Thread: U.S. versus Soviet Union- end of WW2

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

No it wasn't. German production was at its height at the height of the Allied bombing campaign.

This is because Germany didn't fully mobilize its industry until later on in the war. In other words, much of the heavy losses they took were compensated for by increased mobilization. If you compare German GDP numbers each year with other wartime countries (notably the U.S.), you'll see that German economic output was hit hard by the allies. Between 1939 and 1944 the U.S. economy doubled. During that same period Germany's economy only increased by about 20%. Considering that in 1939 Germany was preparing itself and fighting WW2 and the U.S. wasn't, that's a significant difference.

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

The Soviet Union supplied itself by far. It's a myth that Lend Lease was supplying them with everything, but I see it stated so often.

The majority of the Soviet war machine was fueled by domestic production, no doubt. But the U.S. gave them billions of dollars in equipment. The U.S. also gave the Soviets something like 90% of their trucking capabilities, which were very vital for the war, as well as a lot of food.

An earlier poster claimed that the Soviet Union had a logistical advantage over the U.S. My counter-point was that the U.S. had 4 times the economy of the Soviet Union and was supplying Britain, the European theater, the Pacific theater AND the Soviets with billions of dollars in equipment. Clearly the U.S. wins hands down in terms of logistics.

Also have to take into consideration with these war military debates on this forum. The american chatters are vastly nationalistc. They give far too much credit to america involvement while ignoring allies, uk australia etc...


So impossible to judge the true strength of the usa forces.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

Also have to take into consideration with these war military debates on this forum. The american chatters are vastly nationalistc. They give far too much credit to america involvement while ignoring allies, uk australia etc...


So impossible to judge the true strength of the usa forces.

Come up with something better. You always fall back to the nationalism argument when you have nothing to offer.

There's no question that Britain, Canada, France, and Australia would support the U.S. in such a conflict...just as the Soviet Union would receive support from its "empire."

Now ignoranceisbliss is speaking on behalf of the entire allied forces. Why would they be loyal to a near suicide war against the soviets after several years of hell in the biggest war the world has seen.

If you can stop flying the flag and be more realistic, this debate go better.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

The majority of the Soviet war machine was fueled by domestic production, no doubt. But the U.S. gave them billions of dollars in equipment. The U.S. also gave the Soviets something like 90% of their trucking capabilities, which were very vital for the war, as well as a lot of food.

An earlier poster claimed that the Soviet Union had a logistical advantage over the U.S. My counter-point was that the U.S. had 4 times the economy of the Soviet Union and was supplying Britain, the European theater, the Pacific theater AND the Soviets with billions of dollars in equipment. Clearly the U.S. wins hands down in terms of logistics.

Our maritime shipping logistics...moving troops, supplies and equipment over two oceans...was 2nd to none during WWII.

I completely agree.

The Soviets defeated the Germans over a war of attrition..a costly war.

Individual life meant nothing to the Soviets, that was their main advantage...they would fight you in their kitchen with bayonets if it came down to that...and realistically a ground invasion of Russia would have been reduced to survival. America could never have occupied Russia, but militarily the Soviets could have been defeated..perhaps at great cost but I see no other outcome.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

Now ignoranceisbliss is speaking on behalf of the entire allied forces. Why would they be loyal to a near suicide war against the soviets after several years of hell in the biggest war the world has seen.

If you can stop flying the flag and be more realistic, this debate go better.

If you had read the OP clearly, you'd see that the discussion at hand is what would happen in a conflict. The debate isn't over whether or not the conflict WOULD have happened, but rather HOW it would play out. In this scenario we assume for whatever reason the motivation for fighting existed.

There's no way Britain/France/Canada etc. would sit by idly while a U.S./Soviet war raged. If you remember, the cold war involved NATO and the majority of free European countries AGAINST the Soviets.

Again, stop with the flag comments. Try and bring something substantial to the debate rather than personal attacks.

As the Americans had nuclear weapons and their homeland was not destroyed through war I think the Americans would have possibly won a fight at the end of WW2 although their army in Europe would have been wiped out by the Soviets. Also when the Soviet military advanced into Europe would the Americans be prepared to drop Atom bombs on the populations of the various European states thus killing hundreds of thousands of friendly civilians?

ignorance,

No this topic is the insanity view of usa, to fight russia.

But before begin to count the allies on your side, have to ask:

Would they have the will for it, after the hell of ww2 fighting.
Would it be supported at home, morale.
How many even change sides to join the soviets in their view of usa weakness.

And the most obvious, they view the usa as suicidale and sit it out.

Remember the cold war drums didn't start to bang until years after the end of ww2. Russia(soviet union) was seen by many as part of the allies. Who took on germany. To even start this war with allied involvement, have to convinse huge numbers of people to side with the (usa fear/paranoia of russia) The propoganda would take years.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

If you had read the OP clearly, you'd see that the discussion at hand is what would happen in a conflict. The debate isn't over whether or not the conflict WOULD have happened, but rather HOW it would play out. In this scenario we assume for whatever reason the motivation for fighting existed.

There's no way Britain/France/Canada etc. would sit by idly while a U.S./Soviet war raged. If you remember, the cold war involved NATO and the majority of free European countries AGAINST the Soviets.

Again, stop with the flag comments. Try and bring something substantial to the debate rather than personal attacks.

Soviets at the time were not even aware that while war was raging in Berlin...Stalin was busy slaughtering and starving 20 million of his countrymen, Ukrainians, Poles and anyone else who stood in his way. 7,000,000 Ukrainians alone...died of starvation due to forced famine.

Patton knew the guy was a bastard, but America was tired of fighting at that point..but in my opinion, they were the equivalent evil to the Third Reich.