who do you think saved the world in ww2

In his book ‘The Most Dangerous Enemy, A History of the Battle of Britain’ (a very good read) Stephen Bungay makes an interesting point.

‘Defeat for Britain in 1940 would have meant one of two things, Nazi domination of Europe or Soviet domination of Europe.

The Nazis would have still invaded the Soviet Union but under better circumstances and the result would have been a battle of annihilation with only one winner.’

 

Re: The World

Good point, but history have a way of working itself out. Even if Hitler and Stalin conquered Europe, sometimes after their regime will still collapse, this is part of natural evolution. Either they will annihilate each other in an all-out war, or they get too greedy and antagonize America.....etc

 

Nuclear bombs were right around the corner. The world was in danger of massive destruction - even more massive then what happened.

 

Yup, but our planet wouldn't have stopped spinning, and neither would all of mankind have been wiped out even by the worst-case scenario of nuclear war. Man simply inhabits regions so remote that even the heaviest blasts, aimed at the populated center areas, won't reach out and kill them all. A nuclear winter would kill more, as would the fallout, but there will always be survivors.

The only world that would have ended was the world as we know it.

 

Yep. And I've read enough science fiction to picture what such a world might be like, and the picture is not a pretty one, let me tell you.

 

Survival

I doubt that includes the Netherlands.

 

If population density is targeted by country, the Netherlands are the top of the list... Luckily we don't have any really big cities, just areas with lots of medium-sized cities. But we'd still suffer from the fallout of bombs probably dropped on Paris, London, Brussels and the Ruhr.

No area of Europe falls under the category of 'too remote to be hit'. I was talking about the Andes, Greenland, Canada, Queensland or Siberia. Etc.

 

Don't forget Alaska.

 

Don't forget Alaska.[/quote]
That's Canada to me! :lol: :lol:

 

Allied Air Suprememacy

 

Tell me Patton44, what do you base that on? Have you been reading too much Richard Overy?

 

Do you not think the deciding factor in the war is USAF & RAF. It certianly wasn't our armoured divisions yes we out # german tanks but their tanks were far superior. As far as infantry I think the allies had a edge but not a war winning difference. In my opinion not from any book or anyone elses thoughts that it was allied air forces. I'm not the smartest person in the world or a millitary historian but it's my opinion. ( I thought thats what we were doing in this forum is posting our opinions.)

 

Joseph Stalin.

 

Yes, but you will sometimes be asked to explain why you have that opinion, especially if it seems at odds with facts.

Welcome aboard & enjoy your stay

 

I think they won because they worked together, not 1 of all the countries could have won the war on its own. :smok:

 

Winning wars isn't about having a technological advantage or even a numerical advantage alone. Allied air supremacy was definitely a very great factor in winning World War II, but even at times when the weather didn't permit air intervention (such as in the Ardennes) the Allies won their battles against the Germans. This is because they had a better logistical situation, because they were better trained and often better led, better fed and supplied, and so on and so on. Not just because they had more planes in the air overhead.