualties were inflicted by US troops and how many by Brits, Canadians, French, etc. If you have source for such numbers then by all means share it.

Eighty percent of the 13 million German military casualties between 1939 and 1945 fell or were captured in the East. Russian Army casualties, now conservatively estimated at 29 million, represented more than three-quarters of all Allied casualties in the war. And that is not counting millions of Soviet civilians who perished as a result of the Nazi occupation of their countries (equivalent to an invasion of the United States from the Atlantic Coast to beyond the Mississippi) or as a result of the Stalinist assault on nationalities assumed to be disloyal to the regime. Lend-lease and D-Day notwithstanding, victory over Germany was bought with Soviet blood.

www.nytimes.com...

makese think that you don't have a source.

Like the pot calling the kettle black, where are you sources, you provide none. Do you read books or just search wiki ? If so, read some of these :


David Glantz, Barbarossa: Hitler's Invasion of Russia 1941 (2001) ISBN 0-7524-1979-X

David Glantz, Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (1998) ISBN 0-7006-0879-6

G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7

Vadim Erlikman, Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke: spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1; Mark Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995, p. 216. ISBN 1-85409-267-7

Beevor, Antony, and Artemis Cooper. Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943. New York: Penguin Books Ltd., 1998. ISBN 0140284583.

Beevor, Antony. Berlin: The Downfall 1945. New York: Penguin Books Ltd., 2004. ISBN 0141017473.
Ziemke, Earl F. Battle For Berlin: End Of The Third Reich, NY:Ballantine Books, London:Macdomald & Co, 1969.

Anderson, Dunkan, et al. The Eastern Front: Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin (Campaigns of World War II). London: Amber Books Ltd., 2001. ISBN 0-7603-0923-X.

Erickson, John. The Road to Stalingrad. New York: Orion Publishing Group, Ltd., 2007. ISBN 0304365416.

Erickson, John. The Road to Berlin. New York: Orion Publishing Group, Ltd., 2007. ISBN 978-0304365401.

Erickson, John, and David Dilks. Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995. ISBN 0748605045.

Glantz, David, and Jonathan M. House. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army stopped Hitler. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, Reprint edition, 1998. ISBN 0700608990.

Glantz, David, The Soviet‐German War 1941–45: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay.

Guderian, Heinz. Panzer Leader, Da Capo Press Reissue edition. New York: Da Capo Press, 2001. ISBN 0-306-81101-4.

Hastings, Max. Armageddon: The Battle for Germany, 1944-1945, Vintage Books USA, 2005. ISBN 0375714227

Irving, David. Hitler's War, Reissue edition. Avon Books, 1990. ISBN 0380758067.

As for the US being the "only" combatant in WWII, I made no such claim or anything like it. So, I am a bit confused where that came from? My point is that the revisionist have tried to diminish the role of the US in the war since 1945. I want no part of that, the US played a key role in the war. Winston Churchill thought so and I think that he is an expert on the matter.

Revisionist, that's a good one. Fact is many Americans think they won the war because typical of American culture "we are the best". Far be it for people ot be taught the truth The contributions in Europe by America were negligable compared to the Russians. Any history book will tell you the vast bulk of German fores were fighting the Russians and the European war was decided in the East and not the West. In fact the only reason the Western powers were able to make any gains in Western Europe was because the Germans considered that the minor front.

In January 1945 the Axis fielded over 2.3 million men, including 60 percent of the Wehrmacht’s forces and the forces of virtually all of its remaining allies, against the Red Army. In the course of the ensuing winter campaign, the Wehrmacht suffered 500,000 losses in the East against 325,000 in the West. By April 1945, 1,960,000 German troops faced the 6.4 million Red Army troops at the gates of Berlin, in Czechoslovakia, and in numerous isolated pockets to the east, while 4 million Allied forces in western Germany faced under 1 million Wehrmacht soldiers. In May 1945 the Soviets accepted the surrender of almost 1.5 million German soldiers, while almost 1 million more fortunate Germans soldiers surrendered to the British and Americans, including many who fled west to escape the dreaded Red Army.

From 16 April-7 May 1945, over 2 million Red Army troops conducted the
Berlin and Prague offensives at a cost of 413,865 casualties, including
93,113 dead or missing, which equaled 25 % of the United States military’s entire wartime death toll.

From June through August 1944, 8 Red Army fronts with 52 armies, 5.5
million men, and about 300 divisions defeated and destroyed 3 German
army groups totaling about 1.5 million men and over 100 divisions,
inflicting over 800,000 casualties on the Germans, and reached East
Prussia, the Vistula River south of Warsaw, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

www.strom.clemson.edu...

I think we can agree now from the overwhelming amount of sources that the Soviets were responsible for turning the tide in Europe and contributing by far the most to victory in Europe. THe Western Allies wouldn't have stood a chance against superior German Armies.



[edit on 24-4-2009 by rogue1]