well, same sex marriage is officially the law of the land, 5-4

[Buzz123a]

Silliness. Of course we won WW II. And we've won most military battles since. It takes more than the military to win wars. We won the first Gulf War decisively (I was there for much of that), and we militarily won Afghanistan and the 2nd Iraq war in that we summarily defeated their military forces and removed their leadership from power. If you think we've lost those wars you can't blame it on the military.

I had a bet in mind, but than I remembered that I was responding to a welcher.

No, Aloha, in the theater that mattered the Russians won WWII, taking 10 million casualties to do it. We certainly won in the Pacific, which was pretty much of a sideshow, and elements of our Navy made a good showing. Though you change the subject to battles, the truth is that we haven't won a war since, maybe because we haven't fought many if any good ones.

We didn't win any of the gulf wars, Aloha, with the possible exception of Desert Storm, because we didn't achieve any of our objectives, which included building stable friendly governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq and eliminating al Quaeda and the Taliban as influences there. Our military claimed right to the point of failure that success was just around the corner, as it had in Vietnam.

The military exists to win wars, A, and to advise the civilians on how to win them. If you can't blame the military for losing wars it advocated in favor of and helped plan, then you can't blame anyone at all.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Russia likely wouldn't have won without the U.S. Not only did the U.S. provide tons of military equipment the U.S. Prevented Germany from concentrating its forces on Russia (USSR). Germany might never have defeated the USSR, but it guaranteed its own defeat when it declared war on the U.S.

However, victory in war isn't a solely military matter. I think you know that, but if you wish to feign ignorance, feel free.

If you couldn't afford to pay off your bet, you should have just said so. I certainly never cared about the money. I only enjoyed winning a bet with you - again.

 

[Buzz123a]

Russia likely wouldn't have won without the U.S. Not only did the U.S. provide tons of military equipment the U.S. Prevented Germany from concentrating its forces on Russia (USSR). Germany might never have defeated the USSR, but it guaranteed its own defeat when it declared war on the U.S.

However, victory in war isn't a solely military matter. I think you know that, but if you wish to feign ignorance, feel free.

If you couldn't afford to pay off your bet, you should have just said so. I certainly never cared about the money. I only enjoyed winning a bet with you - again.

By the time the US contribution attained substantial status the Germans had already been through one Russian winter, and Ivan was already winning. It made a difference, but the consensus of historians I've read is that Russia would have won without it.

Nobody I read thought the US and British action in North Africa made much difference to the Russian front: the German troops in NA and Western Europe were a tiny fraction of what they sent to and lost in Russia. I think you know that, but if you wish to feign ignorance feel free; it seems to suit you.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

By the time the US contribution attained substantial status the Germans had already been through one Russian winter, and Ivan was already winning. It made a difference, but the consensus of historians I've read is that Russia would have won without it.

Nobody I read thought the US and British action in North Africa made much difference to the Russian front: the German troops in NA and Western Europe were a tiny fraction of what they sent to and lost in Russia. I think you know that, but if you wish to feign ignorance feel free; it seems to suit you.

Uh huh. No doubt the USSR bore the brunt of the war, but they very likely wouldn't have won without US support in terms of military equipment, which we supplied in vast quantities (another important element in winning wars) and our involvement elsewhere. Even before the US officially entered the war, our arms were key to winning the war in Europe. You know this, I think. You're just deflecting from the fact that you're a welcher. It seems to bother you, and it should - if you had any honor. Maybe you really don't.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The Russians did do the bulk of the fighting. But there are two factors to consider. The Germans had their nose bloodied fighting the west. Google German tank losses in France, and manpower losses. Then look at aircraft losses over Britain. Those losses would have been a tremendous help in 1941. It may have allowed Hitler to help Italy out in the Balkans and invade Russia at the same time. Losing 6 weeks bailing out Mussolini was devastating to the effort to win in 1941.

The second factor is this, the fact we were able to project power into Europe from halfway around the world is an incredible feat. Hitler tried to take on a beaten UK in 1940 and could not come close. We were able to build carriers and battleships to push Japan back across the Pacific and invade across the Channel (something Spain, Hitler and Napoleon had failed in history). If the roles were reversed, Russia would have been as useless in 1944 against Hitler as she was in 1918 against the Kaiser. Crossing the Channel would have been impossible.

So yes, the credit goes to Russia. It has to, they were the only ally left sharing a continental land mass with Germany. But the amount of support we were able to provide while fighting Japan was staggering. Far more than Russia should have had a realistic expectation of.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The Russians did do the bulk of the fighting. But there are two factors to consider. The Germans had their nose bloodied fighting the west. Google German tank losses in France, and manpower losses. Then look at aircraft losses over Britain. Those losses would have been a tremendous help in 1941. It may have allowed Hitler to help Italy out in the Balkans and invade Russia at the same time. Losing 6 weeks bailing out Mussolini was devastating to the effort to win in 1941.

The second factor is this, the fact we were able to project power into Europe from halfway around the world is an incredible feat. Hitler tried to take on a beaten UK in 1940 and could not come close. We were able to build carriers and battleships to push Japan back across the Pacific and invade across the Channel (something Spain, Hitler and Napoleon had failed in history). If the roles were reversed, Russia would have been as useless in 1944 against Hitler as she was in 1918 against the Kaiser. Crossing the Channel would have been impossible.

So yes, the credit goes to Russia. It has to, they were the only ally left sharing a continental land mass with Germany. But the amount of support we were able to provide while fighting Japan was staggering. Far more than Russia should have had a realistic expectation of.

That is a good assessment.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Next year the Supreme Court will likely rule in a 5 to 4 decision that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. They'll find that God had originally intended it to be that way.

I wish I had made this post!

 

[Buzz123a]

The Russians did do the bulk of the fighting. But there are two factors to consider. The Germans had their nose bloodied fighting the west. Google German tank losses in France, and manpower losses. Then look at aircraft losses over Britain. Those losses would have been a tremendous help in 1941. It may have allowed Hitler to help Italy out in the Balkans and invade Russia at the same time. Losing 6 weeks bailing out Mussolini was devastating to the effort to win in 1941.

The second factor is this, the fact we were able to project power into Europe from halfway around the world is an incredible feat. Hitler tried to take on a beaten UK in 1940 and could not come close. We were able to build carriers and battleships to push Japan back across the Pacific and invade across the Channel (something Spain, Hitler and Napoleon had failed in history). If the roles were reversed, Russia would have been as useless in 1944 against Hitler as she was in 1918 against the Kaiser. Crossing the Channel would have been impossible.

So yes, the credit goes to Russia. It has to, they were the only ally left sharing a continental land mass with Germany. But the amount of support we were able to provide while fighting Japan was staggering. Far more than Russia should have had a realistic expectation of.

I already know about all that, Marv: I read about 20 books on WWII this spring, including multiple works by Max Hastings, Rick Atkinson and Eric Hammel, and I'll stand by what I said. Its not particularly nuanced, and admittedly involves a bit of hyperbole, but I think its a fair take that the Russians defeated the Germans with very little help from anyone else, if you don't count Hitler, and would eventually have won it with none at all.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I loved Atkinson's books, he did some of the best work.

One other item to mention, Stalin enabled Hitler far more than even we did. The non-aggression pact gave Hitler a promise to ignore any blockades and gave him ports for subs. Granted, it would not matter once Hitler attacked the USSR. Without the non-aggression pact, the USSR may not have had to go to war with Hitler. But the lure of part of Poland was too much.