This is what Quid's National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan pledged,“Everything we do in our foreign policy and national security will be measured by a basic metric: Is it going to make life better, safer, and easier for working families?”

Quid made similar statements. “There’s no longer a bright line between foreign and domestic policy. Every action we take in our conduct abroad, we must take with American working families in mind. Advancing a foreign policy for the middle class demands urgent focus on our domestic economic renewal.”

But Quid was going to take us back to the days where we did not speak of American Exceptionalism . We were no better than any other nation and had to submit to the global community above our own interests . America first was something Trump said ,,,,, not Quid .

Sullivan ,sounding a lot like Trump , wrote “The core purpose of American foreign policy must be to protect and defend the American way of life,”

News to Sullivan and Quid . Trump was elected in 2016 by the middle class because in part he lambasted the traditional foreign policy establishment for NOT keeping American interests first . Trade deals, climate deals ,immigration policy ,foreign military adventures were implicated by Trump to be related to a decline of the American middle class. Quid has promised a return to traditional foreign policy . Then when he came in ,he began implementing polices that are harmful to the middle class like the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline .He relaxed policies Trump put in place to secure the southern border .

So there appears to be a disconnect between Quid's Administration rhetoric and polices they adopt .

Sullivan ,sounding a lot like Trump , wrote “The core purpose of American foreign policy must be to protect and defend the American way of life,”If they look around, I'll bet they can find some boxes of MAGA caps in a closet in the White House. Dust em off and put em on!

Just a comment; where is this exceptionalism leading? down the same rabbit hole as the War on Terror?, the War on Drugs? the War on Poverty? what if you gave a war and no one came, that would be exceptional

America first was something Trump said

"America First" was the slogan of the American Nazis in the years leading up to WW2. They supported Hitler, and Trump was right in line with the Hitlerites as he tried to overthrow a valid presidential election by inciting an insurrection against the US government.

His goal was to establish a white supremacist regime in the US. He nearly succeeded thanks in part to a large block of white evangelicals.

The history books will show that African-Americans and other people of color were instrumental in defeating Fascist Trump thereby saving the American experiment in self-government.

The absurd Reductio ad Hitlerum line of the day that completely ignores Hitler's murderous reign .
America First Committee 1940 opposed American entry into WWII . It consisted of people across the political spectrum .Among it's members were Democrat Sergeant Shriver ,future Republcan President Gerald Ford and future SCOTUS justice Potter Stewart .JFK donated $100 to the newly formed committee . Poet Robert Frost, actress Lillian Gish and composer Charles Ives were members .Alice Roosevelt Longworth was a founding director.
America first was about not getting entangled in foreign adventures ,something George Washington warned against . But when the Japanese attacked . Both Ford and JFK got into the fight . Even Lindbergh ,one of the most vocal isolationists tried to enter the war . Roosevelt refused him .So he volunteered to train pilots.

Clete ;

In defense of American exceptionalism ; Quid's Dec State Anthony Blinken correctly stated . “Whether we like it or not, the world doesn’t organize itself " “In the absence of our doing it, either someone else does [or] no one does. And then you tend to have chaos.”

The absurd Reductio ad Hitl.............................................. ...sted of people across the............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .............the fight . Even Lindbergh ,one of the most vocal isolationists tried to enter the war . So he volunteered to train pilots.

None of the above changes my points re Trump.

PS. Lindbergh was refused entry into US Armed Forces by Roosevelt when WW2 broke out. He did mange to find flying with aircraft companies as a civilian. He also had a rather bizarre private life with more than one family at the same time - one in Germany and one in the states.

Clete ;

In defense of American exceptionalism ; Quid's Dec State Anthony Blinken correctly stated . “Whether we like it or not, the world doesn’t organize itself " “In the absence of our doing it, either someone else does [or] no one does. And then you tend to have chaos.”

That is the most absurd defence of the american ego I have heard. Look I get it you are supermen fighting for truth, justice and the american way, still listening to the propaganda. The problem is you arn't. The world's got along without america for thousands of years and many societies prospered. Your society has existed for 250 years and you think you have the right to order the world. Go stick it where the sun doesn't shine

Your society has existed for 250 years and you think you have the right to order the world. Go stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Anyone from a little country with virtually no global influence should exhibit some humility.

None of the above changes my points re Trump. except the fact that none of it is true . Trump did not try to create a " white supremacist regime in the US"....

Trump's popularity with minorities increased throughout his term because the pro-growrth economy he grew helped all before the pandemic hit .

Trump did not try to create a " white supremacist regime in the US"....

I believe he did. I base it on what he said publicly over the years beginning with "Mexican rapists" and finishing with denying the election - which he continues to do to this day. Whether it's true or not doesn't matter anymore. The madman is gone forever. His fame will endure as the first president to be locked up.


Trump's popularity with minorities increased throughout his term because the pro-growrth economy he grew helped all before the pandemic hit .

Do you really believe Trump "grew" the economy? Giving most of $2,000,000,000 to corporations and the rich in his infamous "tax cut"? Imposing tariffs he didn't have an inkling what they are? Hitching on the tail end of a recovery started by Obama and the Dems after the Republicans threw the economy under the bus?

That's one of the great falsehoods of the Trump years. His gaslighting made it believable for his followers.

Anyone from a little country with virtually no global influence should exhibit some humility.

We do not bow to supposed American superiority

We do not bow to supposed American superiority

As you should not.

Not all Americans think of ourselves as the world's bully. We think of ourselves as a most fortunate country isolated by two oceans to work out our destiny. It's a work-in-progress and we long to be the nation described in Emma Lazarus' famous poem on the Statue of Liberty.

We have much to apologize for and we are learning to do that.

I like the isolated part of your response, the idea of your superiority could only have developed in isolation

I like the isolated part of your response, the idea of your superiority could only have developed in isolation

No argument there, but that's only part of it.

Yes well I suppose after you had conquered Mexico, the indigenous population, the Spanish Empire, The Japanese Empire single handed and the Nazi you became the master race. You have opposed every other philosophy but your own ever since and yet, tell me, have you actually won any wars since then?

Grenada; Yes
Panama; Yes
Korea; stalemate
Vietnam; No
Iraq; the jury is still out on that one
Afghanistan; No
Drugs; NO

Good grief. Is there anyone on this site more arrogantly smug about his country than you are? We could ask the same sort of things about your country. What has Australia done to help the world other than send a handful of troops or a handful of foreign aid from time to time?

We sure have a boatload of problems and sins from the past, but there is one thing for sure. If not for us, there would be no free Israel. There would be no free Kuwait. There would be no free Europe, and there would be no free Australia.

Do you really believe Trump "grew" the economy?
of course . He lowered taxes and investments grew substantially . That grew jobs to record levels . All benefited including minorities . Quid and Yellen want to reverse that and that will be a disaster . Also Yellen's plan for a global tax rate will fail miserably because lower tax rates elsewhere will attract business . Idiots want to raise taxes during a pandemic . The EU will go with it because their taxes are already high ;and their national businesses react as they rationally should ..... moving out .

and here is more proof that Quid is an American Firster (at least rhetorically) .....only he sucks at it .

Biden willing to negotiate on corporate taxes, but 'sick and tired' of non-payers | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tax-biden-idINKBN2BU2SO)


"The president argued that the United States’ position as a pre-eminent global power was under threat from China if the investments he outlined were not made, saying it would be unacceptable not to move forward.
“America is no longer the leader in the world because we’re not investing,” Biden said. “I don’t know why we don’t get this.”
China, he said, is “counting on American democracy to be too slow, too limited and too divided to keep pace” and “we can’t afford to prove them right.”

Nothing wrong with cleaning up your own house, before you beech about the other guys house! Lead by example?

yup America first

The liberal dems will spend us into oblivion. These new taxes will only pay for half of a new infrastructure plan which spends a lot of money on things other than infrastructure. The bill is going to come due at some point in the future and then we will regret our stupidity.

stop deflecting and admit you are not the superior being you claim to be

We are not the superior being many of us claim to be. Neither are you the superior being you claim Aussie land to be.

Does that suit you?

However, this is still quite true. " If not for us, there would be no free Israel. There would be no free Kuwait. There would be no free Europe, and there would be no free Australia."

yup America first

Yup, and if done right many can benefit. Most will follow good example!!

We are not the superior being many of us claim to be. Neither are you the superior being you claim Aussie land to be.

Does that suit you?

However, this is still quite true. " If not for us, there would be no free Israel. There would be no free Kuwait. There would be no free Europe, and there would be no free Australia."

we bow before your beneficence, tell me if you can, when did you tear down the Berlin wall or free Poland or the Balkans. Your mighty war machine was hard pressed to roll back the Germans beyond Normandy or climb the Italian peninsular while the Russians were rolling over eastern Europe and you were happy for them to take and enslave that. You should read the history of the second world war some time, it may surprise you

I have read it extensively for decades. Australia is mentioned only infrequently. And your remarks about the taking of Normandy and Italy, at a cost of tens of thousands of American lives, is so stupid that it is amazing even for you.

It would help if you were not so jealous of our country. It is clear in many of your comments.

We are not the superior being many of us claim to be. Neither are you the superior being you claim Aussie land to be.

I never claimed to be superior, but in some respects this land is superior at least in its ethos


Does that suit you?

no you are still deflecting, we weren't discussing Australia but America


However, this is still quite true. " If not for us, there would be no free Israel. There would be no free Kuwait. There would be no free Europe, and there would be no free Australia."

you have a peculiar sense of history, you don't do what you do to free anyone but for your own sectarian interests, America is afterall the second Israel and Saddam was a monster of your own making. You held off intervening in Europe until Japan forced you into the war and you would have had no interest in Australia if it had not been for that

And we still have but little interest in Australia. And if everyone there is like you, then I would suggest we have no interest at all.

I have read it extensively for decades. Australia is mentioned only infrequently. And your remarks about the taking of Normandy and Italy, at a cost of tens of thousands of American lives, is so stupid that it is amazing even for you.

It would help if you were not so jealous of our country. It is clear in many of your comments.

Jl, I am not jealous of your country, if not for the Murdoch press we would know as little about what goes on over there as you know about us. Yes Australia is forgotten in those rarified circles you travel in, excepting when you decide to go to war, but we fought in both world wars with distinction long before you got off your collective arses so don't think jealous, think distain. I don't like your attitude

The feeling is mutual.

I follow Aussie news . That is why i know that you have a new kick a$$ Defense Minister in Peter Dutton who understands how important it is to align with the US against the Chi-coms

Dutton is an opportunist, so yes we can expect more of the same. I'm not sure an aggressive stance is in our best interests but we certainly need to do some push back as China has singled us out on trade.

You guys have some important decisions to make regarding Taiwan and the Philippines as both are in China's sights, Biden has been a little silent

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-09/china-taiwan-aggression-fallout-for-united-states-australia/100056942

Quid will do nothing . That is why China even thinks they can make the moves they are making . Add India where "Maoists " attacked . China had nothing to do with that either .
India Naxal attack: At least 22 security personnel in Chhattisgarh killed in clash with Maoist insurgents - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/05/india/india-clash-maoist-insurgents-intl-hnk/index.html)

China needs push back from the Quad in a hurry . (United States, Japan, Australia and India )

Quid will do nothing . That is why China even thinks they can make the moves they are making . Add India where "Maoists " attacked . China had nothing to do with that either .
India Naxal attack: At least 22 security personnel in Chhattisgarh killed in clash with Maoist insurgents - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/05/india/india-clash-maoist-insurgents-intl-hnk/index.html)

China needs push back from the Quad in a hurry . (United States, Japan, Australia and India )

Is Quid invested in the Quad? perhaps from an opportunist point of view, only the US and Japan have interests invested in Taiwan, and only if China attacks the US should we get involved, Dutton might have a different view. I can't see the US fighting Maoists in India, besides India is big enough to look after itself.

You can't use the Quad as your policeman in Asia, you need to do your own heavy lifting

the common link is China aggression .

btw ; if you need an example of how Quid will confront being challenged on the International state all you need to see is his decision to NOT enforce sanctions against Iran

US 'Monitoring' as Iran Sends Fuel Tankers to Venezuela in Defiance of Sanctions | Voice of America - English (voanews.com) (https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-monitoring-iran-sends-fuel-tankers-venezuela-defiance-sanctions)

All you need to see is how on US soil ;Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Quid's National security Advisor Jake Sullivan got spanked by the Chinese

Your mighty war machine was hard pressed to roll back the Germans beyond Normandy or climb the Italian peninsular while the Russians were rolling over eastern Europe and you were happy for them to take and enslave that. You should read the history of the second world war some time, it may surprise you

This is correct.

The problem with most Americans is that they get their view of WW2 in Europe through the propaganda films of Hollywood. It was necessary at the time to unite the nation in wartime, but it was never corrected post-war. There were simply far too many casualties from fighting overseas to even attempt a correction. This is not to say America didn't pay an enormous price in blood and treasure as did many nations engaged in that conflict. The defeat of Japan was primarily an American show leading the Allied forces in that theater.

Europe, however, was a different story. The Russians were responsible for defeating 75-85% of the German war machine on the Eastern Front. Normandy has incorrectly been called the greatest invasion in history. The truth is it was dwarfed by the German invasion of Russia in 1941 - nearly 4,000,000 men (Germans) over a thousand mile front.

American intervention in WW1, however, was decisive - late, but decisive.

No America in WW2 would have equaled German victory. German industry would not have been destroyed by the American bombing campaign. The American air and naval contributions are what you folks keep forgetting. It made an enormous difference. The German air power in the East would have been a difference maker.

No America in WW2 would have equaled German victory. German industry would not have been destroyed by the American bombing campaign. The American air and naval contributions are what you folks keep forgetting. It made an enormous difference. The German air power in the East would have been a difference maker.

Funny sense of History, you have drunk the Koolaid

No America in WW2 would have meant a Soviet takeover of Europe. Germany was never going to win, it lacked the natural resources, Hitler also lacked that sense of history, failure to conquer the Soviets in six months, meant absolute failure. America wasn't on the horizon at that time, still partying on. The fact is that the allies won WWII, but America alone would have had a difficult task. The British empire, despite its vast resources, couldn't do it alone. As to air power it was the British that smashed the Luftwaffe and denied Hitler air power in the east

The fact is that the allies won WWII, but America alone would have had a difficult task. The British empire, despite its vast resources, couldn't do it alone. That's a fair statement.


As to air power it was the British that smashed the Luftwaffe and denied Hitler air power in the eastThat's an incorrect statement. The Brits had to bomb at night because they could not protect their bombers in the daytime. It was American daylight bombing that eventually crushed the Luftwaffe and destroyed Germany's industry. The destruction of that industry directly contributed to Germany's defeat.

of course the Russians would have been overwhelmed early in the war if not for American aid .The Lend Lease Act funneled $11.3 billion in US arms to the Russians ($180 billion in today's dollars ) In the 1st 18 months of the Russian campaign (after Hitler betrayed an alliance with Stalin......let's not make the Russians heroes here . ) ;the Red Army suffered massive defeats and tremendous losses . The reason that they were able to turn the tide was US aid and the leadership of the most brilliant ,and unknown to the West ,Generals in the war..... Georgy Zhukov .

First he gave the Japanese an a$$ whooping at Khalkhin Gol .It was a decisive annihilation that completely changed the course of the war. After the battle ,the Japanese abandoned the idea of taking Siberia and concentrated in the Pacific. That inevitably led to a clash between Japan and the US .It also guaranteed that Russia would not have to fight a 2 front war.
Then Zhukov was recalled to Moscow . He successfully defended the city .He then went to Stalingrad .He defended the city and then inflicted a massive defeat on the Germans ..

America made Ike a national hero and President . But Stalin obsessed with jealousy and paranoia humiliated and demoted Zhukov. He could not execute Zhukov because Zhukov was so popular . But he guaranteed that Zhukov would not ever be a threat to him .
Eventually he was rehabilitated after Stalin's death.

Anyway Yes the Russians paid a heavy price for their ill conceived alliance with Hitler .And they did the bulk of the fighting against Germany . But the US and Germany were both in 2 front wars while Russia only had to concern themselves with Germany . The Russians received massive US aid .
The decision to let the Russians do the bulk of the heavy lift after D Day was just a poor decision by Roosevelt . What it did was give us a generation of cold war with Russia enslaving half of Europe. . After the Battle of the Bulge ;we should have rushed as fast as we could to Berlin instead of crossing the Rhine and ending offensive actions .

The winning of the Battle of the Atlantic was also a decisive, largely American victory. If German submarines had prevailed, Britain would have been strangled and the Russians weakened by a lack of foreign resources. Whoever was responsible for the development of the T-34 tank in Russia should have received the most valuable player award. It was an enormous difference maker, both in combat effectiveness and in numbers produced.

If the battle of the atlantic was so decisive how come the americans don't make movies about it. What stuffed the nazi submarines was the British breaking of the enigma code

If the battle of the atlantic was so decisive how come the americans don't make movies about it.There have been many movies made about it. The most recent is Tom Hanks in Greyhound. U-571, Das Boot and The Enemy Below also come to mind, but I was not aware that the historical significance of an event is determined in Australia by how many movies are made. Interesting.


What stuffed the nazi submarines was the British breaking of the enigma code.That was certainly significant, as was the capture of an actual Enigma code machine off of U-571 by the Americans. The Poles actually made the first real progress towards breaking Enigma in 41. So it was a team effort, but only the arrival of American air and naval assets, including airborne radar, in the Atlantic allowed the allies to easily find German subs on the surface, usually at night, and destroy them. This accelerated enormously beginning in May of 43 with the result that the Germans had to greatly pull back on their submarine efforts.

I'd say it was the heroic merchant sailors who moved their ships across the Atlantic despite the heavy losses that won the battle . The Brit break of Enigma was critical as well as the Americans organizing the ships into convoys guarded by the Allied navies .There was also the factor of American long range escort planes that gave cover to the convoys .

You are an idiot

There was also the factor of American long range escort planes that gave cover to the convoys .Very true, and the rapid development and deployment of escort carriers by the dozens helped a great deal as well.

You are an idiot MOI ?

No Jl

Mr. Cheerful is back online. Clete's sharp intellect is on full display. He still can't get over the fact that the Aussies didn't win the war single handed. Or at least there are no movies being made to that effect, and he thinks that is how history is recorded.

Mr. Cheerful is back online. Clete's sharp intellect is on full display. He still can't get over the fact that the Aussies didn't win the war single handed. Or at least there are no movies being made to that effect, and he thinks that is how history is recorded.

Jl, we played a momentous part in WWII, as a small nation we punched above our weight, particularly in the Battle of Britain, the western desert and in Singapore and New Guinea. History is recorded by the victors and sugar coated, therefore the americans won the war while the rest of the allies watched, or at least, this is what you obviously think. Give credit where credit is due, you sacrificed a vast number of men and aircraft to bring victory

I’m not sure what you’re upset about. I think your paragraph is pretty accurate. I have great respect for your country. I do get tired of the nonstop vitriol directed at mine by you. Perhaps we can call a truce. A little mutual respect?

Or is it easier to just toss invectives like "idiot" around and thus not have to think any?

Only when America entered the war was it decided.

Germany's Failure in North Africa was the beginning of the End.

The comments made about the enormous contributions of the Russians are valid. I don't dispute any of that, and it's possible that even without our contributions, the Russians might have still prevailed. But it's far from certain, and the world surely would have ended up with a far less happy post-war era where the Soviets would have dominated all of Europe including, eventually, the U.K.

it's possible that even without our contributions, the Russians might have still prevailed. But it's far from certain,

By mid-1943, it was as certain as anything can be in wartime. The Western Allies were already discussing what the post-war world would look like, and they were purposefully delaying the invasion of Europe to let the Russians bear the brunt of defeating Germany. Stalin suspected this but was mollified by the promise of an air campaign over Germany to smash their war industries. Japan was certain to be defeated the day after Pearl Harbor.

There was much fighting left to do, but the outcome was never seriously in doubt.

I just don't think that's true. If the Germans had been able to run their industry without damage, continue to dominate the Atlantic, and not have to defend the west, then it could have a different story. I guess, thankfully, we'll never know for sure.

At mid 1943, the U.S. had been in the war for a year and a half.

Most German commanders probably knew it yet in 1943 (and all of them in the Summer of 1944).

While civilians - probably when they saw first Soviet troops. Before that they believed in propaganda (secret weapons).

When my uncle was 14 he went to Germany, for a visit in 1936
Joined the Hitler youth. Has some interesting stories.
Came back to America after the War. Movie was mentioned but his wife was against it.
He was a bit upset when the Americans took his medals.

My peeps served in the 2nd WW, but didn't get the hero welcome when they came back to reality...I mean America.

Isaac Woodard - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Woodard#:~:text=Isaac%20Woodard%20Jr.%20%28M arch%2018%2C%201919%20%E2%80%93%20September,police %20as%20he%20was%20taking%20a%20bus%20home.)

I just don't think that's true.

The actual history of the war is the reality - not what you think.


If the Germans had been able to run their industry without damage, continue to dominate the Atlantic, and not have to defend the west, then it could have a different story.

What-ifs serve no purpose. If Russia had been allied with Germany, if the US had not entered the war, etc., etc., "it could have been a different story". You can create any kind of scenario to imagine a different outcome. What's the point? It has no bearing on the reality.


I guess, thankfully, we'll never know for sure.

Ridiculous statement. Fantasizing about a war that never was, and then questioning the outcome of the fantasy as if it had any real-world meaning is absurd.


At mid 1943, the U.S. had been in the war for a year and a half.

At mid-1943, the US had not set a foot on European soil yet. What's the point?


My peeps served in the 2nd WW, but didn't get the hero welcome when they came back to reality...I mean America.

I had a first cousin who was sunk off Indonesia in the submarine USS Barbel. That boat is carried on the lists as "On Eternal Patrol". He died before I was born.

You can create any kind of scenario to imagine a different outcome. What's the point? It has no bearing on the reality.That's the genesis of this whole discussion. What if the U.S. had not entered the war.


At mid-1943, the US had not set a foot on European soil yet. What's the point?We were fighting in Sicily and preparing to invade Italy. We were fighting in the Atlantic and had, at that point, defeated the German submarine menace. We were fighting in the air over Germany. We were shipping convoy after convoy of war goods to the Soviets. That's the point. If the outcome was indeed determined in mid-43, then we had played a major role in that.

Or is it easier to just toss invectives like "idiot" around and thus not have to think any?

You call a truce and then come forth with something like this, you are inconsistent, either there is a truce or there is not

Cease fire Boyz

If the outcome was indeed determined in mid-43, then we had played a major role in that.

The major role was played by Russia. By far. That's not what I "think", it's what actually happened.

A truce you did not reply to. But it’s no big deal. Mutual respect is now the watchword. I’m all in.

Other than playing no role at all in the Atlantic, the skies over Germany, Africa, Sicily, and the entire Pacific theater of operations, then yeah they played the major role. And as you say, it’s not what I think but how it was.

Other than playing no role at all in the Atlantic, the skies over Germany, Africa, Sicily, and the entire Pacific theater of operations, then yeah they played the major role.

If this is sarcasm challenging Russia's role in the war, then you know very little about WW2. You claim you know, but your words show you really don't.


And as you say, it’s not what I think but how it was.

You got THAT right!

I’m glad you agree! My description was how it was.

Russia did indeed play a major role in WW2 and I don't challenge that at all. To say they played THE major role is what I question. They had the enormous advantage of only having to fight on one front while the U.S. and, to a lessor extent, the U.K. had to fight globally. But the Soviets certainly ground down the Germans in the east. There is no question but that is true.

A truce you did not reply to. But it’s no big deal. Mutual respect is now the watchword. I’m all in.

.

What, do you think I hang on your every word? So defensive. Such an offer shouldn't need an instant reply, mere moving on should be enough if you were genuine

The major role was played by Russia.

Funny how the War was decided once America entered.
Most History buffs, understand the North African campaign (German loss) spelled the end of any German Victory.
God was the Major player.

Dunkirk, severe Russian winter, storm in the Atlantic surfaced 90 subs, starting an invasion during a storm...catching the Germans off guard.

Russia would have ended the European campaign eventually but the allies ensured a quicker victory and the freedom of Europe. America won the Pacific war.

Stalingrad was the real precursor of German failure, it bled the Germans and put paid to their invincibility

Russia did indeed play a major role in WW2...... To say they played THE major role is what I question.

The greater part of combat in WWII took place on the Eastern Front. 600 German divisions were destroyed. The Germans suffered eight to nine million casualties which were 75% of their total wartime losses. In comparison, the contribution of Stalin’s western allies to the defeat of Germany was of far lesser importance. German vulnerability was exposed terribly during the Red Army's 1941–1942 Moscow counter-offensive  -  and it’s unlikely Germany would have won the war even if it had captured Moscow. And that was when Lend-Lease was just beginning. Even after the Anglo-American invasion of France in June 1944 there were still three times as many enemy soldiers serving on the Eastern Front as in the West.

Britain and the United States did supply a huge quantity of material aid to the USSR that greatly facilitated the Soviet victory over Germany. The Soviets would have won regardless, as the Eastern Front for the Germans was unwinnable after the Battle of Stalingrad, before most of the aid to the USSR arrived. But Lend-Lease also certainly helped shorten the war and saved lives.

“If the Western Allies had not provided equipment and invaded northwest Europe, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht,” American military historian David Glantz noted. “The result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers would have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches rather than meeting the Allies at the Elbe.”

A few points. Your figure of 600 divisions destroyed is an exaggeration since the Germans never had more than 300 divisions at any one time, and never more than 200 in the east. The Russian winter stopped the Germans in 41/42 more than the Russians did. The Luftwaffe was destroyed as much in the air war over Germany as it was at the Eastern front. But your assertion that the Soviets would have eventually won is possible. If Germany had been able to maintain open trade and access to foreign sources of military and industrial supplies, all of which was denied them in the Atlantic, and if German industry had been able to operate unhindered by the devastating Allied bombing campaign, then those conditions would have made a difference. So you can't limit your thinking to just the ground war, and that is my primary point. Still, your point is well taken. I just don't cling to it as tenaciously as you do.

https://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

Was this your source? You seemed to quote it verbatim in several places.

https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/stalins-victory-the-soviet-union-and-world-war-ii/

Blitzkrieg was war on the cheap . It worked but could not be maintained without resources . That is why the Germans were wasting manpower in Africa . They wanted to eventually capture ME oil.

Same was true in Russia . Hitler had to spit his forces in 3 . One group to secure the Baltics . One group was sent to capture the flag in Moscow Eventually he had to sent many forces to Stalingrad with the ultimate goal of capturing the oil fields at Baku .

Oli was Hitler's real downfall.

The USSR undoubtedly made the biggest human sacrifice.

According to many of the top Nazi and German military leaders: Speer, Goering, Keitel, Jodl, Doenitz, Allied airpower was the decisive factor in the Germans losing the war.

YouGov recently conducted a poll in seven European nations, including France, Britain and Germany, as well as the United States, and asked respondents whether the US, the United Kingdom or the Sovient Union (USSR) contributed most to the defeat of Germany in WWII. The survey finds that no more than 27% in any of the countries believed the USSR contributed most, and in six out of the eight countries surveyed the US was the most popular response.


sent many forces to Stalingrad with the ultimate goal of capturing the oil fields at Baku .

True, but I think his main purpose was for Propaganda, Stalingrad bore Stalin's name.

YouGov recently conducted a poll in seven European nations, including France, Britain and Germany, as well as the United States, and asked respondents whether the US, the United Kingdom or the Sovient Union (USSR) contributed most to the defeat of Germany in WWII. The survey finds that no more than 27% in any of the countries believed the USSR contributed most, and in six out of the eight countries surveyed the US was the most popular response.

Thank you for the correction on the number of German divisions - it was a typo.

Asking "respondents" in a poll which country was most responsible for winning the war is just short of wacky. As already noted, Americans think the US was the main winner in the war. This is due to the fact that their information comes primarily from Hollywood movies. Cultural biases in each nation are responsible for their respective opinions.

Getting a random sampling of 1500 adults on this question is a waste of time. Asking an objective sampling of military historians will definitely show that Russia was easily the chief winner in WWII. Why people ignore facts and prefer their own opinions is par for the course.

This conversation has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. I'm sorry I started it.


Oli was Hitler's real downfall.

If you want to be that basic about Hitler's downfall, it was starting the war in the first place, then micro-managing it after Stalingrad.

Asking an objective sampling of military historians will definitely show that Russia was easily the chief winner in WWII.

Ridiculous. Not true.


Asking "respondents" in a poll which country was most responsible for winning the war is just short of wacky
Where does that put you?


It is still much debated.
Yes, the War in Russia- Russia was the clear winner (Even though Finland came out ahead). Having to do with the WORLD WAR, America was the Chief player.

The losers (German Generals) Know that it was allied air that brought them to their knees.
Just as it is today; Air Superiority is a sure winner.

Only when Germany was forced out of Africa was it understood (Historians) that they lost the War.
Stalingrad had more to do with Morale.

If you want to be that basic about Hitler's downfall, it was starting the war in the first place, then micro-managing it after Stalingrad.With that I would agree. The micro-managing started even before Stalingrad. It become so overdone that even relatively small German units could not retreat without Hitler's direct approval.

Hitler's downfall, it was starting the war in the first place

I might agree with that as well. Many People Believe, Starting a War with "Russia" was his greatest Blunder.

If I remember Correctly, Russia Declined an Offensive War and chose to be Friends, then ended up fighting for their very survival...In a War of defense.

There is no prestige to call on in a defensive war.

Germany Surrendered to America First (nee nurr nee nurr nee nurr). Stalin refused to accept the surrender agreement, and forced the Germans to sign another one the follow day.

Remembering, Russia Declared War on Japan in 1945...Total lack of Participation.

I'm sticking to my premise that 6 weeks of Blitzkrieg left German oil supplies severely depleted . His gamble of breaking the Molotov Treaty was specifically to drive south to Azerbaijan and to seize Baku and the Caucasus (which were also the goal of Rommel's push through North Africa ) . . Just invading Poland consumed 64% of German reserve . They prolonged the war somewhat by being inventive with synthetic oil from coal . The Allied bombing campaign destroyed that capability .

With that I would agree. The micro-managing started even before Stalingrad. It become so overdone that even relatively small German units could not retreat without Hitler's direct approval.

Was any German unit given permission to retreat?

It was Much Worse for the Russians. 
Stalin, ordered ( "Not a step back!") that any soldier attempting to withdraw from battle or retreat without authorization would be declared a “traitor to the Soviet Union” and shot. A rule, which decreed that cowards were to be “liquidated on the spot.” Any troops who retreated were to be shelled or gunned down by so-called “blocking detachments”—special units who were positioned behind their own lines and charged with shooting any soldier who tried to flee.

The Total amount of Exactions, amounted to the strength of approximately 15 divisions.

so war is hell, even more so when waged by totalitarian regimes

I'm sticking to my premise

Your premise is wrong. Long before the synthetic oil program was declining, the issue had been settled. The fighting continued, but the outcome was not in doubt.

The Soviets would have won regardless, as the Eastern Front for the Germans was unwinnable after the Battle of Stalingrad.

Stick to the traditional narrative of Stalingrad being a catastrophic defeat. I can understand this, and I want to make clear that Stalingrad was a notable Soviet victory. But I believe its significance is overstated. It is considered such a monumental battle both then and now because it represented the first time such a large German formation suffered complete destruction. It had a tremendous “shock effect”. To be fair, the Germans had already inflicted Stalingrad level losses on the Soviets multiple times since Operation Barbarossa.

We tend to be blinded by hindsight bias. Because the Soviet Union ultimately won, we feel the capture of 450,000 Soviet troops at Kiev in 1941 was inconsequential, whereas the capture of 90,000 Germans at Stalingrad was somehow a decisive war winning event.

Stalingrad was a turning point, Hitler's grab for eastern oil was over and he was being crushed all along the eastern front, Russian firepower was overwhelming, a true blitzkrieg. It wasn't the capture of the German troops it was the number who had been sacrificed, perhaps due to Goering's boast he could supply them. Let's face it, the German's were never a winter army, quick successes by a few mechanised divisions in the spring and summer were their forte. let us just say as has been observed before; Hilter, like Napoleon before him, found that Russian winters were very cold. what really defeated the Germans was their splitting of their forces and micromanagement by Hitler. If they had concentrated on Moscow and preventing the Russians from migrating their industries the war in the East would have been over

Stalingrad was a turning point

Can't Deny that...not to mention a few other Turning points.

Prior to the American entry, each side was doing a fairly good job of neutralizing the other. It was the American entry into the war that ended up proving to be decisive and would end up defining victory for the Allies.

The Germans could have withdrawn the Sixth Army from the Stalingrad pocket if Hiter had not been so obstinate. He turned a bad situation into a genuine disaster.

Prior to the American entry, each side was doing a fairly good job of neutralizing the other. It was the American entry into the war that ended up proving to be decisive and would end up defining victory for the Allies.

Completely and utterly wrong! What source are you getting this from?

By America's entry into the war in December 1941, the Russians had stopped the Germans in front of Moscow. The Americans did not enter the European ground war until June 1944 (except for the Italian campaign which dragged on until May 1945 after Hitler's suicide). By then (June '44), the Russians had the Germans reeling, falling back into Germany with the Russian massive and decisive counter-offensive timed to coincide with the Allies D-Day.

America was never decisive in WWII in Europe. A combatant, yes - decisive, no.

America was never decisive in WWII in EuropeYou can say that only if you ignore the Atlantic, supply convoys to Russia, the skies over Germany, Africa, and the necessity for Germany to defend the west and south of Europe against eventual Allied invasions.

American entry into the war that ended up proving to be decisive and would end up defining victory for the Allies.



World War II, also called Second World War, conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45.

All that stood betweet the British/Americans and Berlin was Eisenhower. He signed a treaty with Stalin in which he said that his troops wouldn't cross the line of the river Elbe.

BTW Monty had the fastest way to Berlin.

World War II, also called Second World War, conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45.

All that stood betweet the British/Americans and Berlin was Eisenhower. He signed a treaty with Stalin in which he said that his troops wouldn't cross the line of the river Elbe.

BTW Monty had the fastest way to Berlin.


None of that means the Americans were decisive.

You can say that only if you ignore the Atlantic, supply convoys to Russia, the skies over Germany, Africa, and the necessity for Germany to defend the west and south of Europe against eventual Allied invasions.

I'm not ignoring any of that. Where did I ignore that?

Those were certainly important aspects of the war, but they were not decisive. I repeat, Russia accounted for 75-80% destruction of the German war machine. What could be more decisive than that?

Did they have help from the US giving assistance in war material? Sure, but nowhere near what some Americans claim. Nowhere near the Russians own production of aircraft, tanks, and artillery. The Russians clearly appreciated the transport vehicles, especially the jeep.

Eastern Front for the Germans was unwinnable after the Battle of Stalingrad
Probably true.


Russia did indeed play a major role in WW2...... To say they played THE major role is what I question.

What War did Russia play in?
Declared War on Finland (lost big), Poland, Germany,  and Nothing for Japan until 1945.

Eastern Front (only)

World War II, also called Second World War, conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45.
America and her True Allies was Fighting a WORLD WAR

Most Countries believe America was the Deciding factor...I'll go with that.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/01/Britain-America-disagree-who-did-more-beat-nazis

The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort.

There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'.

I'm not ignoring any of that. Where did I ignore that?When you made this absurd statement. "America was never decisive in WWII in Europe. A combatant, yes - decisive, no."

Most Countries believe America was the Deciding factor...I'll go with that.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/01/Britain-America-disagree-who-did-more-beat-nazis

Thank you for providing your source. YouGov is a UK outfit that polls random internet users on various questions. Polling internet users for critical information on who was decisive for WW2 is WORTHLESS. This is precisely the group that gets its information from fiction and Hollywood movies.

This conversation is over.

This conversation is over.Good job, Walter!!

Thank you for providing your source.

That was only one such source, would you like me to post some moe?

I was going to post a Poll they took, finding that every nation votes for their country as having to do more than their share in ending the War. Why do you think that more countries think America was the major factor when they would normally vote for themselves? Even Germany voted that they were the major contributors in ending the War.

Your Historians are up in the air about the whole thing???


If D-Day had been the key offensive battle of the war in Europe, the Battle of the Bulge was the key defensive battle, and a vital part of the Allied victory. Here we Have two significant Battles.

What was it that Gotcha- Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'?
The Fact that Stalin was crying for Peace when Germany Came within Range of Moscow?
Russia was just trying to save their own arse...Crying along the way. Save us America, please start another front, please support us, we lovve our Mother Russia, help us save her.

Your Argument was lost over 70 years ago. America Won the War long before you was a glimmer in your Daddies Eye.

This conversation is over.

America wins, Again!

On behalf Of America: Your welcome, for not having to Speak a second language Badly. 

The American exceptionalism in WW2 weren't the battles won or lost, but the rebuilding of Europe.

America wins, Again!

Savour your past glories, we have not seen their like since


On behalf Of America: Your welcome, for not having to Speak a second language Badly.

considering how well you speak your first language I think we will pass on that









The American exceptionalism in WW2 weren't the battles won or lost, but the rebuilding of Europe.

Yes Tal they contributed to the present dichotomy, but that was part of the cold war

Who said the cold war was over? Prove it!

You have heard of détente, I know it is an old fashioned idea in these days of confrontational politics, but we don't have the hot spots that typified the cold war. What we have now is a great deal of sabre rattling