Does most americans think like this...

[hergehen]

well ,

I was talking to one american guy, and got a quote like this :





<< ... the russians did the least and worth than anybody else in WW2 ... they had much more their own ppl killed , and killed much less of enemy than other countries >>



and I was astonished ...

do most americans think like this ? do you ?

 

[ToBeMe]

No........anyone whom knows anything about WWII knows that statement is false!

 

[hergehen]

well, that guy was a 19 years old and going to nice university ...

 

[Hammer]

Well the Russian don't get much credit because: a) they started the war on the side of the germans and b) they were trying to control as much of Europe as possible after the war.



<< well ,

I was talking to one american guy, and got a quote like this :





<< ... the russians did the least and worth than anybody else in WW2 ... they had much more their own ppl killed , and killed much less of enemy than other countries >>



and I was astonished ...

do most americans think like this ? do you ? >>

 

[ToBeMe]

<< well, that guy was a 19 years old and going to nice university ... >>


And what exactly does that have to do with it????? I once spoke with a young man in Germany whom attended college and thought the U.S. also fought and defeated China in WWII!

 

[Pastfinder]

Heck, I am a history major in college and there are people who are military history majors themselves who sometimes make statements of such ignorance. Granted, not everyone knows everything there is to know, but we'd like to imagine that the majority of people in the US realize the sacrifices that the Soviet Union paid and what damage they did to the 3rd Reich.
Speaking of history....
it's too bad that the Soviet Union was only the "Evil Empire." Looks like the "axis of evil" members have quite a shoe to fill to match the "Evil Reds."

That was random of me, damn I drank too much last night...

 

[Tom]

In terms of actual warfare the Soviets did the most of any country to defeat the Nazis. In terms of production I'm not sure if the Soviets or the USA did the most, but I would guess the Soviets led in that area too.


On the other hand I don't think the Soviets or the USA could have defeated the Nazis without the help of each other and the other Allies.


That's what this American thinks.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< In terms of actual warfare the Soviets did the most of any country to defeat the Nazis. In terms of production I'm not sure if the Soviets or the USA did the most, but I would guess the Soviets led in that area too.


On the other hand I don't think the Soviets or the USA could have defeated the Nazis without the help of each other and the other Allies.


That's what this American thinks. >>


Um, actually, Russia used a lot of U.S. hardware, munitions, and other aid during WWII................the U.S. was a production juggernaut during WWII........

 

[Perknose]

I'd like to say most, but I'll settle for saying many of us know full well the scope of the Russian war effort.


<< Um, actually, Russia used a lot of U.S. hardware, munitions, and other aid during WWII................the U.S. was a production juggernaut during WWII........ >>

We were truly the arsenal of democracy! Still, you can't discount the heroic Russian war production effort. They pulled back East of the Urals in the face of the relentless Nazi advance, and, in the process, dismantled and brought with them piece by piece entire factories, which they then reassembled. They needed all that AND all we got to them to help the allied side prevail.

What pissed me off the most during the entire communist era was the way the Russian government forbad almost any mention of the incredibly heroic British and American sailors and merchant marine who went to their icy deaths trying to steam war material into Murmansk against incredible odds. No air cover to speak of, and little room to manuever, they were sitting ducks. And still they came!

These British and American seamen were amongst the many underappreciated heroes of WWII. May they rest in peace, and never be forgotten.

 

[glenn1]

Well, i'm not sure he phrased it well, but his statement has some grains of truth in it...

The Stalinist purges in the years leading up to Operation Barbarossa did have a horrible effect on the proficiency and fighting ability of the Red Army during hostilities with the German Wehrmacht. The Soviet Army was then (as it remains today) a relatively poor fighting force by comparison to other major powers armies, and suffered staggering loses at the hands of the Germans. However, by virtue of sheer size of the number of men under arms it was able to commit to the field (and a comparative lack of concern about friendly casualities), miscalculations by the German High Command, and adverse weather conditions (the Russian winter), the Soviets were eventually able to exhaust and overwhelm the Germans.


In a sense, the Soviets acted along the lines of the great Muhammed Ali, with his "rope a dope" tactics. Do the Soviets deserve credit for bearing the brunt of the punishment that the German Army dished out during the war? Sure. Do the Soviets deserve credit for being some invincible fighting force who kicked the Germans butts on an equal footing basis? No.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< I'd like to say most, but I'll settle for saying many of us know full well the scope of the Russian war effort.


<< Um, actually, Russia used a lot of U.S. hardware, munitions, and other aid during WWII................the U.S. was a production juggernaut during WWII........ >>

We were truly the arsenal of democracy! Still, you can't discount the heroic Russian war production effort. They pulled back East of the Urals in the face of the relentless Nazi advance, and, in the process, dismantled and brought with them piece by piece entire factories, which they then reassembled. They needed all that AND all we got to them to help the allied side prevail.

What pissed me off the most during the entire communist era was the way the Russian government forbad almost any mention of the incredibly heroic British and American sailors and merchant marine who went to their icy deaths trying to steam war material into Murmansk against incredible odds. No air cover to speak of, and little room to manuever, they were sitting ducks. And still they came!

These British and American seamen were amongst the many underappreciated heroes of WWII. May they rest in peace, and never be forgotten. >>


OMG no! I would not/am not in any way discounting the Russian efforts! They fought back and prevailed against incredible odds and circumstances! Of course, you must also give some of the credit late in the war on both fronts to Hitler himself! He made some decsions late in the war which basicly sealed Germany's fate! The 16th being one of the biggest ones! They sat idle while we broke through in Normandy! If they had been positioned where many German Generals wanted.........it's very doubtful Normandy would have been a success......but, Hitler made the decsion........... He (Hitler) also totally bungled the Russian front! He basicly had Russia whipped and only had to sit tight and hold, but, instead withrew troops and still ordered winter offenses!

It can be said that Hitler was the main cause of his own defeat!

 

[Perknose]

<< It can be said that Hitler was the main cause of his own defeat! >>

To the extent (quite a lot, as your examples point out) that that's true: Thank God! Ich spreche eine bischen Deutsch und I rede ne bischel Bayerisch aber . . .*




*With apologies to our native German speakers here for my spelling and grammar, my German is primarily oral (as are many of my other obsessions). I speak "StrassenDeutsch" <---- an inter-lingua amalgam of my own coinage, like the wondrous Germerican word "abgef*cked".

 

[b0mbrman]

<< they had much more their own ppl killed , and killed much less of enemy than other countries >>



The first half is true...the other half isn't.

They were fighting a primarily defensive battle in the beginning (got pushed back to the steps of the Kremlin) and afterwards, were much more effective only because they had made a truce of sorts with Japan...had the Japanese shot them up in Asia, there's no telling how much worse a divided Soviet Union would have done...

 

[johnjohn320]

hergehen, one quick question: According to your profile, you're from Ohio. So why are you asking what Americans think?

 

[Gunbuster]

<<Does most americans think like this>> Only the ones who use cave speak

/end nitpicking

 

[Lars]

<< hergehen, one quick question: According to your profile, you're from Ohio. So why are you asking what Americans think? >>




He might be one of these foreign students, who knows.


<--- a foreign student from Germany

 

[Amused]

The USSR killed the most, but lost the most as well. They defeated Germany through shear attrition. However, it's doubtful that they could have acheived this had the allies not invaded Europe and created a second front.

The US produced more than the USSR during WWII. In fact, we produced a lot of what the USSR used to defeat Germany.

 

[Nemesis77]

Actual fighting: Soviet Union did the most of the fighting. They fought the longest and even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops fought against soviets.

Production: I would say it's pretty even between USA and SU. SU did use some american equipment they got from the Lend-Lease agreement. Vast majority of their equipment were of Soviet origin though. However, large part of trucks for example were from USA.

What makes the SU production figures even more impressive is the fact they had to dismantle their factories under German attack, move them east for several days, build the factory back up in the middle of nowhere (literally!)... And after those factories were rebuilt, they shattered all their previous production records!

I give credit where credit is due, and those two things about SU are worth a praise!

 

[Nemesis77]

<< The USSR killed the most, but lost the most as well. They defeated Germany through shear attrition. However, it's doubtful that they could have acheived this had the allies not invaded Europe and created a second front.

The US produced more than the USSR during WWII. In fact, we produced a lot of what the USSR used to defeat Germany. >>



Few points: In production, USSR received these tanks through Lend-Lease agreement (Model and amount):

Churchill (All armed with 6-pounder gun) 301
Cromwell 6
M10 Wolverine TD 52
M15A1 MGMC 100
M17 MGMC 1.000
M18 Hellcat TD 5
M24 Chaffee 2
M26 Pershing 1
M3 Lee/Grant ("Coffin for 7 brothers") 1.386
M31 ARV (M3 Medium tank chassis) 115
M3A1 "Stuart" light tank 1.676
M4 Sherman (75mm / 76mm) 2.007 / 2.095
M5 Light tank 5
Matilda Mk. II 1.084
T-48 (SU-57) Tank destroyer 650
Tetrarch 20
Valentine Bridgelayer 25
Valentine Mk. III/IV/IX/XI
2.394 (British) 1.388 (Canadian)

For comparison, USSR produced the T-34 tank alone following amounts:

Production (T34/76)
1940 - 270
1941 - 2.800
1942 - 12.520
1943 - 15.812
1944 - 3.500

Production (T34/85)
1944 - 11.000
1945 - 7.650

Also, it's worth noting that T-34 was superior to just about all the allied tanks USSR received through Lend-Lease

As for the second-front... Germans had already completely lost the initiative in the easter-front by the time Overlord took place. Yes, creating a second fron, significantly speeded up the fall oz Nazi-germany, but it would have fallen before USSR regardless. Like I said, even after Normandy, about 70% of german troops fought the soviets. The fate of the war was decided in the east.

 

[db]

Ask him what Stalin's Russia did at the end and after the war. If he knows, for instance, tht they were quietly deporting/killing local leaders of Poland so they could take over after the war, then he knows his history. Otherwise, he's just another person with an ill-informed opinion.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< The fate of the war was decided in the east. >>


Ok.......if we're giving credit where credit is due, fact is, none of them could have done it themselves! Another fact that the U.S., G.B., and Russia agreed upon after the war...........Hitler was his own worst enemy and his horrid decsions, or lack thereof in some cases perhaps played the largest part especially in the time after Overloard! His mistakes with the 16th army in Calais and his mistakes of diverting troops as well as mounting a winter offensive, sealed Germanies fate.................the one thing all coalition partners agreed upon post-war!

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<< The fate of the war was decided in the east. >>


Ok.......if we're giving credit where credit is due, fact is, none of them could have done it themselves! Another fact that the U.S., G.B., and Russia agreed upon after the war...........Hitler was his own worst enemy and his horrid decsions, or lack thereof in some cases perhaps played the largest part especially in the time after Overloard! His mistakes with the 16th army in Calais and his mistakes of diverting troops as well as mounting a winter offensive, sealed Germanies fate.................the one thing all coalition partners agreed upon post-war! >>



I think that the fate of Germany was sealed in Stalingrad. After that, it was all downhill for them. They never got the initiative back in the eastern-front (they tried with Kursk, but soviets knew of their plan and they were prepared. Kursk was a big failure for Germany).

I do agree that the war might have very well had different end had Hitler allowed his generals do the job. It was rather ironic really: Germany had the best generals of the war, but their hands were tied (espesially in the latter half of the war) by Hitler, who demanded things that made no sense.

 

[ToBeMe]

Exactly..........the Kursk offensive was one Germany's ranking generals were completely against..................but God forbid anyone disagree with "der Fuhrur".....................the 16th at Calais was the other main factor according to historians..................had they been at Normandy as they were suppose to be (Hitler disallowed orders and kept them in Calais), Overlord could well have been the biggest failure of the war..............

Not only were Germany's officers highly respected, their technology was unrivaled for the era................had Hitler made more "sane" decsions and dragged the war out another few years things may well have been very different in Europe to this day...............

 

[Nemesis77]

<< the 16th at Calais was the other main factor according to historians..................had they been at Normandy as they were suppose to be (Hitler disallowed orders and kept them in Calais), Overlord could well have been the biggest failure of the war.............. >>



Calais was important no question about it! It made sure that Allies wouldn't be thrown out of mainland Europe. Up 'till that moment, they were stuck at their beachead (of course, they had enlarged their area of control, but you could still say it was a beachead). Calais made sure that Second Front was formed (well third, if you include Italy). But I think that Germany would have been defeated, even without Second Front. The war would have dragged propably to 1946, but they would have lost. Germans were already withdrawing as fast as they could in the east when Overlord took place.



<< Not only were Germany's officers highly respected, their technology was unrivaled for the era >>



True. I just love the German panzers . I read that averale loss-ratio of Shermans when compared to a Tiger (or was it Panther) was 5 Shermans destroyed for 1 destroyed Tiger/Panther (like I said, I'm not sure which one). Though Pershing was significantly better than any previous allied tank, but it entered too late in to service to really affect the course of the war.

 

[obiwaynekenobi]

peoples ignorence get in the way, he obviously was trying to be mainly