My one and only complaint about your post, Canadian, is that monster paragraph. Needs to be broken up a bit. Hurts my eyes and its hard to read. I heartily agree that Hitler leaving an enemy to his back while he goes after the Soviet Union ... is just plain stupid.

As far as the reason that the USA got involved heavily against Germany is a tad more complicated. At that time, America was more composed of ethnic Germans than any other nationality. Because of this, support for going to war with Germany was a hard case for FDR to sell. He could see the writing on the wall. He knew that the US needed to get more involved. He just couldn't cuz the American people believed strongly that we had no business getting involved. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans were stunned and angry at Japan, but they weren't really set against Germany. Even Hitler declaring war against the US didn't fully sway the American sentiment.

At that point, Hitler ordered Donitz to send his "wolfpacks" after the US's Atlantic merchant fleet. They were almost as successful at catching us unprepared as the Japanese were hitting Pearl Harbor. I don't have the stats handy on how many US ships were sunk, but believe me when I say it wasn't pretty. So only after Hitler managed to reach out and kick the US did Rosevelt have any chance of getting all of the US behind the war effort in Europe.

Let us remember that if Great Britain and fallen in 1940 then the war would have been all but over. The Brits, Canadians and the Americans could only launch D-Day because they had Britain to launch it from. After the D-Day remembrance this year, FOX News website said 'Although other countries were involved the main attack was spearheaded by America' This is just not true and does the American people a great diservice. On D-Day there were 55% RAF planes, 75% Royal Navy Ships and 40% British Army, 10 Canadian, 50% American. All these great Allies made huge sacrifices in young men and to try and look at it as a competition is very wrong.

However of all the theatres of war, many were just a side show. The war on the eastern front was in a different league. If Adolf had not made the errors during Barborossa it could have been a whole new ball game.

One last thing, only one country (major power i.e US, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, GB) fought from the very first day of WW! to the very last day, and from the very first day of WW2 03/09/1939 to the very last day in the far East, yep Great Britain.

I like your points Rufus. The US role in WW2 has a tendency to be both overstated and understated. Without having a point from which to launch an attack into Western Europe, it couldn't have happened at all the way it did. Keeping a threat at the door of continental Europe kept a tremendous amount of Germany's resources tied up in u-boats and maintaining forces to thwart any amphibious invasion attempt. If the UK had fallen then North Africa and the Middle East would have been doomed to fall. The Italian fleet would have never been defeated. Germany would have had the additional resources from the UK, North Africa and the Middle East added into their own, and I don't doubt that Barbarossa would have had a lot more power to throw at the Soviet Union.

Inevitably, it was the Germany v Russia, clash of the titans struggle that decided the outcome of the war. Considering the size of the USSR and the overwhelming numbers of its armed forces, I don't know that there is any formula for a "quick knockout victory" against them, but it probably would have tipped the scales in Germany's favor.

One small correction would "Who was in it from beginning to end?". Great Britain was in from the invasion of Poland on, and that's when most say the war began. Still, China should be recognized for having been in from 1933 to 1945 without ever being completely defeated. So they were in for the longest.

Why did the Allies win WW2? Most of the WW2 was fought on the Eastern Front. The Russian did perform the largest industrial movement ever in modern history (even under direct fire from German troops they moved industrial machinery).

Russian solders were ordnered not to fall back, only advancement was allowed. Fatal for the German soldiers whose orders the same.

The total breakdown of Army Group Centre in Stalingrad paved way for the Russians through central eastern Europe, long distances to Army Group North and South caused the front to stretch and collapse eventually.

Ressistance in France, BeNeLux countries and Scandinavia; people stuck together, fighting the enemy whatever the cost.

To some point I believe the Russians alone could have won the war; the Allied invasion of Normandy caused a second front on already stressed German resources... Strategic bombing another keyword.

Originally Posted by sunblock

To some point I believe the Russians alone could have won the war; the Allied invasion of Normandy caused a second front on already stressed German resources... Strategic bombing another keyword.

When you say alone do you mean no Lend-Lease, no help at all from the Allies? If so then IMO you're incorrect to say that. Lend-Lease was absolutely critical to the Soviet Union in WW2.

When you say alone do you mean no Lend-Lease

No

no help at all from the Allies

Lend-Lease did help the Russians in the early stages of the war before their own industry was up and running again. Perhaps not so effective when their own industry spit out more hardware than the Allied convoys delivered (at a later date)?

More effective help in my opinion was the Allied bombing of German war Industry and the invasion of Italy - at later dates.

If so then IMO you're incorrect to say that

PUCA

The reason Allies won World War II is because the United States allied with the Soviet Union becoming a giant superpower.

And add those dreadful Russian winters to the list.

Originally Posted by sunblock

Lend-Lease did help the Russians in the early stages of the war before their own industry was up and running again. Perhaps not so effective when their own industry spit out more hardware than the Allied convoys delivered (at a later date)?

More effective help in my opinion was the Allied bombing of German war Industry and the invasion of Italy - at later dates.

Lend-Lease supplied the Soviet Union with three items that were absolutely critical (railroad tracks, locomotives and trucks) and one item that was extremely helpful (radios). Without these it's likely that the Soviet Union would have lost to Germany on the Eastern Front.

I don't believe the invasion of Italy was as fundamental to Allied success although it did open up a third theatre which further diverted German resources. However by this time had there been no Lend-Lease (or had the 4 items I mentioned not been delivered in the numbers they were historically) IMO the War in Russia would already have been won by Germany. Also, Allied bombing was troublesome to German war industry but again it did not have the impact that popular belief would suggest. Hitler shot himself in the foot here by not adapting German industry quickly enough (he apparentely wanted to spare the German people the hardships of war) and by frittering away vital resources on Wonder Weapons and the tragic nonsense that was the 'Final Solution'.

It's probably easier to ask why Germany lost rather than why the Allies won. If Germany had done several things differently (which was within their power to do so) then the War in Europe (at least on land) would have been over by 1942.

I don't know that it would have been "over" in '42 but you are right that there would have been great strength remaining to resist them. The Germans likely could have spent years mopping up on the Russian front, if they'd done it right and knocked out Moscow/Gorky early in the war. Who knows what would have happened if the BEF had not escaped at Dunkirk?