Oh, forgot to reply to Anderson. The situation on the German-Russian border (which was actually somewhere in Poland at the time, due to the joint attack) was very tense. There were very strong indications that the Russkies were in the process of modernizing and increasing the size of their army, and it was really only a matter of time before someone attacked there. And, to be fair, if the Germans had attacked later, say 1942-43, they would have stood less of a chance due to the massive numbers, particularly of the T-34 tanks. The 1941 versions of the T-34 gave the Germans enough trouble, and they lacked radios and decently trained crews.

Maybe there is some misunderstanding from the original poster and his understanding of what the opinion of the Russian population and the war with Nazi Germany.

You will not find that Russians will say that Russia won WW2. You will however find that Russians will say that they won the War for the Motherland, which in turn enabled a win in the WW2 for the allies.

Talking about a war some 70 years later from the view point of reading some history books is all well and good, and depending on the accuracy of the author and which propaganda it is spreading.
You seem to have some view that the Russians were gifted their Victories and it was due to either ally superiority or incompetence on the part of Hitler. Hitler, was not the only crazy dictator involved, Stalin quite easily surpassed Hitler and was responsible for the deaths of 29 million during the war, 20 million civilians.

I had the pleasure of living in Russia for 7 years and in that time was able to understand some parts of the culture and their outlook on many things, including the great war from 1941 to 1945. Maybe take some time and read some of the history books written from the side of Russians and you might come close to having a non-biased opinion.

Any reference to America winning anything has to be voided, since the only official war that was won by an American Army on its own was the American Civil War and that is probably debatable.

It's just a somewhat US-centric view of the war. As Americans, we are force fed the idea that D-Day (the invasion of Normandy, not the dozens of Pacific landings also called D-Day) was "the turning point of the war", when the German army was well on it's way to decline by 1943, after their loss at Kursk.

Why do you assume Hitler could have ignored Russia and invaded England before turning in Russia? I think there is pretty compelling evidence that Russia was preparing an invasion of Gemany in violation of the nonagression pact when Germany hit them. That may also partially explain the timing and lack of winter dress; the Germans were preempting a Russian attack.

@[REGL]min34

I agree.

one question an't we meant to be debating about the Russian armies might instead of Germany might,fronts,or invasion of Britain.
To answer the question how strong were the Russians not very strong the Germans were fighting many front and clearly they had held out against the Russians while fighting other opponents so.
To relate in warlight terms 3v3 match,axis vs allies in the game Germany is
fighting everyone and his winning strongly against Russia then Russia's teammate weaken Germany so germany has to cut back in defending against Russia so to defend his bonuses.

@dkristopherw and the prophet, let me tell you it is easy to deter an a bomb attack when you got miles of flak Ack ack and other AA fire. Look at the stats of the air war in world war 2 in 1944 the Germans nearly wiped out the 8th air force, Americas productivity was not beating its losses to German flak and fighters. No doubt it the Germans beat the russians they couldve made Europe one big fortress with all of the resources and brainwashed ukrains. You guys have little to no knowledge of America and britains air losses in 1944, it was catastrophic, watch any show or look at any reliable website on he air war, and youll find despite our factory ruining sucesses and our fighter killing skills, we didnt win the air war until 1945 when all of that , and every other german factory that we reached was destroyed, then we had free skies. It took 4 years to beat the luftwaffe, and half of it was fighting russia. We lost **9,000 +** bombers( troops inside not planes) in 1944 and the majority trying to get germany. *You two are preferring to the propogandic victories that you see in pictures and on movies that only tell you about our sucesses in 1945 , where the luftwaffe was mainly eliminated. However, had germany had the men and resources assuming they beat germany, our planes wouldnt be able to get past gernany, Im sorry for your guts to post on a thread despite lack of knowledge on the topic .*

1. The Germans would most definitely been nuked if they survived. That was the original focus of the Manhattan project, to create a nuke before Nazi Germany's scientists did. 2. If Russia was expecting the attack by Germany, they would have destroyed them. By the time Russia production had overcome Germany, the course of the war turned around.

Actually The Russian forces at the time of 1941 were mediocre at best.

The russian weapons in 1941 were unreliable, russia hadnt yet mobilized, and they werent really the long-range and open field fighting countries with no Anti tank personnel guns (in the infantry) they were doomed.

Kar; After the Battle of Britain, British production was greater than their losses. There was in effect air Parity between the Allies and Germany after that, with both sides having a powerful enough airforce to defend but not attack.

By Normandy the allies had air dominance, germany simply didnt have the planes to defend their army.

Throughout the war bombing raids took place at night, when anti-air weapons struggled to do much. It would not have been difficult to get bombers to germany (and certainly wasnt, as was seen by the bombings of Dresden and other cities both in daylight and nighttime.

However, had the war gone differently from early on the chances were that germany would have also had a nuke.

Yes, and thats right tacticus, but I was trying to say that it woudnt be a breeze nuking germany if germany had beated russia and had the men, the safe distance factories, and resources to replenish airforce.

@BaronHarkonnen

|> What you guys think would have happened if Germany would not have surrendered in May 1945 ?

They would have been utterly wiped out in June 1945...

After D-Day, the situation looked pretty bleak. The [Ardennes Offensive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardennes_Offensive) was pretty much the last chance they had of seriously turning the situation around. Sure, Market Garden failing bought them some time, but by then it was a lost cause. Even if they could've stopped the Russian advance, it's extremely unlikely there would've been a way to utterly defeat Russia (as in: a full scale Russian surrender) before the spring of 1945, when the Western Allies crossed the last big river and had no serious remaining obstacles on their way to deep into Germany.

---

@rebojones

|> (..) you might come close to having a non-biased opinion.

There's no such thing as a non-biased opinion...

---

[Warning: I probably forgot a couple sarcasm-tags in the following part]

@Kar98k

|> @dkristopherw and the prophet, let me tell you it is easy to deter an a bomb attack when you got miles of flak Ack ack and other AA fire.

Ah yes, I completely forgot Japan had not invented AA yet, seeing as how *both* nuclear bombing raids (each involving five or six aircraft?) did not lose a single plane to enemy fire.

|> No doubt it the Germans beat the russians they couldve made Europe one big fortress

Ever heard of the Atlantic Wall? Europe *was* one big fortress, that's why D-Day was so incredibly important (and cost so many lives).

|> You guys have little to no knowledge of America and britains air losses in 1944, it was catastrophic, watch any show or look at any reliable website on he air war

All hail Kar98k, The All-Knowing... How about you give us a link to such a reliable website; since we have no knowledge, you cannot expect us to be able to find reliable websites by ourselves.

|> We lost 9,000 + bombers( troops inside not planes) in 1944

This is the first time I've heard aircrew referred to as "bombers", usually that word is reserved for referring to numbers of aircraft...

|> Im sorry for your guts to post on a thread despite lack of knowledge on the topic .

The Warlight rules of etiquette prohibit me from being too specific about my thoughts on your guts to address other people in such a way, especially when combined with a complete and utter lack of proof to back up your claims.

@RvW Im not trying to make you sound like youre idiots, in fact you guys may know some things I dont know, its just that there was no garuntee we could get a nuke across to berlin, and Germanies AA and other anti bomber materials were 10x stronger than japans. And I dont know why it matters if I said I meant to say air crew in place of bombers, and you gotta pick that apart. See my point and look up World war 2 in hd ; The air war, it should explain how bad our losses were in 1944 if you watch the whole 2 hours. Thats my "source" Hope I dont have to right a bibliography for you next.

Sorry if I offended any of you with my post, Im trying to get my point across, and Im hoping for this thing to die, because some people have to pick apart a post and not even listen to the real point. , Im just trying to defend myself

Im pretty sure Kar98k, is right.

Well, that seals it then. Kar is an idiot.

Actually, most of his information is correct. Lets see you provide some information dumbass.....

Oh, that seals it. WWII in HD on the history channel. Forget all the books I have read, because one utterly-demoralized TV series has proved all the historians wrong. By 1944, and certainly after the invasion of Normandy, the Luftwaffe was finished. The Germans did not have the planes, pilots, or fuel they needed. As you may be able to deduce, this doesn't bode well for air defence. As for the effectiveness of AA, it wasn't very high. The Germans were getting kicked around day and night.

It is clear that Kar, while seemingly American (I can't decide if that is in spite of the terrible grammar and spelling, or because of it), he is a big German fanboy. The Germans lost, dude. It's not some sort of evil plot we are talking about to disparage the glorious German people, it is a fact that by 1944 the Germans were retreating everywhere, and generally getting the shit kicked out of them at every turn.

@TexasJohn Typos are not broken English. I know we won the air war by D-Day, but You guys act like we did nothing to smash them into the ground. It wasnt until we had to sacrifice all of those bombersto knock out their fighters until we won. I Read books on WW2 too, I just never said when the germans were finished off.

Anyways, Im not a fanboy for germany. They shouldve been firebombed all the way like Dresden, only sick disguisting people would think of cleansing races from earth because they are the "master Race."
I named my account after the gun because I couldnt find a better name if youre going to use that against me, and I used a World war two rifle because I read about it. If you got a problem with the shows on World war 2 on the history channel, you can go complain to someone else.
I didnt start the post because I wanted the Germans to win, Im just saying I have heard lots of times too many that russia couldve won the war on its own, and thats not true the allies in the west took alot of pressure off of the russians by opening fronts in Europe and North africa

Airplanes don't need to fly low enough for flak to get them when they are dropping a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius (the "5 psi contour"). Just sayin!