Once upon a time, in the 1800s, a bureaucrat of the British Empire was assigned the task of interviewing sailors to get a candid evaluation of the level of contentedness of sailors with their captain. As he was opening his folder, he asked the first sailor that he was interviewing, "Where are you from originally?" "Charleston." "And how has the way things are run on board this ship struck you so far?" "I'm impressed."
US forces were absolutely involved in the African campaign and again your stating what happened while Germany was fighting in Russia, Africa, to the south, while having to defend the Western front Also America was heavily supplying Russia with weapons and supplies. Those numbers that equal 180 billion in today's money was approved for Russia. You can't take such a large variable out of the equation and assume that everything would have played out the same.I never said the US did not supply Russia or the UK - I commented that from the informative video someone supplied, the VAST majority of the spend was on US forces with the Pacific being the MOST costly & US forces in Europe being the second most costly - combined, a VAST majority on the USs own forces.
Considering that the Normandy Landings began on June 6th 1944 & Russian forces had first invaded Germany on June 22nd 1944 (with 1.6 million troops - over 3 times the German forces and in fact more forces than Germany had in TOTAL), exactly how do you doubt their ability to win. Because it doesn't fit your egotistical view?
Don't forget - Stalin had more or less given up on an invasion from the west. His entire staff expected the west to allow Russia to do all the fighting.
North Africa was an important campaign for exposing the southern flank. No US forces were involved. Sicily and Italy itself were simply fought to open a new theatre of campaign - and anyway half way through the Italians changed sides in 1943. So it was German troops doing the fighting. But ut was a sideshow.
So it might have been QUITE possible to leave Russia to it. After all, it's the largest nation on earth and does have a huge number of natural resources and as I mentioned, were not slow to take over ANY resources they overran. Not needing to feed or otherwise care for POWs (and their injured soldiers) did make logistics a lot more simple. Little has changed as we see in Ukraine. A person is simply seen like a rifle or a duck board or a piece of rope. It's used until destroyed and then it's replaced. That's why such heavy losses didn't concern their leaders.
But Russia already runs from the pacific to the Baltic so extending it would not seem as daunting to them as it would to most nations.
It's hardly a secret that even before 1945, top US military staff saw Russia as the REAL enemy. The enemy that could not be beaten with simple force of arms. Many argued that while the US had the bomb, it should use it. Not a secret:
From 1945-49 the US and UK planned to bomb Russia into the Stone Age
The dangerous competition instigated by the US prompted Soviet Russia to beef up its nuclear capabilities and dragged both countries into the vicious circle of the nuclear arms race. Unfortunately, it seems that the lessons of the past have not been learnt by the West and the question of the...canadiandimension.com
Even when Russia developed nukes, they had no delivery system so by 1952 the US could have sent 'dry' thermonuclear weapons via B47 or B52, We are concerned of fallout but don't forget, Russia carried out 110 above ground tests in the area termed 'the polygon' and 214 at Novaya Zemlya including the 50Mt Tsar bomb.
I'm not defending that action... but I honestly wonder what Stalin would have done if presented with a 'superweapon' no other nation had. They scrambled for chemical weapons and biological weapons (resulting in the Sverdlovsk anthrax leak.)
Nobody says that only the US beat Germany, nor is anybody trying to take glory away from Russia. Russia did not beat Germany alone though, the combined efforts of the allied forces beat the Axis, which included Germany.
And...
Exactly... US involvement changed the entire dynamic of the war. As did their monetary and supply efforts before officially entering. You can't just take out a huge variable and pretend that everything would have happened the same way it did towards the end of the war.
everyone here is brainwashed to believe we are better and more civilized than the rest of the world, that an american life is worth more than another. we believe we fix the rest of the worlds fuck ups. i could not tell you why. a lot has to do with schools, but it goes further religion plays a part. i dont know how they go through life believing this, by the time i had graduiated high school i saw how things worked. the world police bs started all the wars we go bomb the shit out of civilians and raise hell if an american dies in the process. most americans love to join a crowd, follow a trend, or believe what they are told. we dont research we dont ask why and we call those who do kooks. thats the best i can figure and we all are not this way just 99% of us and im sorry to the rest of the world
Well most speak English as a second language, American wannabes ;P
tell me about it
Read where i said that both Russia and US are evil Empires. I said it like 10 times.. But Russia lost 26 million ppl against us. 26 MILLION dead, and so many muricans try to take the glory away from Russia here. Why am i even discussing? Because blindly pro Murica and blindly con Russia. Man, fucking Muricans are too nationalist, you can not.criticize the US in any way whatsoever or they all get a panic attack. If you can't take critique you shouldn't talk history. Cuz history is the last source to learn that ur the good guys, try a fairy tale
No I said Russia helped us rebuild, and that we betrayed them in both world wars. Where did i say Russia was wonderful? That would be dumb. Russia is our arch nemesis. But they're also our brothers, and we did fuck them over. So easy to feel a little guilt towards them given how they were treated after letting Germany unite
