Nobody's going to dispute the fact that Germany was the most dangerous of the Axis Powers. Still, Japan was a surprisingly tough adversary -- they dished out more military might than anyone thought they could. Everyone thought that China should have easily stomped the crap out of them, but it all went exactly the opposite way.

Aussie John you are a fool to think that USA was the winner in military and economics, for a number of reasons.

1. They barely contributed to the fronts on the French and British.

2. They were on a different continent, and if there was a way for the Germans to get to USA, its economy would be in deeper ****, and like USSR's economy, because all of USSR's major cities were destroyed, and we had to rebuild our country again from nothing. While the USA was sitting tight dropping A-bombs and said they were all that. If USA was on the European continent they would have suffered more destruction to its cities and economy.

So maybe you should go and think about what your talking about, before you say who the winner is.

Originally Posted by Kirill K

Aussie John you are a fool to think that USA was the winner in military and economics, for a number of reasons.

1. They barely contributed to the fronts on the French and British.

2. They were on a different continent, and if there was a way for the Germans to get to USA, its economy would be in deeper ****, and like USSR's economy, because all of USSR's major cities were destroyed, and we had to rebuild our country again from nothing. While the USA was sitting tight dropping A-bombs and said they were all that. If USA was on the European continent they would have suffered more destruction to its cities and economy.

So maybe you should go and think about what your talking about, before you say who the winner is.

its nice to see kids who believe in every thing their parents tell them, but don't actually learn aything them selves. This kind of thing has been going on with russians for too long.

Drilldownmaster you are even younger then me, what can u possibly know what ur talking about. Maybe you should go to a school that can teach you something useful because, ur lacking the logic and the facts, about Russia and USSR, and what they did. The facts are there, it's proven that USSR, was the major country that contributed 90% of its soldiers and effort to liberating all countries taking by Germany. UK and French couldnt even hold one front from Germany. And answer me this what did USA do to help the RUSSIAN's push the Germans back?

Originally Posted by Kirill K

Drilldownmaster you are even younger then me, what can u possibly know what ur talking about. Maybe you should go to a school that can teach you something useful because, ur lacking the logic and the facts, about Russia and USSR, and what they did. The facts are there, it's proven that USSR, was the major country that contributed 90% of its soldiers and effort to liberating all countries taking by Germany. UK and French couldnt even hold one front from Germany. And answer me this what did USA do to help the RUSSIAN's push the Germans back?

Ok first of all USSR contributed 90% of TROOPS, not guns, not food, not medicine, not hardware. And for a note, buddy, the USA gave the USSR huns,food,medicine,and hardware.
Zakroy svoyu past' poka nepozdno kirill

Originally Posted by Kirill K

Drilldownmaster you are even younger then me, what can u possibly know what ur talking about. Maybe you should go to a school that can teach you something useful because, ur lacking the logic and the facts, about Russia and USSR, and what they did. The facts are there, it's proven that USSR, was the major country that contributed 90% of its soldiers and effort to liberating all countries taking by Germany. UK and French couldnt even hold one front from Germany. And answer me this what did USA do to help the RUSSIAN's push the Germans back?

Locomotives, railroad tracks, radios and trucks. Without those 4 items your country would be consigned to history.

thats not the only thing you need in times of war. the soviets were able to go without tracks. yeas it was longer, but they made it

Mobility was ESSENTIAL to the Eastern Front of World War II. This is why Moscow was, by far, the most important key to the Soviet Union. The enormous distances of the Soviet Union meant that the faster you could move your forces, the more likely you were to win.

Consider that Germany vs the USSR the ultimate contest. Consider that Germany was winning at the beginning. Consider how perilously close they came to the brink of disaster despite all the Red Army could do. Throw in a little luck, Hitler redirecting Army Group Center and that 10-15% contribution the USA/UK shipped to support the Soviets --- it may have been enough to tilt the scales in the Soviet Union's favor. Most of the USSR's success on the Eastern Front, they created themselves. Nobody can deny that. But even losing the slightest advantage in '42 and '43, and the Soviet Union might not have won it. Railroad engines, raw material ... even Shermans and other equipment that they didn't like very much ... all helped the cause.

Obviously, by mid 1944 the USSR needed no help to beat Germany, but let's not forget how close they came to the brink of disaster.

Well when you do not have an Oficer corps what do you expect? I have told a story of a kid who was a sergeant at 15 and a 3 star general by the end of the war

Originally Posted by drilldownmaster2004

thats not the only thing you need in times of war. the soviets were able to go without tracks. yeas it was longer, but they made it

Tracks = trucks or railroad tracks? Either way the Soviets were *not* able to go without them. The Red Army would not have been able to mobilise properly and it would have been very difficult for them to have supplied their formations in the field.

Logistics is one of the most overlooked factors in warfare and one of the most important.