Who really "won" WW2? Russia (Soviet Union) or US/Britain?

[Figaro]

World War II was a global conflict. One say history is written by the winners, but the truth is even stranger than that. In reality history is often written by popular opinion, or wishful thinking, or crass politics.

Now I mean, of course Soviet Union and US/Britain were on the same side so they both won, but could World War II have been won without the United States and Britain?

 

[defcon4]

Forums > US Discussion > Military >

1. 
   Who really "won" WW2?
   the jews

 

[Correll]

World War II was a global conflict. One say history is written by the winners, but the truth is even stranger than that. In reality history is often written by popular opinion, or wishful thinking, or crass politics.

Now I mean, of course Soviet Union and US/Britain were on the same side so they both won, but could World War II have been won without the United States and Britain?

Just a Nazi Germany vs Sov U slug fest?

Considering how far the Germans got with Britain in the war...my guess would be that no, the Soviets would likely have lost.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The commies would have won regardless, which makes Defcon and PoliticalChic very unhappy. They would have rooted for the Nazis.

 

[Correll]

The commies would have won regardless, which makes Defcon and PoliticalChic very unhappy. They would have rooted for the Nazis.

THe Nazi got to the outskirts of Moscow AFTER the Battle of Britain had decimated the German Airforce.

Imagine a thousand more aircraft available to the Nazi.

You take Moscow and it it going to make things very difficult for the Soviets.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The western Nazi air forces were not scheduled for the Eastern Offensive.

You would be better making the argument that the German military forces would have been better off taking Gibralter through Span and Malta with Italy before moving to the Middle East.

If the USSR were able to survive to the first winter, the country was guaranteed victory. And even taking Moscow that first fall would not guarantee German victory.

 

[Figaro]

There were highly questionable actions taken by all sides - the British decision to bomb populations to provoke Hitler to do the same, and take the heat off its airfields; the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, done more to make an impression on the Russians than to end the war quickly (the sticking point with the "unconditional surrender" of Japan had been the retention of the Emperor, and after the second nuke had been dropped the US allowed the Emperor to remain in place anyway)

Russia has to be thanked for resisting the single largest land invasion in the history of the human race, and for losing more people in doing so than any nation in history. So, I think that the victory should be given to them.

 

[Correll]

The western Nazi air forces were not scheduled for the Eastern Offensive.

You would be better making the argument that the German military forces would have been better off taking Gibralter through Span and Malta with Italy before moving to the Middle East.

If the USSR were able to survive to the first winter, the country was guaranteed victory. And even taking Moscow that first fall would not guarantee German victory.

In actual history, with Britain in the war, the Western Air Forces were not scheduled for the Eastern Offensive.

This is one example of resources that would have been available for use against the Soviets.

Yes, taking Moscow does not guarantee victory.

 

[Correll]

There were highly questionable actions taken by all sides - the British decision to bomb populations to provoke Hitler to do the same, and take the heat off its airfields; the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, done more to make an impression on the Russians than to end the war quickly (the sticking point with the "unconditional surrender" of Japan had been the retention of the Emperor, and after the second nuke had been dropped the US allowed the Emperor to remain in place anyway)

Russia has to be thanked for resisting the single largest land invasion in the history of the human race, and for losing more people in doing so than any nation in history. So, I think that the victory should be given to them.

NOt sure why you think there were secret reasons to use the Bomb. It was Total War.

Russia? YOu mean the nation that started the war with Nazi Germany with the joint invasion of Poland?

Losing lives is generally not considered a measure of military effectiveness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Much better the USSR survived than Nazi Germany.

 

[Correll]

Much better the USSR survived than Nazi Germany.

Very true. The old men in the Kremlin were much less reckless than the Nazis.

We were able to avoid nuclear war with them.

I do wish that some more thought had been given to the Post War situation though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The whole world was in flux and FDR gave far to much credence to Stalin not being an imperialist.

 

[williepete]

It's an old saying but rings true:

"Soviet blood and American checkbooks".

 

[Ringel05]

The whole world was in flux and FDR gave far to much credence to Stalin not being an imperialist.

But Stalin wasn't an imperialist. All Stalin wanted after the war was over was to rebuild the Soviet Union and (most importantly the most misconstrued move) take the surrounding states specifically as buffer zones against any future attack from the west, not specifically to spread Soviet Socialism. Khrushchev was the one who started expansion for political (non defensive) reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I said not about spreading Communism.

Stalin was an imperialist who wanted to keep control of central and eastern Europe, spread into the Mediterranean if possible, and keep the US busy on the other side of the world. He was quite successful.

 

[there4eyeM]

One answer would be 'no one'.
Another answer could be, 'the Nazis', since everyone wound up joining them by acting just like they acted.
The common answer is, 'the allies', which would include all those mentioned in the o.p.
The only country that might have been able to 'win' WWII alone against Germany is the US.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Great Britain was not involved, the US would not have entered the war, and, as it was, Japan's attack against us was necessary.

 

[Figaro]

There were highly questionable actions taken by all sides - the British decision to bomb populations to provoke Hitler to do the same, and take the heat off its airfields; the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, done more to make an impression on the Russians than to end the war quickly (the sticking point with the "unconditional surrender" of Japan had been the retention of the Emperor, and after the second nuke had been dropped the US allowed the Emperor to remain in place anyway)

Russia has to be thanked for resisting the single largest land invasion in the history of the human race, and for losing more people in doing so than any nation in history. So, I think that the victory should be given to them.

NOt sure why you think there were secret reasons to use the Bomb. It was Total War.

Russia? YOu mean the nation that started the war with Nazi Germany with the joint invasion of Poland?

Losing lives is generally not considered a measure of military effectiveness.

More than 80% loss of the German troops fell on the Eastern Front. Eight out of every ten German troops killed in World War II perished while fighting the Soviets.

 

[Ringel05]

I said not about spreading Communism.

Stalin was an imperialist who wanted to keep control of central and eastern Europe, spread into the Mediterranean if possible, and keep the US busy on the other side of the world. He was quite successful.

Then we have to agree to disagree, Stalin was successful only in those areas that were ceded to the Soviet Union, he tried to take parts of Japan (old conflict over territory) and he posted troops in Iran, failed at both.
History has shown he was specifically interested in protecting the SU.

Stalin was obsessed with borders because he believed that without their extension Russia was vulnerable; she had after all been invaded three times between 1914-1941. An important factor that must not be underestimated when regarding what Stalin wanted from the Western Powers is his personality and his paranoia. This was behind everything Stalin did.

The Evolution of Stalin s Foreign Policy during Word War Two

 

[Correll]

There were highly questionable actions taken by all sides - the British decision to bomb populations to provoke Hitler to do the same, and take the heat off its airfields; the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, done more to make an impression on the Russians than to end the war quickly (the sticking point with the "unconditional surrender" of Japan had been the retention of the Emperor, and after the second nuke had been dropped the US allowed the Emperor to remain in place anyway)

Russia has to be thanked for resisting the single largest land invasion in the history of the human race, and for losing more people in doing so than any nation in history. So, I think that the victory should be given to them.

NOt sure why you think there were secret reasons to use the Bomb. It was Total War.

Russia? YOu mean the nation that started the war with Nazi Germany with the joint invasion of Poland?

Losing lives is generally not considered a measure of military effectiveness.

More than 80% loss of the German troops fell on the Eastern Front. Eight out of every ten German troops killed in World War II perished while fighting the Soviets.

Sure, the Eastern Front was a meatgrinder.

Imagine if Germany had thousands of more planes and tanks to use on that front, imagine if the German factories were not reduced to rubble, imagine if the thousands of guns used for AA were used to kill Russians, imagine if the Russians ran out of fuel, trains, trucks and food.

Or had to divert manpower to do those critical functions.