Who was the most powerful nation: USSR or USA?

Like most Amis you look everywhere for reasons to assume and widely proclaim that it was really the USA, the USA, and the USA and some Allies here and there, that won WW2...

When it comes to the war in Europe, which I really do see as the most important theatre as it involved the entire "developed world" and not primarily its colonies, I think Castelot's assessment hits the mark. The Pacific was mostly an American-run show indeed, but as we saw already in a different topic, there simply was no way in which Japan could have defeated the USA (and the Japanese high command was aware of this, it is not hindsight), so it is not very surprising that the USA took the lion's share of victories and was triumphant here. As such, its role was huge by simply being there, being a great power putting in an effort to destroy the agressor; thisis hardly comparable to the struggle for survival going on in Europe at the time, I'd say.

 

delete..weird double post

 

I didn't say that. You distort my remarks. Perhaps you should look at the name of this thread. It isn't who "won" WW II. How can one debate which country was more powerful, the US or USSR without discussing the "power", economic and military of both?

I'm amazed you have the nerve to call me out on being Eurocentric, even in jest after these comments
I'm sure that the people of Asia (who are people just as worthy as the Euros and Amis wouldn't you say?)would look at it differently. When they were invaded, occupied and brutalized by the Japanese they bled just as red as the Polish or French did they not?
How is it that the German occupation of parts of Europe is more important than the Rape of Nanking or the brutal subjugation of the Phillipines?

 

I merely accused you of Eurocentrism, never did I say I was not guilty of it myself.

Naturally, the Chinese and other Asian peoples suffering from Japanese agression are no less than the European peoples suffering under the heel of Nazism. The fact is however that for example China had been plunged in civil war for decades before WW2 started, and remained plunged in civil war for four more years; it is highly dubitable that the absence of Japanese agression would have meant roses and butterflies for China. Most of the ohter areas falling under Japanese occupation were (former) Western colonies which would have been much more capable of defending themselves had their mother countries not been previously defeated by Nazi Germany.

 

Im not being rude but does enyone have a source for those. Iv used them in a debate locathed here http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index. ... 1291977706 and he wants evidence
Thanks

 

Some of the people on that forum listen to Communist propaganda too much. Sure, the USSR produced comparable amounts of coal and steel as the US in the late 1930s, but that is not the same as a comparable economy...

 

Actually,though the Qing dynasty was severely weakened by internal troubles,the European powers certainly didn't make things easier.Hence,i would say China 's civil war was really not her own fault.Someone had to share responsibility wuith the Manchurians

 

The troubles caused by European powers in China predate World War I. They mattered little to influence events there after the Empire fell, since there was no way to exert effective control over any part of China during the Warlords period.

 

USA can betha one who suffered less, but Russia was the one who won the war

 

Alone?

Would you care to support that?

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

 

I would submit that size does not necessarily equate to power. There is no doubt that the Red Army was larger than the Germans, or the Americans. But, was the SU powerful enough to take on Germany by itself? Apparently not.

The Soviets needed infusions provided by Lend Lease in order to make it work. There is no arguing that some of the weapons they developed were quite effective. The T-34 series is a bench mark. But, without American aid, would they have been able to support the troops in the field, and defeat the Germans? I honestly don't know.

You can have the biggest army in the world mustered, but if you can't arm, equip, and feed them, then they're just short of useless.

Define "Powerful"

 

I'm posting from home due to the Thanksgiving holiday and most of my sources are in my favorites list on my work computer. Much that I have learned about lend/lease has been accumulated form many and varied sources over the years. I will try and locate some of the sources for you when I return to work.

EDIT... I found some documentation on my home computer also.

That list was compiled from several sources:

"The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV,

also

"Why The Allies Won"

and

"Russia's War"

both by Richard Overy

 

I think without a doubt the U.S. The # 1 Reason, the lend lease act, they supplied all allies w/ food, ammo, weapons, armour, etc.. That the russians didn't have wokrforce economy to produce the #'s U.S. did. # 2 The U.S. and allies opened the second front in western europe to pull german army supplies, troops, etc.. away from east. This gave russia time to resupply weaapons, infantry,air to make counter attack push that they did. The only reason russia took Berlin is because Eisenhower didn't want to sacrafice 100,00 troops just delaying the inevitable. Another main reason U.S. & Allies were War winners was AIR SUPREMEACY. Russia didn't control the skies the way u.s. did

 

I would say that USSR was the most important in ww2. Yes USA did alot but the ultimate goal was for Russians to defeat the germans on the Eastern Front.

 

The Americans also did not lose a significant chunk of their population, industries, rail network and (most importantly) farmland during the war. The Russians did, and produced quite a lot. Imagine if they had not lost all that...
A totalitarian regime can be quite effective at producing, as it does not need to take as much notice of its workers. Like the re-located Soviet factories that were producing tanks & planes before the roof was on properly...

having said that, the USA outproduced everybody else in a shorter timespan than everbody else, and was not even working at full capacity...
Which is bloody impressive.

Ah, while Stalin wanted a second front for that very reason, there were other benefits for the Western Allies in invading the Continent... Besides, Russia was already on the offensive by D-Day.

 

Ah, while Stalin wanted a second front for that very reason, there were other benefits for the Western Allies in invading the Continent... Besides, Russia was already on the offensive by D-Day


I think one of the reasons russia was already on the offensive is because germany had to pull alot of their forces aaway to the west to install the atlantic wall and defend the french coast and inlands, because they knew the allied invasion was coming but didn't know exactly where. I also agree russia did produce alot even though they lost alot but I' not sure if It could compete w/ the 1930's & 40's american can-do spirit

 

Hi

If the question is which nation, USA or the USSR was potentially the greater military power, then one has only to look at the relative populations of each and the economic resources available to each.

On each account , the USA is the greater.

With regards to Germany, then the question is, which one would have been prepared politically to accept the task of defeating the Reich in a massive landwar.

Given the fact that it was beyond Germany's ability to directly threaten the United States, I just dont think that the American people would have stood for the type of losses that the USSR actually did suffer.

I think that a 'negotiated" settlement would be more likely in a war between the USA and Germany as opposed to one between the USSR and Germany.

This is just a hypothetical lineup. In actuality, I think that Stalin would still have treatied with Hitler as late as early 1943..pre Kursk.

 

In 1940 britain ( and the commonwealth )made sure the war was not lost.
for a year they stood alone when all the news were bad news .

Churchill .transcended his failings and electrified his country .
every prospect was bleak .

the second world war was won with buckets of russian blood ,
it would not have been enough , or more costly still !! but for the supplies
delivered by the allied , the U.S. fought with determination as soon as
they could come to grip with the opposite side .

I don't know who won the war , but I know who lost it mr hitler


it would have been much easier if the germans were not such fine soldiers

 

The Kursk offensive faltered when Hitler pulled out his best Panzer units to counter the Scillily invasion..

Сталин собирался отдать Гитлеру Прибалтику и Западную Украину
Предложения о мире фюреру он хотел сделать через болгарского посла Стаменова в июле 1941 года
Из культового фильма «Семнадцать мгновений весны» мы прекрасно знаем о сепаратных переговорах нациста Вольфа и американца Даллеса. Куда меньше известно о том, что в критические дни войны Сталин пытался заключить перемирие с Гитлером.




http://www.kp.ru/daily/23467/37157/

Russia was ready to negotiate (surrender/ capitulate like in WWI)..

Run it through your own translator.

http://translation2.paralink.com/


more powerful?

goggle Hiroshima

 

just to get you started

Stalin was going to give Hitler Pribaltiku and the Western Ukraine
To Fuhrer it wished to make offers on the world through Bulgarian ambassador Stamenova in July, 1941
From cult film we perfectly know « Seventeen instants of spring » about separate negotiations of nazi Volf and American Dallesa. It is known that in critical days of war Stalin tried to conclude an armistice with Hitler Much less.