WWII- Questions?

Well maybe, but it could have been very bad too, many people would have died, I don't think Churchill was in that conference though, neither was Roosevelt I belive.

Originally posted by Clovie
they did
the deal was that it is where the armies are meeting, there the border goes
and the meeting was in Jałta (present Ukraine if i remember correctly 😕 ) not Malta 😂

and NO. it wouldn't have finnished in nuclear war. Soviets didn't have technology back then. i think that if americans did it in the right way, they've could only threaten them and there would be no big war 😕

Aah well one letter difference (happens to me more often)

The soviets were in full research of it (the americans would have had a massive static war on their hands, which they either had to win quickly or it would turn bloody, if the russians could hold the americans long enough it would have ended in a nuclear war)

They were all three present I'm pretty sure of that Bardock

Yalta Conference

Originally posted by Fire
Aah well one letter difference (happens to me more often)

The soviets were in full research of it (the americans would have had a massive static war on their hands, which they either had to win quickly or it would turn bloody, if the russians could hold the americans long enough it would have ended in a nuclear war)

i didn't know they've been doing research already 😕

(Sorry stated that as a fact lets just say its more of a hung)

it was an aliied effort that won the war

Originally posted by Bardock42
What makes you able to answer our questions 🤨

Originally posted by Clovie
Soviets.

they lost the most and killed the most, so statistically, they won.

Originally posted by Frosty Beverage
they lost the most and killed the most, so statistically, they won.

thats crap
so they could of won the war on there own?
i doubt it

he didn't say that he only compared the amount of Germans killed by the Russians and the amount of casualties altho I dunno if it adds up

so they could of won the war on there own?

nice avvy finti...maiden !!

thus taking more losses for the USSR. Get it? The russians were the real winners, regardless of allied bombardments and invasions... As he said, they would have squashed the Nazis like ugs, bt at a bigger price.

I have to agree with finti

about 2.6% of the russians that invaded across the Volga at Stalingrad were survivors.

so, out of 100,000, 2,600 lived.

(hey, stupid. that's not good)

😊 🤣

I think if you go by statistics we won the war ✅
Well at least Allies - Axis statistics

Yes you are right though they all were in Yalta I was thinking aboot another conference that occured after the defeat of germany I think in Berlin but I am not sure, where only Stalin was left of the original three

THE FACT IS THAT the allies would have lost without the soviets help and the soviets would lose if they did not have allies help. They needed each other to win. THe soviets occupied most of the German army and the allies invaded from Normandy and destroyed the resources that feed the german army. IMO the US and USSR were needed to win the war.

I think every soldier on the allies site was needed not only the US and the USSR, that afterwards the USSR won the war by diplomacy is a whole different thing.

Originally posted by finti
they would have run over the Axis forces regardless of the allied invasion in 1944, point is that if the invasion of Normandy wasnt to have happened the Soviet forces wouldnt have stoped before they reached the coast of western Europe.

why didn't they make that normandy invansion earlier? 😠 maybe i'd be living in a normal country then crying