Ground Zero Imam Says USA worse than Al-qaeda & caused 9-11

[Final-Fan]

DrStephenTColbert said:
At the conclusion of the second world war, the Russians had planned on continuing the push east.  They had a tremendous strategic advantage over the Allied forces.  While the dropping of the atomic bomb had the effect of forcing Japan's hand and bringing the war to a close, it also showed Stalin that the Americans weren't at a strategic disadvantage.

As for the western front, the eastern front was four times the size of the western front.  It was larger than the rest of the phases of the war put together.  While it's possible (not likely) that without the western front, the Germans may have been able to overrun Russia, it's almost a certainty that without the Eastern front, the Allies would never have been able to gain a toehold in Europe.  Hitler could have pushed for peace with the Americans, and Europe would be speaking a whole lot more German than it is today.  

I'm not trying to minimize the heroic contribution of America to WWII.  There's no question that without the Americans, the Japanese probably still occupy most of Southeast Asia.  There's also no question that the American military machine was the most efficient in the world due to the degree of industrialisation within the US.  But to think that the US played a larger role in defeating the Germans than Russia is a poor account of history at best.  Even saying that we jumped in and saved England is a stretch.  They defeated the German's without American help in the Battle of Britain.  The Germans abandoned their plans for an amphibious assault at that time.

I highly suggest reading up on Operation Barbarossa.  It will give you some insight as to why the Germans invaded when they souldn't have, and what lengths the Russians were prepared to go to in order to defeat the Germans.  Make no mistake, the Russians could have pushed further west at the end of the war.  They had superior numbers and shorter supply lines.  The atomic bomb was a key deterrent in that respect.

Well, yes, if the Nazis had remained pals with the USSR, they would probably not have been defeatable.  But I think we both know that was never going to happen.  It was a question of who betrayed whom first. 

All Russia had was oil and men.  All Stalin seemed to know how to do was constantly send waves of men at the Germans, and his generals couldn't take a piss without permission (or risking execution).  Notwithstanding the bravery of the Soviet troops, or their massive numbers, I'm not sure you're appreciating the sheer amount of materiel that the USSR was in poor shape to provide and which was provided to them by the rest of the Allies.  Meanwhile, the huge numbers of troops Germany sent to France in 1944 COULD have been going east, but they didn't.  Are you really going to tell me it's a coincidence that this just happens to be when the USSR finally got the upper hand there?  I had a book about this I was going to doublecheck, but I think I loaned it to someone. 

If you simply  look at how much the US fought the Germans vs. how much the USSR fought the Germans, obviously the USSR was the one taking it on the nose.  But one thing contributing to that appearance is that, and I'll quote or paraphrase a book here, "the Russian way of putting out a fire in both world wars was to pile bodies on it till it smothered".  Another point is that, as I said, a lot of the work on the eastern front was actually done by the USA, by way of supplies. 

As for the other thing:  if Patton thought we could take them on, I'd be surprised if they had such a huge advantage as you seem to be claiming.  (I doubt he had nukes in mind when he talked about it.)  Other than that I am not so knowledgeable about the immediate postwar situation that I feel confident hypothesizing the outcome of such a war.  Except to say that guess who wouldn't be getting any more American trucks to use. 

[edit:  lol, yes they were brave, but I didn't have to say it twice.]