the US & UK merely assisted Russia in WW2

[A Potts]

Originally Posted by T-34

no, actually i meant that help provided by the Allies doesn't entitle them for the status of being a victors in WW2 ; helpers - yes, but not a victors.


.

I think that this post will go no where until the concept of 'victors' is explained.

The western forces were still standing in Europe after the defeat of Nazi Germany. As you know this lead to the Cold War.

What do you mean by the term 'victors'?

[T-34]

Originally Posted by A Potts

... Who were the Commonwealth 'helping' before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union?

Poland ?

[T-34]

Originally Posted by A Potts

... What do you mean by the term 'victors'?

''winners''

[A Potts]

Originally Posted by T-34

Poland ?

That is right.

Not the USSR and certainly not Poland after the 6 October 1939.

[A Potts]

Originally Posted by T-34

''winners''

So 'winners' means 'victors' and 'victors' means 'winners'.

I am not trying to be rude, but you must explain further.

[T-34]

Originally Posted by A Potts

.. I am not trying to be rude...

that's exactly what you are trying to be now by assuming this retardish tone.

[A Potts]

Originally Posted by T-34

that's exactly what you are trying to be now by assuming this retardish tone.

If I have offended you, I sincerely apologise.

However seriously, what has been created is known in English as a 'circular definition'.

You must explain what a 'winner' or 'victor' is.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

The defeat of Nazi Germany was an Allied effort pure and simple. It was only through the efforts of ALL Allied Nations that the Third Reich was brought to its knees.

It is true to point out that the majority of German Land Forces were deployed in the east. I believe Spidge published a most excellent chart in which it stated that at least 80% of the Wehrmacht were deployed in the East from 1941 and this figure never dropped. I have always maintained that the Wehrmacht was bled white in the East and I still stick by that assertion. HOWEVER this argument does not end here. It is far too simplistic. The Germans were not just ground down by superior land forces. Whilst the Russians were facing down the land army, the Allies waged a massive war in the Air with two consequences; the first being the eradication of the Luftwaffe as a credible force, the second was the destruction of the Industries needed by the Third Reich to continue the war. Devotees of the Ostfront would do well to remember that the Wehrmacht was fighting with dwindling fuel supplies and reduced supplies of weapons and ammunition. And this was solely due to the Allied Strategic Air Offensive. Also it should be pointed out that at no time did Russia face Germany alone as Britain did in 1940. For a full year Britain had no allies. Russian supporters should also remember the effect that the German invasion had on their industry and that the strategic destruction of the German war amchine was crucial to victory.

Western advocates should also be aware that in terms of sheer numbers the Eastern Front dwarves every other front. The North African theater ( in terms of numbers) was a sideshow compared to the East and whilst the western advocates may point to Operation Overlord as being a major victory (which it was) at the same time the Russians destroyed Army Group Center (Germany's biggest Army Group in the East), over 56 divisions in total, obliterated. So everyone can point to their fair contributions made but in reality the US, The Commonwealth and the Russians all have a right to sit astride the Victory pantheon and lest anyone still doubts me let me put this question to you, Could your country have faced the Germans alone and won??? I am pretty sure the answer is no.

[Owen]

Oi!
T-34, don't start a slagging off war or we'll ban you, very easily.I'm not in the mood for your tirade.
We've more reasoned Russians members than you who have contributed positively to the forum.
Anyway Britian and the Commonwealth had already beaten Germany once in the 20th Centuary whilst you lot were having a Revolution.

Actually Churchill did contemplate sending 50th Division to Russia if I remember correctly, but they went to North Africa instead.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by T-34

'

...thus the victor in WW2 was Russia -
meanwhile the US and UK were merely a help providers.
agreed ?

No I don't think that is correct.
T-34, it would have been very difficult if not almost impossible for UK/US to invade Germany without the Russians fighting on the Eastern front. (until the bomb?)

Now let me turn this around - suppose that the UK had been invaded or had accepted Hiler's offer of a truce in 1940 and stayed neutral. Do you think that the USSR could have repelled a German invasion against the FULL Nazi resources? The Germans would have 40 - 50 extra divisions, (no need to guard Western Europe against the British) using ALL available airpower, (remember that a big part was tied down by the Commonwealth in France & Med theaters) The USSR would not get any aid from the west, but presumably the Germans could import oil and other resources from S. America, Africa etc, as the Royal Navy is not blockading them. But perhaps the most important point, without British "meddling" in Greece & the Balkans, the Germans could launch Barbarossa 3 or 4 months earlier, so that they would be approaching Moscow, Leningrad & Rostov in June/July instead of late October.

Do you really think the Russians could have prevailed?

I would also like to hear Deadb tch & Za Rodinu's opinion on this.