Actually Hitler declared war on the US very shortly after Pearl Harbour (out of fear that they were going to declare war on him anyway).

So the US couldn't have just focused on the pacific and ignored Hitler. I mean they could have when it comes to their military engagement.. but it woudln' thave changed the official war status between the USA and Germany.

@trumper: the relevancy to my point is that in general we are being dishonest with the pre-text. The US invading iraq had nothing to do with some foreign policy of removal of genocidal and dangerous dictators. It's purely self-interest in terms of resources and probably strengthening ties with some allies. I don't take issue with acting in self-interest under the right circumstances which possibly was the case in iraq.

I very much doubt intervention in Libya was purely for humanitarian reasons either (nor was this the case in the Balkans).

As far as Stalin goes: the US never had the capacity to do so in any kind of sane way but I think if they thought they could win the cold war that way (without getting blown up themselves) they would have.

um, well, i think those crazy people who think that they're actually muslims might find something better to do than blow themselves up now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...asualties_in_World_War_II

Military casualties
By Front (Per R. Overmans)[2] Front Total Dead
Eastern Front until 12/31/44 2,742,909
Western Europe until 12/31/44 339,957
Final Battles in Germany 1945 1,230,045
Other (including Sea and Air War Germany) 245,561
Italy 150,660
The Balkans 103,693
Northern Europe 30,165
Africa 16,066
Prisoners of War 459,475
Total 5,318,531

The Russians killed more German soldiers than ALL of the rest of the allied forces combined, and is common knowledge that more than 60% of the German military causalities during the final battles in Germany were done by the Russians.

So if the US had not helped during the war would Germany win the European Front? perhaps... is a BIG maybe.

But If the Russians hadn't killed/wear down the Germans you can bet your ass the war wouldn't had been easy on the western front, and BET your ass the allied forces had it easy compared to what the Germans/Russians had to do on the eastern front.

If the US/Canada and CO had not entered the war, then Britain/France would have been completely and utterly screwed, that is obvious and I won't deny that, but remember Soviet Russia held their ground against a more technological advanced Germany with pretty much no Help, while the Allied forces were pretty much about Team work.

Ever wondered why the allied forces backed out of their plans of messing up with Russia after the war? for this:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/...D0000044D-183_468x357.jpg

the movies that i saw about russian ww2 soldiers pretty much invovled the germans shooting the russian infantry or the russian officers shooting them.

or them starving to death.

the eleven billion dollars (11b in the early 40s, mind you) russia got from lend-lease didn't help them at all, i guess. not to mention their dependence on rail, which was heavily supplied by lend-lease, and the trucks for transport of just about anything you need to fight a war. (though i believe they did produce most of their own munitions, tanks, most air craft, etc)

there is a reason why hitler was winning.

um, then why was it portrayed in Hogan's Heroes that the germans feared the russian front? well, feared being personally assigned to it. was like a death sentence being passed...

the same reason that hogan got to go on dates with werner kempeners secretary, comic relief?

Kaos:

You forget that if the US had made separate peace with the Japanese, the Soviet Union would've been fighting a war on two fronts instead of just one. Japan needed the resources and oil in siberia just as much as hitler needed the oil in the Caucasus.

"If the US/Canada and CO had not entered the war, then Britain/France would have been completely and utterly screwed,"

i agree entirely, but it was never a question that canada would go to war alongside britain. we weren't asked, we weren't forced, we weren't attacked, we owed allegiance and we kicked the fluff out of fascist pricks across europe. (and imperial pricks in the pacific, my apologies)

There are two reasons Germany had a hard time against Russia. First, just like throughout history, Russian winters are hard and like old wars Russians burned and destroyed all food as they retreated. Second, they held them at the Volga River, a natural obstacle that any army would have a hard time crossing. To further complicate things, the Germans like Napoleon, did not have clothing and supplies prepared for the harsh Russian winter.

Now, without the USA coming into the war England would have soon fallen. That would have meant one front for the Germans. Had that happened the Russians would have easily been overwhelmed. It's also true had the US made peace with Japan it could have meant a second front for Russia, but that was so unlikely it would have never happened. After Japan blindsided us they were for sure going to be destroyed.

I hope this history lesson helps you. If you look at the Napoleon war you'll see many similarity's to WW2. The thing that makes Russia hard to beat is Russia it self. Not the people, although no doubt they are tough to withstand the vigor of Harsh Russian winters. No doubt too that Vodka plays a strong role here. :)

So, on behalf of all people in the USA, to Russians everywhere, i say your welcome. :)

The Russians were receiving massive aid from the United states pretty much from day 1, same with Britain.

Canada entered the war almost immediately after Britain did. Quebec put up a fuss about it but the rest of the country didn't hesitate. Canada had one of the largest navies by the end of the war, and were the principle protectors of the merchant ships on Atlantic supply routes.

Britain would have been toast had it not been for the aid. Russia it is hard to say because they are just so massive (and resilient). The Germans probably would have been able to push in further, but hell even Napoleon made it further than the Germans did.

Yes! We had the 3rd largest navy after the war (behind the USA and Britain), protected the western half of the North Atlantic convoy route and are still to this day focused on anti-sub warfare! Goooooo Canada!



The problem with the German plan was simply tactics. It made far more sense to bypass Stalingrad and stop the flow of goods up the Volga than it did to try and take the city. It also made more sense to take the Caucus oil fields. It also made more sense to group troops together rather than split them up. The problem with the German plan was that they let a Corporal do the work that should have been done by a Field Marshall. The Germans, pound for pound, were the Americans of the their age -- top of the line, technologically and tactically advanced forces. If the German military had been left to fight the war without Hitler's involvement, they likely would have done better in the east while doing only slightly better in the west (one the Allies landed in the west, it was all over. Airpower meant everything). There's no way the Germans could beat the combined economic power of the US + Soviets + British commonwealth, even with continental Europe subjectated.

I like you analogy of the USA and Germans both being top of the line and led by a Corporal. It seems to resemble very much today with Obama deciding things. Only maybe worse as he has no military experience. I guess we can HOPE for good decisions and im certain there will be Change, only so far its all been for the worse.

Good luck EDge!

If we are going to talk about asshole military leaders then Russians had it much worse than the Germans, and like I said the US wasn't the super game changer of the European war front (military speaking, the economic support paid a HUGE part) as you are lead to believe, if the US had not helped then big deal Canada was helping anyways and Canada did just as much as the US (yet you hear almost nothing about it on the movies).

Also remember the field Marshalls of Germany wanted out of Russia (in some cases never wanted IN) to focus on the west, wonder how that would had ended then.

You can say whatever you want about air support, but having to fight an extra 2 million Germans on the west front would have screwed the allies beyond repair, probably would have never made it to German borders (maybe not even to Paris) before striking another deal like in WW1, or in the worse case scenario the D day would have utterly failed, Americans families would have revolted at the massacre, to with the vice president (after getting the president Roosevelt was assassinated) and made a deal with Hitler to stop all aid to Britain.

Then in 3 or 5 years the Germans would had used their first Nukes on Russia, (killing Stalin in a single blow) and they would had conquered Europe and the "Cold" war would have been much more interesting.

Oh and don't believe 100% what the American movies portrait the Russian troops like, yeah Stalin was an asshole, but Russians were batfluff crazy too.

define "economic" vs. "military" support though.

The main aid that the USA provided to Russia at the time was:

a) canned beef
b) Military equipment (primarily trucks and ammunition)

the production of military equipment is definitely an economic matter, but for the purposes of aid, I would argue that the items under b) qualify as military aid.

I think King is on drugs'

yup and that's the thanks we get. and now our own govnerment is trying to cut spending in the VA so our fellas are still sold short on health care. One big promis that i remember when i enlisted in the military back in 1969 is that Uncle Sam will always take care of you. wow waht a big green weenie that was laid to us then and probably still holds true today. when filing for your claimes in the VA one has to prove that we was really there in those situations.