<p>fiterrace thanks for the history lesson, but you basically came to the same conclusion I did. Although both fronts were neccesary more of the fighting and war effort was on the Eastern front.</p>
<p>Fine even if its not Bush's fault, Congress is also Republican-controlled.</p>
<p>Confused, mostly you are incorrect:</p>
<ol>
<li>"japan attacked russia several times"</li>
</ol>
<p>During most of the world war, there were practically no hostilities between Japan and the USSR based on the Neutrality Pact signed on 13 April 1941. The 1941 Neutrality Pact was legally binding until 13 April 1946. Russia did attack Japan in the latter half of 1945 but this was after we dropped the atomic bombs and Stalin wanted a piece of the fruits of victory in the far east. Japan guranteed she would not attack Russia which made it possible for Stalin to remove troops to the west--it seems both Stalin and the Japanese understood the difficulties of a two front war. It seems that avoiding a two front war with Russia was more important to the Japanese than the pact between Germany, Japan, and Italy. </p>
<ol>
<li>"the materials given to the USSR by the West was minimal"</li>
</ol>
<p>Confused, here is a listing of the "minimal" materials GIVEN to Stalin by the United States between 1941-1945. The list below is the amount of war material shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from the beginning of it until September 30, 1945.</p>
<p>Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs</p>
<p>Minimal? Ask Stalin if he thought it was minimal.</p>
<ol>
<li> "the majority of the war was on the Eastern Front"
You are partly right---the Eastern Front saw most of the dying on both sides, German and Soviet, so in that sense you could argue that most of the war was fought there. However it was a global conflict, and the success of the Russians was dependent for the most part on the success of her allies in the west and in the pacific. The Soviet Army did most of the dying because their entire strategy was based upon quantity not quality--they had the huge resource of manpower which they literally sacrificed by the hundreds of thousands because they could--the life of a Russian soldier was not valued very high.</li>
</ol>
<h1>2 . Compare that as a percentage of what is used.</h1>
<h1>3. And yes I mean't by numbers used.</h1>
<p>No I didn't come to the same conclusion that you did: you said that most of the war effort occurred on the East Front. But you know what, a hell of a lot of fighting did NOT take place in Russia, like the REST of the WORLD! The Russians contributed to their little country trying to keep it from being invaded, while the USA/UK fought in Europe, the Atlantic, and the Pacific, against the Nazis AND the Japanese...the East Front was not the come-all end-all; the Western Front was.</p>
<p>EDIT: Shogun said it better...and yes, talking number of deaths, the Eastern Front is bigger; talking everything else, the Western Front/Pacific...</p>
<p>You are such a moron. The topic was about conflict during US involvement and major escalation of the war. The war truly became a global war upon the US's involvement so really we are talking 1941-1945. The conflict you cite so flamboyantly occurred in 1939. Zoom forward to 1941, you have peace between USSR and Japan, and resources for the Russians are diverted to stymie the German advances.</p>
<p>Like shogun said, the reason the death toll to Russia was so high was because the life of a Russian soldier was given little to no value, unlike that of (for example) an American soldier's. There were so many people available to fight that Stalin just dumped more and more into the battle. If you've ever seen Enemy at the Gates, it depicts this seemingly futile, but ultimately victorious strategy. It even (accurately) shows how new soldiers upon arriving at the front were given one gune for every two men. The theory was that when your "partner" was killed you were supposed to pick up his gun and ammo and continue the advance. Again, this tactic failed time and time again. It is, again, because of the overwhelming manpower that the Russians drove off the Nazi war machine.</p>
<p>Confused, wpwannabe already pointed out that the battle you refer to occured prior to the beginning of WW2 in Sept 1939. </p>
<p>As to your point about material supplied by the US to the Soviet Union, no one is implying that all they had was what we gave them. The key point to remember is that without the lend-lease aid in the critical years of 1941-1943 the Soviets would have been hard pressed to hold the German Army back without the help from the west. It took time to relocate factories eastward and then to get them on line.</p>
<p>Not to mention that battle in 1939 was incredibly small given the rest of WWII's proportions size-wise. Here we're talking 50,000 compared to millions later in the war...insignificant.</p>
<p>And I agree with wpwannabe: Enemy at the Gates illustrates the USSR's strategy well. While the Nazis, man for man, were arguably better equipped, trained, and disciplined, the Russians had the numerical superiority (and the ability to unceremoniously mow down trooops who chose not to fight), and they had the home front. Let's see, invasions gone awry: Revolutionary War, 1776; Battle of Britain, 1940; Invasion of Russia, 1941. See a pattern here? The defender has the inherent advantage in wartime......</p>
<p>Mmmm...semi-off topic, and I don't mean to start a side conversation/argument.</p>
<p>As a history major with emphasis on 20th century warfare, I believe you can argue that WWII really started when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931-1933. Or if you want to reach further back, that WWII is merely a continuation of WWI, and that the interim years were merely a quiet hiatus. There's really no point in time when everyone said "Ok...WWII has started."</p>
<p>But for the most part, it is agreed that the war didn't start until the fecal matter hit the aerial rotary blades in '39.</p>
<p>Ah, history. :)</p>
<p>It depends. If you define "world war" literally then we are speaking global conflict which, come to think of it, never really happened... it depends how broadly you wish to define world war. I agree, WWII could begin in the early-mid '30s depending on whether you base the start on, as you said, the invasion of Manchuria or possibly the rise of Hitler and Nazism. I was just saying that because up until Pearl Harbor and US declaration of war against Germany AND Japan, it was not (in my opinion) truly a GLOBAL war. It was primarily isolated up to that point to two fronts, the eastern asia conflicts, and the european power struggle.</p>
<p>What you said about '39 I somewhat agree with, except for the fact that almost all of 1940 consisted of a 'phony war' when pretty much nothing happened. However, tensions were high and everyone was in war mode. Really there is no clear distinction. It makes sense I suppose, since war is pretty much in NO way cut and dried. It is a very murky thing. History doesn't just bend over backwards for historians :D.</p>
<p>In that case, it was Bush's GRANDFATHER'S fault. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Today I heard a remarkable quote by a WWII Veteran:</p>
<p>"We've all heard that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. I beg to differ, America is the land of the free because there are those who are brave enough to serve and defend our freedom."</p>
<p>Why have we so quickly forgotten those planes that purposely crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, killing innocent men and women?
What about those hypocritical actors/actresses who are quick to share their opinions about oil and profits, yet fly in their private jets and own fleets of oil guzzling automobiles?</p>
<p>Let me remind those who spout off but know little about the military, other than what the media represents, that the military of today is a totally "volunteer" organization. Everyone who signs on the dotted line does so knowing that they may one day have to defend our country and the freedom that we enjoy. No one wants to see a loved one die, but we must all respect their devotion to this country and continue to support our troops.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why have we so quickly forgotten those planes that purposely crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, killing innocent men and women?
[/quote]
They deserved it. They were just a bunch of little Eichmanns, remember?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What about those hypocritical actors/actresses who are quick to share their opinions about oil and profits, yet fly in their private jets and own fleets of oil guzzling automobiles?
[/quote]
How dare you point out the hypocrisy of the elite?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one wants to see a loved one die, but we must all respect their devotion to this country and continue to support our troops.
[/quote]
They support the troops. They just think that what they are doing is evil, that they're a bunch of murderers, and.....</p>
<p>Wait a minute.... </p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Gives me a headache just trying to "think" like they do....</p>
<p>On occasion my dad and I attempt to listen to Air America. My dad started me on it, trying to teach me to 'know my enemy' (and I'm half-serious about the enemy part too). After about, oh, 2 minutes of listening to the raw sewage spewing from the mouths of those such as Randy Rhodes, my head begins to feel like exploding.</p>
<p>They really make no sense. The rhetoric is mind-boggling.</p>
<p>AH! You're right. Instant headache. :(</p>
<p>
[quote]
On occasion my dad and I attempt to listen to Air America.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now THAT is what I call SACRIFICING FOR THE CAUSE! :eek:</p>
<p>There are recovery groups you can contact, you know..... ;)</p>
<p>Thats why I alternate between Rush/Hannidy and Air America....
It keeps my head from spinning off in one direction!!! :)</p>
<p>Sorry, dude, but Rush needs no counterbalance. ;)</p>
<p>I like Hannity, but can't listen to his show. Dunno. Just not the same.</p>
<p>I used to listen to (and enjoyed) Rush a lot when I lived in Sacramento in the 90's. Since about 1995 he has taken a turn toward the absurd--still entertaining but with a mean edge to him he didn't used to have. Maybe Im just getting old.</p>
<p>I've been listening since 1991. He gets better and better every year.</p>
<p>My 2 cents. :)</p>
<p>There was this other guy a long time ago. Names escapes me. He was WAY too harsh, and I never liked him. Bob Grant, maybe? So you see, I have my limits, too. It's one of the reasons I don't dig Savage, either.</p>
<p>hannity is such a douchebag.</p>
<p>and rush is fat :-P</p>
<p>Well, that settles that, then. :rolleyes:</p>