Who was the most powerful nation: USSR or USA?

Morally I can accept the common Western division of the world into "good" (capitalist democracy) and "bad" (communist dictatorship), but I really hate it when the US is being portrayed as the selfless saviour of the free world. They too have always been a player in the game of international politics, which is not played with high-flying ideals but with national interests and the use of whatever means to protect them. Let's not pretend that the US is anything but another nation-state, which is neither a good nor a bad thing.

Like TISO and others have shown repeatedly, there is plenty of reason to say that the US does not have shiny clean hands despite its ideals and ideology. Apart from that, I just generally can't stand chest-thumping from anyone, and that includes myself too

 

I agree, being another nation-state is neither good nor bad. I don't like it, though, when the USA is portrayed as the next thing to Satan himself. Yes, America does have its flaws; I am all too aware of them, believe me. But I dare anyone to name me a nation that is flawless.

 

sigh ...yes tiso , we have used crow indians when we made war on souix indians .we hired laotions ,nungs ,cambdians and mountenyards to fight the viet cong .we even supplied some small aid to our buddy uncle joe when he was killing lots of germans .

later when we figured out that joe and mao were the greatest monsters in history ,we spared almost no expence to see that no more fidel castros popped up on our side of the pond , some of our choices didnt turn out so good but to us anything was prefferable to any budding marxist or maoist states in the americas . we trained some latin soldiers to kill commie insurgents , if later , they went arround killing innocent villagers ,it was never with the approval of the american people .of course sometimes we had to crack a few eggs to make an omelete we just didnt crack them by the tens of millions in the slavic / chinese iron chef stye .

 

WEll actually the americans Did the work and thought it good politics to let the FF take there capitol back, quote]


Actually the Americans were not going to liberate Paris but by pass it. Paris was only liberiated because of De' Gaulles persistants

 

Actually Americans did not do all the work and were going to by pass Paris. Only through De' Gaulle's persisents was Paris liberated.

I am sick of hearing about Americans saved the day in Europe etc. By the end of 1941(when Americans entered the war), The battle of Britan had been won and plans for D-Day were already on their way, The British had started to win back territory in North Africa and the Germans had lost the Battle of Moscow(With losses of around 700,000). So really the Germans had already major setbacks well before the Americans entered the war.

 

Actually Americans did not do all the work and were going to by pass Paris. Only through De' Gaulle's persisents was Paris liberated.

I am sick of hearing about Americans saved the day in Europe etc. By the end of 1941(when Americans entered the war), The battle of Britan had been won and plans for D-Day were already on their way, The British had started to win back territory in North Africa and the Germans had lost the Battle of Moscow(With losses of around 700,000). So really the Germans had already major setbacks well before the Americans entered the war.

 

boyo:
Many thoughts come to mind... most-all are likely best not shared in print.
So De'Gaulle saved Paris eh? I thought it was the German commander who disregarded Hitlers orders to burn it to the ground.
If you truly want to debate this subject, better plan on bringing your lunch son.

Tim

 

the plans for D-Day that were already underway primarily consisted of hoping the US would actively join the war. Everything the British had won in North Africa by December 1941 would be lost by June 1942. The Germans survived the Soviet Winter offensve of 1941-42 and infliceted further crushing defeats that led to the critical battles at Stalingrad. The war was hardly won by the time the US joined. I'm sick of hearing everyone trying to trivalize the US role in WWII.

 

I'm tired of hearing people trying to trivialize the US role in WWII. The war was hardly won by the time the US joned the war. The "D-Day planning that was already underway" consisted primarily of hoping to find ways to get the US to actively join the war. The British lost everything the had in North Africa in December 1941 by June 1942. The Germans not only survived the the Soviet winter counter-offensive of 1941-42, they inflicted further crushing defeats in 1942 that led to the crisis at Stalingrad.

 

Apologies for hte double post. I'm getting a message that says "Send Failed" and then I find the messages were indeed posted.

 

Same bugg here.

But newerless 80% of German losses was on eastern front. Nobody say that US aid was trivial,but directly did not impact much.but indirectly....

If i remember good,Russian started to win war after they transfered Syberian troops to front line.That was done only after Russia was shure that Japan will not invade USSR soil,what was caused by war in pacific. So indirectly, USA had impact on European battlefield before they actualy invaded normandy,but diference of Germany in 1941. and Germany in 1945. was like Bulldog and kitty.

 

That was when a Russian spy in Japan sent the Soviet government confirmation that Japan had no intention on attacking the Soviet Union (I do not remember his name but if you want I could look his name up). This lead to Stalin's decision to transfer the Siberian troops from Eastern Russia directly into the defence of Moscow.

 

Look at boy.on.laptop's post. He strongly implies the war was won before the US entered the war. And I would strongly disagree that US participation directly did not impact much. I would say the Soviets were able to avoid losing the war in 1941 thanks to the winter counter-offensive, but victory was still far from assured. And as you point out, this was only possible because the Soviets were able to transfer trops from the far east. The Soviets also directly contribute to ther own problems by supporting the Nazi's until it was their turn. Yes, 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern front. But imagine the outcome if the other 20% had been available for service on the Eastern front.

 

Well by the time the drive for the Caucasus mountains was launched Guderian among other Generals was complaining for months that they did not have enough tanks, cause they had heavy losses not only due to the enemy but by the long drive which they were put through.

 

Was Lend Lease a factor in the 1941 fighting?

No....

Was it a factor in the 1942 fighting?

Not really. Sufficient quantities had not arrived, as the only route was via Archangel.

Only in 1943, with the opening of supply routes through Persia and the Caucasus could Lend Lease really claim to have effected the actual situation on the ground or in the air.
So, no help at all in 1941....
Limited help in 1942...
A growing help in 1943....

If Lend Lease was vital to the Soviet war effort, then what happened between June 1941 and January 1943?

Russia stopped the Blitzkrieg mostly without our help.....

 

22 june 1941--the beginning of the end for Germany ..didn't matter if the US got involved or not....
..Russia too massive and big--too large a population
..OstFront had many times the troops/tanks/etc

 

At the end of WWII we decided that we did not want to go after the Soviets. It would have been in our best interest to put the Communists out of business, and we knew it. Old (our) Blood and (his) Guts' wanted to give it a go, and that might have been the reason for his tragic accident. Wiser heads prevailed. We didn't take the Soviets on, so perhaps that is the best answer to the OP's question.

By the end of the war the Soviets were tough. well armed, well supplied, well trained, highly experienced, and they didn't give a rat's butt how many of their own men had to die to win. Our nation, on the other hand, had had a bellyful of war and everybody wanted to get back to the farm and factory.

I would have hated to see the results of our tanks going one on one against the Soviets. Oddball may have said, "The only way I can keep a T-34/85 busy is by letting him shoot holes in me."

Another major issue would have been would be that the Soviets would be fighting in their own country, with interior lines of communications and on territory that they were intimately familiar with, not having to supply their troops from 5,000 miles away. We could not have depended on much help from the Brits and none from the French and the rest of Europe was in ashes.

Of course, with a monopoly on nukes at the time, no nation on earth could have stood against us for long. You melt a few big cities, and the people in them, and people lose their will to fight in a hurry...Ask the Japanese.