Relatively speaking it was
It wasn't more important than taking back France. The only way that the Allies were going to fight in Europe was if Britain was attacked. That's obvious and if they were really aiding Russia as much as it was claimed they would have opened the 2 Front in Europe

Russia was essentially holding down Europe all by themselves.

I will simply ask you this. Would it have been more important to aid Russia with troops or guns?

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Yeah and they have been for 2 days now. Darko has made a number of valid points but he seems to contend that the most important factor in the War wasn't Russia's war effort. I respectfully disagree

I also contend that the 2 war front was the decisive factor in determining the outcome of the War. He disagrees with that as well.

He says that Lend Lease was the most decisive factor even though Roosevelt himself stated something different.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Your original point was:


I have focused my efforts this weekend on countering the point that without the russians, the allies do not win the war.
Now as to your new point about being the most significant factor in the war, that's debatable. Yes. The russians succeed the most casualties of the war excluding civilians and certain ethic groups that were targeted. Getting killed doesn't win wars.
Now, I do not postulate that aid to russia was more significant (than russian fighting), I was trying to impress that the russian effort was not without help.
And again, no one disagrees that Russia did a shitload of work. That was never the argument.
Was russia the most significant factor? It really depends on your metrics. One reason english and american losses were low compared to russian was code breaking. Another was a superior strategy. Stalin as noted before ran headlong into battle disregarding losses. The other allies did not. Other significant factors were economic and manufacturing advantages the US enjoyed. And the technology was on our side by the end of the war.
Dont forget, the us was tied up on another whole theatre when stalin made his request and at that time, just having fought the battle of midway. Our naval production (and preparing for the necessity of amphibious island hopping assaults in the near future) was tied up to pacific concerns. Remember, we were behind the 8 ball fighting the world class of navies that just decimated our pacific fleet in a surprise attack. Who do you think was a higher priority? A navy that did indeed have capacity to expand its sphere of influence to the american coast or Germany who was dedicated to a land war and was not an immediate threat to the homeland?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

That is a complete and total misrepresentation of my view. I would encourage billy to read my posts rather than read your summation. Billy, I can summarize in a brief way if you like.

I dont disagree with the truth of the state of the American military in 1940 but i feel it is largely irrelevant. It's what they were able to do over the next five years. The US built while the axis suffered losses. That's really all that matters.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I said the state of the military in 1940 was irrelevant because it was irrelevant.
Here is why.
In 1940, the US was not engaged in active military operations.
Within 5 years, the US was able to commit to and achieve a historic buildup both in quantity of equipment and technology.
By the time we opened active fronts in the war, US production was exponentially higher than our foes.
We were building up. Our foes were wearing down.
If the war had continued for another several years (unlikely because the US developed a war ending weapon), thebstate of the US forces would have completely overwhelmed the opposite belligerents.

I say the state of the military in 1940 is irrelevant because that's not part of the debate. We're discussing whether the Americans could have held out or defeated germany without russian intervention and i postulate yes they could have but certainly not on the same time scale. The americans had the capacity to manufacture that was completely unprecedented and unmatched anywhere in europe. All the axis powers were seeing declines in all relevant inventories while the united states was seeing increases.

Let's not ever say that the Russians didnt help. God yes they did. More than half of Hitler's army was fucking around kn the eastern front, and the Russians ate a lot of the shit that Germany had to serve, and they had seconds and thirds.
God bless them. They kicked a lot of ass. And their contributions should not be diminished.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Ok. For the very last time now...
No one says that the Russians didnt fight their asses off and do a lot of heavy lifting.
As for what gets is to ramping up of production (more like 1942, not 1945) we had time because our manufacturing capacity was not under pressure from European belligerents.
A major factor in the attrition of Germanys capability was indeed Russia. Another factor was logistics as previously mentioned. I wont get back into it but the punchline is overextention.

In a purely theoretical simulation in which Russia is not involved, Germany has a real food and oil problem. By the time the battle of the atlantic was finished 1943 Germany would have had little access to required agriculture and fuel to maintain western occupation.

Meanwhile, american production ramps up unabated. US losses are outweighed by our gains.


Then comes the final gamechanger. Manhattan.

If russia was never involved, germany still loses the war. You had a fool calling the strategic shots, you had production problems, fuel problems, and food problems. England is reading the enemy mail. They knew what germany was doing, where and when. Intel was heavily in the allies favor. I'll fully concede the war doesn't end in may of 45. But it does end. And it ends with an allied victory.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

The problems you describe were mostly due to having to fight Russia though. You keep discounting that. They didn't have those problems prior to fighting Russia. You keep ignoring that for some reason

And this is something that you have a failed to consider. Without Russia there is strong possibility that the American military would have been incredibly thin. They would have had to actually "fight a war on 2 fronts" Russia allowed them to use a significant amount of their resources on Japan. They definitely didn't have conmit most of their troops to fighting Russia what happens if they do.

Interesting thing about the nuke. You seem to think that they would have dropped j Nukes over Germany if they had to. I doubt seriously that they would have nuked a European country. Doubt that seriously. There is a reason that the only 2 nukes in history were dropped in Japan and not let's say Europe.

I seriously doubt that America would have so cavalierly dropped a nuke on a European country. There are serious considerations that would have been undertaken before that happened.

Good talk.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

This is not entirely correct. Germany needed Russias oil and agriculture. That is the primary reason for the invasion, with the ancillary reason being that Hier found communism... distasteful.


A front from france and a front out of italy. Do you think they would have had to launch a eastern front? Why?


Oh yeah. I think they'd have dropped on germany. Why not? They firebombed Dresden to the bare earth. Hamburg. And if Germany did try to invade the British Isles, although infontend they could not control the waters and air, you're damn right they drop it.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

This is not entirely correct. Germany needed Russias oil and agriculture. That is the primary reason for the invasion, with the ancillary reason being that Hier found communism... distasteful.


A front from france and a front out of italy. Do you think they would have had to launch a eastern front? Why?


Oh yeah. I think they'd have dropped on germany. Why not? They firebombed Dresden to the bare earth. Hamburg. And if Germany did try to invade the British Isles, although infontend they could not control the waters and air, you're damn right they drop it.

Hawk, as a military man your input is valued here. I'm sure you can offer tactical and strategic analysis that I do not have training to understand. As it is, I rely on historians and their analysis to give me understanding. There as a result is no one consensus as to what did what and med to what. I mean historians really dont agree on what year WWII really began. You win by staying in and posting your view of history and don't fight unnecessary battles on other fronts. Stick it out.