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

[Ringel05]

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.

It wouldn't have been just Germany vs the Soviet Union if the US and UK were not involved, Japan and the SU had reached a stalemate in their war, Germany kept pressuring Japan to attack the SU from the west, it wasn't until the Soviets learned Japan had no intention of attacking that they were able to move at least a million troops to the Eastern Front. If Japan wasn't occupied with the US and UK in the Pacific they would have pursued their fight with the SU trying up millions of Soviet troops and material.

 

[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.

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

Disagree, politely. He kept hundreds of thousands of American troops tied up in Asia for 25 years by supporting RK and SV. His post WWII empire last almost 35 years.

 

[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.

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.

But German factories were reduced to rubble by what?

 

[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

Disagree, politely. He kept hundreds of thousands of American troops tied up in Asia for 25 years by supporting RK and SV. His post WWII empire last almost 35 years.

Most likely it's how we both define "imperialism" in context with Stalin's motives that's at issue here.

 

[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.

But German factories were reduced to rubble by what?

I was referring to American and British air power.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Would argue winners of wars are actually the losers as they take over things becomming the very enemy they defeated as with the US now starting wars all over pursueing global conquest just like Nazi Germany was in Europe.

 

[Ringel05]

Would argue winners of wars are actually the losers as they take over things becomming the very enemy they defeated as with the US now starting wars all over pursueing global conquest just like Nazi Germany was in Europe.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

Oliver Stone America Didn t Win World War II - Russia Did

 

[Meathead]

Russia took the brunt of the war. They would not have won without a second front though. It's like saying who won the baseball game, the pitcher who pitched a shutout or the batter who hit the solo home run with two out in the bottom of the ninth.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Pretty much by every measurement the United States 'won'- i.e. after hosilities ended the United States was the strongest country in the world- our economy was intact and vigorous.

There were two fronts- and the United States (with its allies) beat Japan.

In Europe- the Soviets did most of the beating. Could they have done it all without the allies? Probably not- Lend Lease supplied the trucks and locomotives that the Soviets needed to keep their supplies flowing. But the Soviets were responsible in a large part for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

 

[Moonglow]

Would argue winners of wars are actually the losers as they take over things becomming the very enemy they defeated as with the US now starting wars all over pursueing global conquest just like Nazi Germany was in Europe.

we just keep forgetting to keep our victories in our pocket...

 

[Moonglow]

For many years after the war, the vets I knew always talked about how close Hitler and the Nazi's came to winning the war.. it was tough, and even with all the allies, it still took many years for many, to defeat the one......

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

With all due respect, Jake...without "Lend Lease" from the West...it's highly doubtful that the Soviets would have driven the Germans back.

 

[Ringel05]

Would argue winners of wars are actually the losers as they take over things becomming the very enemy they defeated as with the US now starting wars all over pursueing global conquest just like Nazi Germany was in Europe.

we just keep forgetting to keep our victories in our pocket...

Not sure what yo mean by that.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

With all due respect, Jake...without "Lend Lease" from the West...it's highly doubtful that the Soviets would have driven the Germans back.

Not really true. By the time Lend-Lease supplies finally reached the Soviet Union, they were well on their way to supplying themselves. They didn't like our Shermans, used them for cannon fodder and to protect non threatened areas. The two things we sent them they really appreciated was Spam and Jeeps.

 

[Ringel05]

For many years after the war, the vets I knew always talked about how close Hitler and the Nazi's came to winning the war.. it was tough, and even with all the allies, it still took many years for many, to defeat the one......

Our planners, when we first entered the war wanted to immediately invade Europe, good thing FDR overroad them. As it was Operation Torch (invasion of Northern Africa) came close to being a near disaster and we weren't even up against German troops.

 

[Bleipriester]

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?

As a result of the war, the British Empire shrank to the size of its Island.
The question, if the war could have been won without Britain is interesting. It raises the question what direction the war would have taken if Britain would not have declared war on Germany. With no British involvement, France would very likely also not have declared war in Germany. So maybe, the WWII would not have taken place in the hypothetical case that the Brits were not involved.

 

[Staidhup]

The armistice of 1918 dictated that there was no other option. the worlds fate was in the hands of those that desired to seek retribution, at any cost, which gave rise to fascism and war. What could have been, should have been done,.....is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, if the German production industries had been put on full strength in 1940, the weapons systems would have come online a year or two earlier, frustrating the allied bombing campaigns.

Two, if the ME-262 for instance had been mass produced and deployed as an interceptor, the bombing campaigns would have fallen apart.

Three, if the Germans, after knocking France out of the war and driving GB back to the islands, had taken Gibraltar and Malta in 1941, Alexandria and the Suez would have fallen before Christmas.

However, if the Germans had still invaded the USSR in June 1941, even with the US out of the war, the Nazis never could have conquered enough terrain and cities to knock the Soviets out of the war. It may have taken ten years, but the USSR would have eventually won unless the Nazis developed and deployed atomic weapons.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

With all due respect, Jake...without "Lend Lease" from the West...it's highly doubtful that the Soviets would have driven the Germans back.

Not really true. By the time Lend-Lease supplies finally reached the Soviet Union, they were well on their way to supplying themselves. They didn't like our Shermans, used them for cannon fodder and to protect non threatened areas. The two things we sent them they really appreciated was Spam and Jeeps.

Actually Lend Lease was very important for the Soviets- no knock on the Russian people- because they were certainly heroic and their tanks were amongst the best in the world- but Lend Lease kept the Soviets eating- and moving

Don't know if all of this is accurate- but sounds about right


6,430 planes
3,734 tanks
10 mine sweepers
82 smaller boats
210,000 automobiles
3,000 anti aircraft guns
1,111 oerlikon guns
17,000 motor bikes
991 million cartridges
1.2 million Km telephone cable
245,000 military telephones
257 million oil refinery,electrical equipment
5.2 million boots
2 million tons of food (Cited from: Lend Lease to Russia WW2 Military History Forum)