Because I was talking about 2 different things. What I meant by the UK losing the great wars was that it destroyed their Hegemony. They lost a lot more then they gained afterwards. 

Vietnam won the real war, just like the UK did, but it was more of Pyrrhic victory. And more importantly, the USA gained NOTHING of losing the war in Vietnam(obviously). They only lost something. If they won in Vietnam then communism would have still collapsed(obviously).  It really makes no difference at all. 

But seeing people talking about how great it is that the UK won the great wars makes me think there's something wrong with their judgement. Without the great wars the British/European Hegemony would have lasted longer. The USA would have taken over eventually, but not as fast. Just like the USA is losing its Hegemony right now. Although not a single American will admit that.

And you can probably say that the great wars were inevitable, but I don't think that's true. At least not for the second world war. 

There's also a big difference between Vietnam and the UK. The UK had a lot more to lose and Vietnam meant and still means nothing. Unless if you actually care for strangers, I guess.  

Yes it was very much a team effort .Having said this Russia suffered hugely for its onvolment in the war and Britian was also left in a bad shape,america on the other hand gained from the war.Quite frankly if the Germans werent tied up trying to pierce through russians masses of men,britian would have suffered far worse.Personally i think that if the Russians hadnt been so humiated in the Winter War with Finland then they might have been even less prepaered for the German onslaught.I mean to think how badly they did against the Finns,just imagine against battle hardened Germans.Anyway what im saying is that the U.K did not lose the war and America could not have done it by herself.They all needed each other even if it would lead to another "war"

Yup, Germany and Japan were close to world domination by the end of 1942(although things started to shift already then).

Germany would have won both world wars if it wasn't for US intervention.

Germany was way closer to winning the first world war then many people seem to think. US only fought for 4 months during the first world war(with an army, not talking about their fleet atm), but it was decisive never the less. 

After Germany won on the eastern front they could concentrate all their forces on the Western stalemate in France and Belgium. They would have eventually gotten through if the US didn't intervene. 

The only *decisive* reason why the US intervened was because Germany attacked all neutral ships with their submarines to not let a single ship dock in the UK. Thus starving them to death. They almost succeeded as well, but the UK and US fleet combined proved too much, even for the German submarines.

If Germany wouldn't have bombed all neutral ships with their subs they would have never dragged the USA in the first world war and thus would have won. 

Honestly...

I'd take the USSR over America as to the leading reason the allies won WW2, at least in Europe, anyways. Although the USSR had some major, tragic mis-steps during the first year of the war, the fact is that the Soviets had the best weaponry (ground based, anyways) of the allies, and had the best type of economy to ensure that the Germans could be destroyed. They had the advantage of crippling winters, forced labor, and good propaganda to ensure that they could send enough people to die for the homeland.

Had it not been for Stalin's incompotence during the first year or two, the USSR would of made even more mincemeat of the Germans. Fortunately for the USSR, Stalin was not as incompotent as Hitler was, which worked in the Soviet favor later on, as he delegated more authority to his commanders.

To further this notion, just look at Operation Unthinkable. It was the post-WW2 plan of continuing the war against the Soviets until we took Moscow. Guess what? We didn't do it because we would have lost against the reds. Scary stuff, but true. That is why I'd take the Soviets over the US in the war.

You make a good point, but my post was more directed towards world war I then world war II.

Yeah, a direct war against the USSR would have been dangerous at that time although the USSR lost MASSIVE lives during WW II and USA/UK did not. But then again, Russians have the big advantage of their massive cold land and lack of empathy towards their people. 

Hitler should have never broken his non-aggression pact with Stalin in 1942. He should have kept the focus on Britain and bomb the British radar systems. In 1941 the only nation still at war with Germany was Britain. If he didn't start a second front(Didn't he learn anything from WWI lol?) he would have defeated GB eventually. USA intervention would have been totally useless if Great Britain was defeated thus Hitler would have won the war. 

I seriously don't get why Hitler even tried(more space for his Aryan race is bullshit reason), if even Napoleon couldn't bring the Russians on their knees then how will an incompetent fool like Hitler do it? He should have just stayed out of war and let his Generals do the strategic warfare.

No one could stand up against Germany without allies during both world wars. I think that's pretty impressive for one country(with no real allies). Italy sucked as an ally and Japan and Germany never had a common strategy which was a BIG factor on why they lost WWII.

But do you think D day would have succeeded without the USA? I think not and that was an important factor in deciding the war. As the second front was finally opened which Stalin asked so long for. British land-army was/is not really impressive then.

edit: lol my post sounds as if I wanted a German victory. Rather not Oo

That's like saying in the long term Prussia lost the Franco-Prussian war because Alsace-Lorrain is now French.

I doubt any of the sides were very happy with the mess after the war xD

Oh, I understand. I've looked and looked and looked into various WW2 theories.

The fact is, Hitler could of won WW2 in 1,000 different ways. The problem was that Hitler was simply insane. He demanded tactical control of German forces, yet had no real tactical insight to ensure that what the army did was the right thing to do.

The march on Stalingrad is probably the prime example of both Hitler and Stalin's idiocy - Stalin ordered his troops never to retreat, and many died. When they finally fell away into Stalingrad proper, Hitler ordered his forces to take the city of his namesake simply to be a moral victory...

In the end, the USSR won, and began the chain of events to drive the Germans out of the USSR.

I think that was the major advantage with the US and British tactics - the leaders of both nations actually gave their tacticians the lattitude to win.

I thought it was pretty obvious why Hitler invaded the USSR. Fascism and communism are on completely opposite sides of the economic spectrum. Also, Hitler probably viewed them as a reason Germany lost WWI. And then Hitler probably was extremely overconfident and thought he could steamroll the Soviet Union like he had just about everybody but Great Britain at that point.

Not saying it was a smart idea, but I don't think Stalin should've been shocked when it happened.

The Russians were on the offensive since 1943, against Germany. USSR never attacked Japan, though they said they would they never did.

@themanwithnoname

Hitler invaded Russia because they were enemies, Hitler and Stalin never liked eachother but both agreed to be at peace. Funny thing is German troops were doing good until Stalingrad and Winter, their tanks never started in the cold harsh Russian winter, while the Russian tanks could start in -30 weather.