|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 30, 2021 13:42:17 GMT
In the words of General Grievous "you are a bold one" Marshal Vorošilov. Okay but seriously this poll is not meant to be political but rather historical.
My vote has to go to the Soviet Union because about 4/5 German casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 30, 2021 13:44:10 GMT
France  |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Aug 30, 2021 14:16:47 GMT
That's a tough question. Britain for never say die attitude, Soviet Union for bearing the brunt of German offensive and USA for aiding the Allies. Can't pick one. Maybe British
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 30, 2021 14:19:43 GMT
That's a tough question. Britain for never say die attitude, Soviet Union for bearing the brunt of German offensive and USA for aiding the Allies. Can't pick one. Maybe British But still, I would rate destroying the enemy higher than nit getting defeated, especially as the Soviets had the never die altitude as well. For the aiding allies, from what I have read the lend lease wasn't that important atleast on the Eastern front. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Aug 30, 2021 14:23:37 GMT
That's a tough question. Britain for never say die attitude, Soviet Union for bearing the brunt of German offensive and USA for aiding the Allies. Can't pick one. Maybe British But still, I would rate destroying the enemy higher than nit getting defeated, especially as the Soviets had the never die altitude as well. For the aiding allies, from what I have read the lend lease wasn't that important atleast on the Eastern front. If the British had sued for peace before Barbarossa, then the outcome of the war would change drastically. Germany couldn't deploy it's full strength on either side, courtesy Britain. (OMG, no offense but I was a sworn hater of GB (For various reasons) and now I can't imagine I'm defending Britain. Maybe they really aren't that bad) |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 30, 2021 14:28:06 GMT
But still, I would rate destroying the enemy higher than nit getting defeated, especially as the Soviets had the never die altitude as well. For the aiding allies, from what I have read the lend lease wasn't that important atleast on the Eastern front. If the British had sued for peace before Barbarossa, then the outcome of the war would change drastically. Germany couldn't deploy it's full strength on either side, courtesy Britain. (OMG, no offense but I was a sworn hater of GB (For various reasons) and now I can't imagine I'm defending Britain. Maybe they really aren't that bad) I totally understand that argument, but the same goes to the Soviet Union, imagine Hitler defeating the USSR, Overlord and Torch would've been much harder. But to add to that the Soviet Union inflicted 4/5 of Germany's casualties. Btw, I kinda know the feeling. I absolutely hate Mannerheim irl but defend him wholeheartedly in WC4. Well, that's a bit different, but I don't like the Soviet Union either, especially Stalin. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Aug 30, 2021 14:31:23 GMT
If the British had sued for peace before Barbarossa, then the outcome of the war would change drastically. Germany couldn't deploy it's full strength on either side, courtesy Britain. (OMG, no offense but I was a sworn hater of GB (For various reasons) and now I can't imagine I'm defending Britain. Maybe they really aren't that bad) I totally understand that argument, but the same goes to the Soviet Union, imagine Hitler defeating the USSR, Overlord and Torch would've been much harder. But to add to that the Soviet Union inflicted 4/5 of Germany's casualties. Btw, I kinda know the feeling. I absolutely hate Mannerheim irl but defend him wholeheartedly in WC4. Well, that's a bit different, but I don't like the Soviet Union either, especially Stalin. USSR might have inflicted more casualities, but they would've lost the war if Germany deployed their entire strength. They didn't deploy their entire strength because Britain was squashing Luftwaffe like Mosquitoes (That's an over exaggeration, but my point is still valid) |
|
|
|
Post by Heinz1Guderian1 on Aug 30, 2021 14:32:25 GMT
*sad canada nosies* the USSR due to that the waffen ss went to kick allied lads so that aslo helped russia live and if the allies lost normandy then russia go bye bye, im going with russia since germany had to fight on 2 fronts
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 30, 2021 14:33:23 GMT
I totally understand that argument, but the same goes to the Soviet Union, imagine Hitler defeating the USSR, Overlord and Torch would've been much harder. But to add to that the Soviet Union inflicted 4/5 of Germany's casualties. Btw, I kinda know the feeling. I absolutely hate Mannerheim irl but defend him wholeheartedly in WC4. Well, that's a bit different, but I don't like the Soviet Union either, especially Stalin. USSR might have inflicted more casualities, but they would've lost the war if Germany deployed their entire strength. They didn't deploy their entire strength because Britain was squashing Luftwaffe like Mosquitoes (That's an over exaggeration, but my point is still valid) But my point is that the same would have happened to Britain if Germany would have won the USSR. Maybe Battle of Britain second try wouldn't had succeeded but no victory in Africa or liberation of France. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Aug 30, 2021 14:36:46 GMT
USSR might have inflicted more casualities, but they would've lost the war if Germany deployed their entire strength. They didn't deploy their entire strength because Britain was squashing Luftwaffe like Mosquitoes (That's an over exaggeration, but my point is still valid) But my point is that the same would have happened to Britain if Germany would have won the USSR. Maybe Battle of Britain second try wouldn't had succeeded but no victory in Africa or liberation of France. That's true though. But I'd give Barbarossa a higher chance of success than Sealion. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 30, 2021 14:37:12 GMT
But still, I would rate destroying the enemy higher than nit getting defeated, especially as the Soviets had the never die altitude as well. For the aiding allies, from what I have read the lend lease wasn't that important atleast on the Eastern front. If the British had sued for peace before Barbarossa, then the outcome of the war would change drastically. Germany couldn't deploy it's full strength on either side, courtesy Britain. (OMG, no offense but I was a sworn hater of GB (For various reasons) and now I can't imagine I'm defending Britain. Maybe they really aren't that bad) Why is/was Britain bad? |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 30, 2021 14:38:21 GMT
If it hadn't been for the French declaration of war on Germany, Germany would have won (in east).
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Aug 30, 2021 14:38:34 GMT
If the British had sued for peace before Barbarossa, then the outcome of the war would change drastically. Germany couldn't deploy it's full strength on either side, courtesy Britain. (OMG, no offense but I was a sworn hater of GB (For various reasons) and now I can't imagine I'm defending Britain. Maybe they really aren't that bad) Why is/was Britain bad? I'm sorry but I don't want to mention the reasons. It's just my personal opinion  |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 30, 2021 14:39:28 GMT
But my point is that the same would have happened to Britain if Germany would have won the USSR. Maybe Battle of Britain second try wouldn't had succeeded but no victory in Africa or liberation of France. That's true though. But I'd give Barbarossa a higher chance of success than Sealion. Yeah, maybe but I think the material and personel losses win it for the USSR. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 30, 2021 14:42:08 GMT
That can be said about USA too without them Allies would have lost the war
|
|
