[QUOTE="iHarlequin"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]You do not know much about WWII history then. At one point, Stalin was ready to sue for peace with Hitler One of Stalin's generals urged him on and instead fight. Still, Stalin played a strange game in the history of the war and played it masterfully so we think that it was the Red Army that was the ones to really win the war. Fact is, if not for the Lend-Lease program that sent arms and other war material to both England and the Soviet Union from the US, things very well could have been different. You might want to read the book, Deathride, Hitler VS. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 by John Mosier. Very interesting book and a look at how close Germany came to winning. As far as games where you can play as the "other side," iL2 Sturmovik and the rest of the franchise iL2 Forgotten Battles and it's expansion packs allows you to play as the Luftwaffe and the IJN and IJA.WhiteKnight77
Â
First, those are flight games. I'm talking about infantry, artillery and ground combat.
Â
Second, Stalin was Germany's ally, they (Germany) invaded them and broke their peace treaty. Regardless of that, the Red Army's victory on the Eastern front and their following push to Berlin (with special notice to the Battle of Stalingrad) were pivotal to the ally's victory. Let me put it this way: while the U.S's support, and England's participation in the war were -very- important, I have little doubt that without the USSR making Germany divide its front (and fighting the strongest army in WW II - and this is a fact, not conjecture or theory), the Axis would have most likely won. I can't say the same about the outcome if USA/England hadn't participated, and instead it'd been Germany v. USSR - the USSR might've lost, but I seem them as a 'better' bet than those two together.
Â
Regardless, dealing in alternate history is foolish. What we do have are facts: the death toll was bigger when the USSR was present - out of all the German deaths, 88% was dealt by the USSR (do you have any idea how massive a number that is?). The Normandy landings were only made possible by an overwhelming presence of the USSR on German's Eastern fronts. The only thing I do grant you is this: the UK's role was pivotal in the sense that they managed to hold the German push until the USSR joined. The USSR gave the most of itself, and took the most from the Germans - and that's how they secured the allied victory. If you're going to come with some **** overplaying the importance of the African theater, and trying to donwplay the importance of the USSR, I will counter you - specially if you try to be a dick about it and start your sentence in a pretentious and condenscending tone. We need to appreciate the sacrifice the US army and the people of the UK, France and other allied countries did - but also realize that it was  nothing  compared to what the USSR went - a recently formed nation, which had been formed less (much less) than a century ago.
You didn't specify exactly whose shoes you wanted to play as. As far as I know, the Spetsnaz didn't exist during WWII. That said, the Red Army Air Forces played a very significant part in helping to with the war and even flew some US planes due to Lend-Lease.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, an alternate history is being revealed due to Soviet archives being opened to researchers and writers. Books have shown that Stalin was on the ropes during WWII. Once he was pushed to continue the fight, he did, but the history we knew up until recently was written by him (or at least by writers that would give the world Stalin's version of what happened).
If the Allies hadn't invaded Africa, Germany would not have had to divide troops between the Eastern Front and the rest of the Third Reich and it's puppet governments. Hitler gave up on England due to wanting to expand East into Russia and that had been part of his plan for a long time. There was only a non-aggression pact (not a peace treaty) between Germany and Russia and it was going to be broken. England was a diversion that cost Germany the win in the East. Stalin could have won easier if it were not for his purges where he got rid of all of senior military personnel prior to WWII. He had no choice but to send wave after wave of troops after the Germans. Once he got his factories back online (from being moved to the Urals and is one reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union) and he was able to get supplies back to the front, his troops were better armed and equipped than the Germans who didn't have warm clothing nor did their equipment work in the Russian cold.
If the US never entered the war, England would have been left on the back burner and Europe may very well have had a different face. I don't think I would have gone to Holland on a job several years ago if the Germans had won. The UK and the US aided in and drastically helped the USSR in their win and that is fact. At one point, the majority of the Luftwaffe was in the USSR. Once the Eighth Air Force started bombing Germany, that shrunk until 60+% was defending Germany from bomber raids. Eighth Air Force bombing raids also put a hurting on production of war material and more, oil and fuel, the one thing that is needed by air and ground forces. Russia couldn't even bomb German industrial targets. With no interference from the English and the Americans, Germany could have kept up their industrial and fuel output which would have kept more German forces in Russia with the ability to fight properly.
While Russia may have caused more German deaths, it was due to help from their Allies in the West. While England was wanting help from the US, the USSR was the biggest benefactor of that help.
Â
You keep insisting on going back to Stalin and the topic of his de-merits. Yes, he was the leader of the USSR, but that doesn't alter how important they were in the war - nor does their assumed willingness to let Germany expand to the West as long as they did not invade Russian territory. Again, all your arguments start with an 'if' - that is, perhaps, the worst thing you can do when trying to argue in history. I'm not denying the importance the US, UK and other allied countries had in the war - I'm saying that, factually (based on their impact) it was smaller than Russia's impact.
Â
Out of the allied forces, the USSR pretty much single-handedly held one of the two fronts - on its own territory - while the allies shared the invasion of the Western front.Â
Â
Again, you overplay the importance of the other allied countries (and I'm not saying they were not important, I'm saying you are exagerating it): first off, the lend-lease for aircraft corresponded to 12% of the Red Air Force. Secondly, much prior to the Eight Air Force's (the name was a different one initially, but it would develop into the EAA in 1944) invasion of Germany (in 1942), the USSR had already knocked down (after an initial disastrous campaign vs. the Luftwaffe, due to inexperience from their pilots) the Luftwaffe's numbers to a third. You're trying to make arguments yet you can't be cohesive with the timelines, referencing an event as pivotal to the USSR's success, when it happened a year later.
Â
While I can appreciate what was, in the end, the aid of the US (and the other allies), I feel we can't overlook their initial hesitance and how they delayed their entry into the war. And while most argue of how altruistic the lend-lease was, expecting nothing in return, it was the second World War - and its aftermath, with heavy American presence (Economically and militaristically) in Europe - that made the U.S. the superpower it is.
Â
In conclusion: yes, the U.S. and the UK had significant presence in WW2. Was it as important as USSRs? No. The USSR crushed the third reich as no other country did, and no other combination of countries did. The lend-lease was an important move, and those who fought in the war must've been significantly greatful for it, but the supplies offered compared to the supplies they already had shows us a percentage that isn't as pivotal as you are trying to make it be.
Log in to comment