What Nation was The Number 1 factor in Defeating Hitler's Third Reich?

[BolshevikHunter]

1. What Nation do you think was the number 1 factor in The defeat of Hitler's Third Reich?

2. Could any one single Nation of the Allies have defeated them all alone?

3. Should Eisenhower have listened to Patton, and pushed The Red Army completely out of East Germany?

~BH

 

[Oddball]

1) England/The Battle of Britain...Once it was shown that the Germans couldn't cross the English Channel, the notion that they could reach American shores was off the table.

2) Yes...Russia.

3) Absolutely.

 

[Ragnar]

1. What Nation do you think was the number 1 factor in The defeat of Hitler's Third Reich?

2. Could any one single Nation of the Allies have defeated them all alone?

3. Should Eisenhower have listened to Patton, and pushed The Red Army completely out of East Germany?

~BH

1. Germany.

2. No.

3. No but then it wasn't up to Eisenhower. It was FDR who gave the store away in Malta.

 

[Sunni Man]

1) Russia

2) Russia

3) By that time the Russian Army was too strong for the U.S. to do anything.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

1) England/The Battle of Britain...Once it was shown that the Germans couldn't cross the English Channel, the notion that they could reach American shores was off the table.

I agree that Germany in no way could have landed on U.S shores. Operation Sea Lion was never launched, so we will never really know if Germany could have landed in Britain or not.

2) Yes...Russia.

All by themselves? I think not my friend.

3) Absolutely.

I agree. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

1. What Nation do you think was the number 1 factor in The defeat of Hitler's Third Reich?

2. Could any one single Nation of the Allies have defeated them all alone?

3. Should Eisenhower have listened to Patton, and pushed The Red Army completely out of East Germany?

~BH

1. Germany.

I disagree. It was The American Airforce, with the help of the RAF, That bombed Hitler's Armament factories to dust. This prevented Germany from competing with the much supplied Russian forces, not to mention it prevented Germany from even defending Germany.

2. No.

100% agree.

3. No but then it wasn't up to Eisenhower. It was FDR who gave the store away in Malta.

Wrong buddy, Truman was President at this junction of the War, FDR had croaked already. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

1) Russia

2) Russia

3) By that time the Russian Army was too strong for the U.S. to do anything.

I think that you're correct about 3 bro, but wrong about 1 and 2. ~BH

 

[Ragnar]

1. What Nation do you think was the number 1 factor in The defeat of Hitler's Third Reich?

2. Could any one single Nation of the Allies have defeated them all alone?

3. Should Eisenhower have listened to Patton, and pushed The Red Army completely out of East Germany?

~BH

I disagree. It was The American Airforce, with the help of the RAF, That bombed Hitler's Armament factories to dust. This prevented Germany from competing with the much supplied Russian forces, not to mention it prevented Germany from even defending Germany.



100% agree.

3. No but then it wasn't up to Eisenhower. It was FDR who gave the store away in Malta.

Wrong buddy, Truman was President at this junction of the War, FDR had croaked already. ~BH

1. I said "Germany" because if Hitler only wanted to kill commies and invaded Russia first skipping North Africa and France, we might have just let him. Or at least should have. (stupid Hitler/Stalin pact) Then we could have joined in once Stalin was toast and bombed away to help free Poland (and the rest of E Europe)

2. Still agree

3. There is no way Truman was going to renig on what FDR and Stalin (and Churchill sat drunk and largely unnoticed through) worked out at the conf. in 1945. (anyway your question was about Ike)

 

[Oddball]

2) Yes...Russia.

All by themselves? I think not my friend.

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I disagree. It was The American Airforce, with the help of the RAF, That bombed Hitler's Armament factories to dust. This prevented Germany from competing with the much supplied Russian forces, not to mention it prevented Germany from even defending Germany.



100% agree.



Wrong buddy, Truman was President at this junction of the War, FDR had croaked already. ~BH

1. I said "Germany" because if Hitler only wanted to kill commies and invaded Russia first skipping North Africa and France, we might have just let him. Or at least should have. (stupid Hitler/Stalin pact) Then we could have joined in once Stalin was toast and bombed away to help free Poland (and the rest of E Europe)

2. Still agree

3. There is no way Truman was going to renig on what FDR and Stalin (and Churchill sat drunk and largely unnoticed through) worked out at the conf. in 1945. (anyway your question was about Ike)

Those are some very good points. I really like the first one. ~BH

 

[Ragnar]

2) Yes...Russia.

All by themselves? I think not my friend.

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

Technological assistance plus massive numbers of trucks to move the army plus the tons of food they got does not jibe with "all by themselves". IMHO

On edit:

I agree that Russia had the manpower, and more important the will, to throw bodies indiscriminately into the meat grinder was huge, and that Russia's inhuman amounts of sacrifice (and endurance, see: Stalingrad) played the biggest role by far... I just don't think they could have done it alone.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

2) Yes...Russia.

All by themselves? I think not my friend.

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

I hear what you're saying my friend, but without the distraction of the west on the Luftwaffe, and a large portion of their armed forces having to protect the Western front, I can't see how Russia would not have been defeated if The Germans only had them alone to deal with. I disagree, but you already know that I respect the hell out of your opinion. ~BH

 

[Oddball]

All by themselves? I think not my friend.

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

Technological assistance plus massive numbers of trucks to move the army plus the tons of food they got does not jibe with "all by themselves". IMHO

Indeed it does not.

However, the Soviets were fighting a war of attrition against an enemy whose tech war had lines of supply that couldn't be sufficiently maintained.

Had Germany the same kind of access to resources that America had, along with a leader who wasn't an insane fanatic, they would've been invincible....But they didn't on either count, so they weren't.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

All by themselves? I think not my friend.

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

Technological assistance plus massive numbers of trucks to move the army plus the tons of food they got does not jibe with "all by themselves". IMHO

Very good point. It's a shame too. What was it? 20 years later they had nukes pointed at us 90 miles off the coast of Florida in Cuba? It's something to consider my friends. That's why I always loved Patton. He knew we had an even bigger enemy to fear in the Red Russian bear. Nevertheless, The Third Reich would eventually have presented the same exact problems as The Soviets ended up being. I guess they had to make a choice either way. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

Technological assistance plus massive numbers of trucks to move the army plus the tons of food they got does not jibe with "all by themselves". IMHO

Indeed it does not.

However, the Soviets were fighting a war of attrition against an enemy whose tech war had lines of supply that couldn't be sufficiently maintained.

Had Germany the same kind of access to resources that America had, along with a leader who wasn't an insane fanatic, they would've been invincible....But they didn't on either count, so they weren't.

Yeah I agree with that, But I also believe that without Hitler's insanity from around 1942 on, The German General staff very likely would have defeated The Russians and forced them into a surrender. ~BH

 

[Oddball]

All by themselves? I think not my friend.

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

I hear what you're saying my friend, but without the distraction of the west on the Luftwaffe, and a large portion of their armed forces having to protect the Western front, I can't see how Russia would not have been defeated if The Germans only had them alone to deal with. I disagree, but you already know that I respect the hell out of your opinion. ~BH

But the Germans also had to fight the nasty weather of the east.

It's difficult-cum-impossible to move a land force, when the ground under you is three feet of mud or under five feet of snow.

There are, like, about four months that you can fight an effective land war against Russia....After that, you're pretty much screwed.

 

[JBeukema]

1. What Nation do you think was the number 1 factor in The defeat of Hitler's Third Reich?

2. Could any one single Nation of the Allies have defeated them all alone?

3. Should Eisenhower have listened to Patton, and pushed The Red Army completely out of East Germany?

~BH

1) Germany. Specifically Hitler himself and his meddling, stupid military decisions, and horrendous command structure

2) Unclear; too many unknowns

3) Is there a point here?

 

[Ragnar]

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

Technological assistance plus massive numbers of trucks to move the army plus the tons of food they got does not jibe with "all by themselves". IMHO

Indeed it does not.

However, the Soviets were fighting a war of attrition against an enemy whose tech war had lines of supply that couldn't be sufficiently maintained.

Had Germany the same kind of access to resources that America had, along with a leader who wasn't an insane fanatic, they would've been invincible....But they didn't on either count, so they weren't.

Good points and I largely agree. In fact it is in part due to Hitlers madness that I chose Germany as my answer to question one to begin with.

On technological advancements:

I may have to rethink my answer to question number two. "Could any one single Nation of the Allies have defeated them all alone?"

I said no, however IF Hitler was not so mad, and we entered the war in Europe much later than we did, maybe we could have defeated Germany all alone. Would we is another question but if Germany were not already defeated AND we had "the bomb", well...

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

I hear what you're saying my friend, but without the distraction of the west on the Luftwaffe, and a large portion of their armed forces having to protect the Western front, I can't see how Russia would not have been defeated if The Germans only had them alone to deal with. I disagree, but you already know that I respect the hell out of your opinion. ~BH

But the Germans also had to fight the nasty weather of the east.

It's difficult-cum-impossible to move a land force, when the ground under you is three feet of mud or under five feet of snow.

There are, like, about four months that you can fight an effective land war against Russia....After that, you're pretty much screwed.

You are correct my brother, but the weather arguement is overblown. After operation Barbarossa failed, there was still considerable strength in The German armed forces. It wasn't until the defeat at Stalingrad that Germany really started to lose the war. Alot of people mistake the Stalingrad battle with Lenigrad. Leningrad was Operation Barbarossa, where Stalingrad came years later as a last ditch effort. ~BH

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, all by themselves.

Unlike the Germans, the Soviets were perfectly willing to do things like trot out unarmed "combatants", in order to deprive their opponents of ammo and supplies.

There was almost no military pressure from the west when Stalingrad and Moscow were lost.

On top of that, the Soviets had the benefit of technological assistance from the west.

I hear what you're saying my friend, but without the distraction of the west on the Luftwaffe, and a large portion of their armed forces having to protect the Western front, I can't see how Russia would not have been defeated if The Germans only had them alone to deal with. I disagree, but you already know that I respect the hell out of your opinion. ~BH

But the Germans also had to fight the nasty weather of the east.

It's difficult-cum-impossible to move a land force, when the ground under you is three feet of mud or under five feet of snow.

There are, like, about four months that you can fight an effective land war against Russia....After that, you're pretty much screwed.

If history's taught us anything it is this. You don't invade Russia. They will run ahead of you and you will die when the winter comes.