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

[rightwinger]

Japan-Germany are doing a lot better than UK-USA.

Seems historically valid, countries which lose wars often do better in the long-term than the victors. Ancient Rome won war after war until it collapsed. See USA heading that route now.

When you win the war, you're expected to be magnanimous and rebuild the loser. That's expensive. Meanwhile, the loser does extremely well being given grants and gifts to rebuild and not seek war again by the global community. Meantime, the victor already in debt for the war proper isn't getting those same handouts and just going further into debt.

Theyu were denied the burden of having to maintain a military to defend themselves. The US and NATO picked up alot of their defensive needs



.

 

[Ringel05]

Agree with Figaro that the Soviets deserve credit due to their sheer will and enormous sacrifice. German arrogance also factored as they assumed an easy victory and did not prepare for a brutal winter that sealed their defeat.

It wasn't so much arrogance as it was over confidence due to their easy victories in Poland and France. Hitler and the General Staff underestimated the distances involved once they were in the Soviet Union so underestimated the amount of time needed to cowl Russian resistance. The first winter was a major setback but that did not seal the German defeat, that happened with Hitler's interference in tactical planning including the split objectives when the assault resumed in 1942 and the subsequent morass he committed his troops to that was called Stalingrad.
Does this mean the Germans could have ultimately won? There are those who argue that point but in reality they never had a chance, the best they could have realistically hoped for was a false truce leaving them the Ukraine until the Soviets rebuilt and overwhelmed any defenses the Germans would have installed.
Seems everyone thinks the Germans were entirely mechanized, nothing could be farther from the truth. Part of the other problem facing the Germans was the vast majority of their infantry and artillery were still using horses and wagons to transport men and materials, they couldn't keep up with the armor (who often outran their support and were frequently ordered to halt and wait in place or return back to German lines.

 

[Ringel05]

The biggest problem that the Soviets had at the beginning of World War II was that Stalin had decimated the Soviet Officer Corps with a series of purges that killed most of the senior staff. Many historians view the military pact between the Soviets and Germany as an attempt by Stalin to buy time because he realized that his military was woefully unprepared to go to war with Hitler.

Exactly, Stalin may have been paranoid but he wasn't stupid.

 

[germanguy]

Agree with Figaro that the Soviets deserve credit due to their sheer will and enormous sacrifice. German arrogance also factored as they assumed an easy victory and did not prepare for a brutal winter that sealed their defeat.

It wasn't so much arrogance as it was over confidence due to their easy victories in Poland and France. Hitler and the General Staff underestimated the distances involved once they were in the Soviet Union so underestimated the amount of time needed to cowl Russian resistance. The first winter was a major setback but that did not seal the German defeat, that happened with Hitler's interference in tactical planning including the split objectives when the assault resumed in 1942 and the subsequent morass he committed his troops to that was called Stalingrad.
Does this mean the Germans could have ultimately won? There are those who argue that point but in reality they never had a chance, the best they could have realistically hoped for was a false truce leaving them the Ukraine until the Soviets rebuilt and overwhelmed and defenses the Germans would have installed.
Seems everyone thinks the Germans were entirely mechanized, nothing could be farther from the truth. Part of the other problem facing the Germans was the vast majority of their infantry and artillery were still using horses and wagons to transport men and materials, they couldn't keep up with the armor (who often outran their support and were frequently ordered to halt and wait in place or return back to German lines.

Correct, the Soviet Uniot has beaten nazi Germany, but with big aid from the western allies. The US delievered huge amounts of winter boots, trucks, canned meat and so on. And the evacuated industries produced tanks, airplanes and guns like matchsticks. In 1945 on one german tank there were on some parts of the front 15 to 18 soviet tanks. In the very end, it was the braveness of the Soviet people what has won the war. This does not diminish the efforts of the western allies, but WWII was decided in the Pacific and on the Eastern front. And the US Industry delieverd some of the necessary goods.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Oldstyle]

Agree with Figaro that the Soviets deserve credit due to their sheer will and enormous sacrifice. German arrogance also factored as they assumed an easy victory and did not prepare for a brutal winter that sealed their defeat.

It wasn't so much arrogance as it was over confidence due to their easy victories in Poland and France. Hitler and the General Staff underestimated the distances involved once they were in the Soviet Union so underestimated the amount of time needed to cowl Russian resistance. The first winter was a major setback but that did not seal the German defeat, that happened with Hitler's interference in tactical planning including the split objectives when the assault resumed in 1942 and the subsequent morass he committed his troops to that was called Stalingrad.
Does this mean the Germans could have ultimately won? There are those who argue that point but in reality they never had a chance, the best they could have realistically hoped for was a false truce leaving them the Ukraine until the Soviets rebuilt and overwhelmed and defenses the Germans would have installed.
Seems everyone thinks the Germans were entirely mechanized, nothing could be farther from the truth. Part of the other problem facing the Germans was the vast majority of their infantry and artillery were still using horses and wagons to transport men and materials, they couldn't keep up with the armor (who often outran their support and were frequently ordered to halt and wait in place or return back to German lines.

That begs the question however, Ringel...of what "might" have happened if Hitler hadn't allowed himself to get caught up in a battle of wills with Stalin over Stalingrad and had followed the advice he was being given by his military leaders to bypass the city and continue to push to the east. Hitler's determination to take the namesake city of his enemy gave the Soviets the time they desperately needed to crank up their war production. One also wonders what "might" have happened if the Germans had started their offensive two months earlier or waited until Spring of the following year to launch their attack.

 

[Oldstyle]

The biggest problem that the Soviets had at the beginning of World War II was that Stalin had decimated the Soviet Officer Corps with a series of purges that killed most of the senior staff. Many historians view the military pact between the Soviets and Germany as an attempt by Stalin to buy time because he realized that his military was woefully unprepared to go to war with Hitler.

Exactly, Stalin may have been paranoid but he wasn't stupid.

One questions his intelligence when his purges put them in that predicament in the first place, Ringel! The difference between Stalin and Hitler is that the German leader thought he was a better military leader than his generals...whereas Stalin essentially turned the managing of the war over to Chuikov, his best general.

 

[Ringel05]

Agree with Figaro that the Soviets deserve credit due to their sheer will and enormous sacrifice. German arrogance also factored as they assumed an easy victory and did not prepare for a brutal winter that sealed their defeat.

It wasn't so much arrogance as it was over confidence due to their easy victories in Poland and France. Hitler and the General Staff underestimated the distances involved once they were in the Soviet Union so underestimated the amount of time needed to cowl Russian resistance. The first winter was a major setback but that did not seal the German defeat, that happened with Hitler's interference in tactical planning including the split objectives when the assault resumed in 1942 and the subsequent morass he committed his troops to that was called Stalingrad.
Does this mean the Germans could have ultimately won? There are those who argue that point but in reality they never had a chance, the best they could have realistically hoped for was a false truce leaving them the Ukraine until the Soviets rebuilt and overwhelmed and defenses the Germans would have installed.
Seems everyone thinks the Germans were entirely mechanized, nothing could be farther from the truth. Part of the other problem facing the Germans was the vast majority of their infantry and artillery were still using horses and wagons to transport men and materials, they couldn't keep up with the armor (who often outran their support and were frequently ordered to halt and wait in place or return back to German lines.

That begs the question however, Ringel...of what "might" have happened if Hitler hadn't allowed himself to get caught up in a battle of wills with Stalin over Stalingrad and had followed the advice he was being given by his military leaders to bypass the city and continue to push to the east. Hitler's determination to take the namesake city of his enemy gave the Soviets the time they desperately needed to crank up their war production. One also wonders what "might" have happened if the Germans had started their offensive two months earlier or waited until Spring of the following year to launch their attack.

The Soviets had (I don't remember exactly) about 2 or 3 million troops facing the Japanese on their eastern border basically doing nothing. When Soviet spies found out the Japanese had no intention of attacking the Soviets again they were able to move at least a million men and tons of materials west and the Soviets would have never given up.
The only real game changer might have been if the Nazis had not planned to turn the SU into a "slave state" , had not sent SS units in on the heels of the Wehrmacht and had accepted the Ukrainian (former White Russian) offer to fight on the German side. By the time the Nazis finally accepted the White Russian's offer it was too late, the SS had done it's damage and the White Russians mostly had no desire to fight for who they initially viewed as liberators but soon came to see as conquering occupiers.

 

[Ringel05]

The biggest problem that the Soviets had at the beginning of World War II was that Stalin had decimated the Soviet Officer Corps with a series of purges that killed most of the senior staff. Many historians view the military pact between the Soviets and Germany as an attempt by Stalin to buy time because he realized that his military was woefully unprepared to go to war with Hitler.

Exactly, Stalin may have been paranoid but he wasn't stupid.

One questions his intelligence when his purges put them in that predicament in the first place, Ringel! The difference between Stalin and Hitler is that the German leader thought he was a better military leader than his generals...whereas Stalin essentially turned the managing of the war over to Chuikov, his best general.

Just because he was paranoid and consolidating his power with purges doesn't detract from his ability and drive to turn the SU into a major modern world power. Ya have to look at it in context of the times and all the players, Beria had as much to do with the purges as did Stalin. Many of the Soviet ranking officers that were jailed during the purges were released and given commands. Stalin knew the Germans would probably invade (in a limited capacity) at some time but didn't believe it would be when it actually happened or to the magnitude it happened, he thought he had more time.

 

[Oldstyle]

The biggest problem that the Soviets had at the beginning of World War II was that Stalin had decimated the Soviet Officer Corps with a series of purges that killed most of the senior staff. Many historians view the military pact between the Soviets and Germany as an attempt by Stalin to buy time because he realized that his military was woefully unprepared to go to war with Hitler.

Exactly, Stalin may have been paranoid but he wasn't stupid.

One questions his intelligence when his purges put them in that predicament in the first place, Ringel! The difference between Stalin and Hitler is that the German leader thought he was a better military leader than his generals...whereas Stalin essentially turned the managing of the war over to Chuikov, his best general.

Just because he was paranoid and consolidating his power with purges doesn't detract from his ability and drive to turn the SU into a major modern world power. Ya have to look at it in context of the times and all the players, Beria had as much to do with the purges as did Stalin. Many of the Soviet ranking officers that were jailed during the purges were released and given commands. Stalin knew the Germans would probably invade (in a limited capacity) at some time but didn't believe it would be when it actually happened or to the magnitude it happened, he thought he had more time.

Stalin believed that Germany wouldn't attack as long as Great Britain remained in play to the west and he believed that despite intelligence reports to the contrary.
As for Beria? Things were far worse under the man before Beria, Yezhov. The so called Great Purge took place under Yezhov's watch and was SO oppressive that it brought the Soviet economy to a halt. With all due respect, Ringel...Stalin was the overwhelming force in Soviet life...it wasn't Beria that wanted purges...that was all Stalin.

 

[Ringel05]

The biggest problem that the Soviets had at the beginning of World War II was that Stalin had decimated the Soviet Officer Corps with a series of purges that killed most of the senior staff. Many historians view the military pact between the Soviets and Germany as an attempt by Stalin to buy time because he realized that his military was woefully unprepared to go to war with Hitler.

Exactly, Stalin may have been paranoid but he wasn't stupid.

One questions his intelligence when his purges put them in that predicament in the first place, Ringel! The difference between Stalin and Hitler is that the German leader thought he was a better military leader than his generals...whereas Stalin essentially turned the managing of the war over to Chuikov, his best general.

Just because he was paranoid and consolidating his power with purges doesn't detract from his ability and drive to turn the SU into a major modern world power. Ya have to look at it in context of the times and all the players, Beria had as much to do with the purges as did Stalin. Many of the Soviet ranking officers that were jailed during the purges were released and given commands. Stalin knew the Germans would probably invade (in a limited capacity) at some time but didn't believe it would be when it actually happened or to the magnitude it happened, he thought he had more time.

Stalin believed that Germany wouldn't attack as long as Great Britain remained in play to the west and he believed that despite intelligence reports to the contrary.
As for Beria? Things were far worse under the man before Beria, Yezhov. The so called Great Purge took place under Yezhov's watch and was SO oppressive that it brought the Soviet economy to a halt. With all due respect, Ringel...Stalin was the overwhelming force in Soviet life...it wasn't Beria that wanted purges...that was all Stalin.

Never said it was Beria that wanted the purges, said he was just as complicit, and yes, I forgot about Yezhov, (the Great Purge). Also never said Stalin wasn't the overwhelming force in Soviet life. Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough to eliminate supposition.

 

[Oldstyle]

In the Soviet Union under Stalin you were basically doing what he wanted...or you were dead or in a gulag. So calling anyone "complicit" is kind of a stretch. Even if you DID everything Stalin wanted you to do...if he thought you were too popular he might simply have you replaced so you couldn't threaten his power.

 

[westwall]

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?

No. The US kept BOTH the UK and Russia viable. We mobilized the entire Russian army. We fed them, armed them, and supplied them for years. Were it not for Lend Lease the Germans would have taken Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow. Without the British bombing the German homeland and disrupting supplies the Soviets would have had to fight almost twice as many large AA pieces like the famous 88.

It was a global war. The bodies on the Allied side were primarily Russian, but without the American bombs and bullets the number of bodies would have been twice as high and the result would have been defeat.

 

[prison/con.net]

the Germans won. They went from virtual starvation in 1935 to being completely well-off in 1965. We built them up so much that they are the powerhouse of Europe today.

 

[Syriusly]

the Germans won. They went from virtual starvation in 1935 to being completely well-off in 1965. We built them up so much that they are the powerhouse of Europe today.

Well lets look at that claim.

In 1965, West Germany was an economic powerhouse- not as powerful as the United States- but still powerful.
But East Germany was a backward oppressed nation, cowed by the Soviets.

Germany- and Japan have both recovered well from WW2- but hard to say either of them won- not with the devistation to both countries.

 

[rightwinger]

the Germans won. They went from virtual starvation in 1935 to being completely well-off in 1965. We built them up so much that they are the powerhouse of Europe today.

Well lets look at that claim.

In 1965, West Germany was an economic powerhouse- not as powerful as the United States- but still powerful.
But East Germany was a backward oppressed nation, cowed by the Soviets.

Germany- and Japan have both recovered well from WW2- but hard to say either of them won- not with the devistation to both countries.

Both suffered massive casualties

Hardly worth the price

 

[legaleagle_45]

The British provided the time, the US the money and the Soviet Union the blod.

All were necessary.

 

[whitehall]

When you use the crass word "won" in a military sense you have to consider a number of things. First of all, was the stated mission to crush " the threat of world domination" achieved? The second thing is to give credit where credit is due. There is no question that the industrial might of the United States and the incredible sacrifice of American Troops was the major factor in defeating both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In that sense there is no question that the USA "won" the 2nd World War. Why do idiots still wonder what happened?

 

[prison/con.net]

what would have happened to the germans WITHOUT our billions of $ of support, nukes backing up our troops there, hmm? They were smart enough to be anti-communist, at least.

 

[quorthon]

Theyu were denied the burden of having to maintain a military to defend themselves. The US and NATO picked up alot of their defensive needs
.

 

[rightwinger]

When you use the crass word "won" in a military sense you have to consider a number of things. First of all, was the stated mission to crush " the threat of world domination" achieved? The second thing is to give credit where credit is due. There is no question that the industrial might of the United States and the incredible sacrifice of American Troops was the major factor in defeating both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In that sense there is no question that the USA "won" the 2nd World War. Why do idiots still wonder what happened?

I guess it depends on your definition of "won"

Is it the person winning the battles and killing the enemy or the person who supplies the guns?