WW2 who won it?

[tovaris]

Whel if you ask me the question is completly geografical. Are you talking about Europe, Yugoslavia, China, Pacific...
What do you think? And what is your answer.

[Joshua2000]

Uh, USA because if we hadn't of gotten in it everyone else woul've been screwed. lmao Yeah!

[survivorguilt]

Uh, USA because if we hadn't of gotten in it everyone else woul've been screwed. lmao Yeah!

That's a really debatable conception erroneously regarded as fact. Operation sea lion wasn't going all that well for the Germans, Russia was turning the tides on the eastern front, and the Axis african campaign was slowing down before the USA intervened.

[Joshua2000]

Uh okay one operation was going bad and Africa slowed ...tell me when the whole war changed?? lol

[naglfari]

Allies won that's not really up for debate

[survivorguilt]

Uh okay one operation was going bad and Africa slowed ...tell me when the whole war changed?? lol

That's pretty debatable. People talk about turning points, but there were a number of campaigns going on and a turning point in a war merely means a turning point in one theatre of that war. It is hard to project what would have happened if the USA had not intervened.

[TheBigUnit]

Well suppose usa was never a factor, no one attacked them, and they were left alone, simply put the axis wouldve won

[Cygnus]

Uh okay one operation was going bad and Africa slowed ...tell me when the whole war changed?? lol

The whole war changed when Germany and Russia became enemies, Russia was the first to free concentration camps, and they were after all the ones to reach Berlin. France was also having a good resistance against the Nazi's. The subject is so obscure you cannot just draw conclusions like that. The allies won, not the US.

[Korashk]

Nobody wins wars. They only lose them.

[Stronk Serb]

The western allies, especially the US haven't put up much of a fight in the Europe theatre. The Soviets really won the war in Europe. I think the Brits and the Americans have intervened to create a "buffer zone" since the Soviets would go all the way to Portugal liberating, which would break the balance of power. The Germans comitted themselves almost fully to the Soviets, 80% of all German forces were fighting against the USSR during the war. The resistance the Brits and the Americans met in France and Holland was nothing compared to the resistance the Germans were putting up against the Soviets. It is funny though, the western Allies had more numbers, tanks and everything then the Germans, but it took them heck lot more time to get into Germany herself.

[britishboy]

the allies won, on d day Canada had 1 beach, the UK had 2 beaches and the USA had 2 beaches, but you shouldn't forget Russia on the east winning Stalingrad and the French was great help, that's for Europe and for the pacific that was America 100%

The western allies, especially the US haven't put up much of a fight in the Europe theatre. The Soviets really won the war in Europe. I think the Brits and the Americans have intervened to create a "buffer zone" since the Soviets would go all the way to Portugal liberating, which would break the balance of power. The Germans comitted themselves almost fully to the Soviets, 80% of all German forces were fighting against the USSR during the war. The resistance the Brits and the Americans met in France and Holland was nothing compared to the resistance the Germans were putting up against the Soviets. It is funny though, the western Allies had more numbers, tanks and everything then the Germans, but it took them heck lot more time to get into Germany herself.

you just believe all communist countries are great, Russia helped start the war with Poland and check your facts before you post.

Nobody wins wars. They only lose them.

well the allies won... every war has a winner inless a peace deal is signed

Merged Triple Post -StoppingTime

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

The winners were the US and the Soviet Union. Both emerged as global superpowers at the end of the war. That was a minor step for the US, which had already proved it's military dominance in World War I, but it was huge for the Soviet Union.

They had left World War I to deal with their own problems. They signed an armistice with Germany to keep the King on the throne. It didn't help, though. They left one war to fight another. The King was overthrown, the Russian Empire collapsed, and the Soviet Union was established. There were a few countries that took advantage of the Civil War and declared independence. Before World War II, the might of the Soviet Union had never been tested. At Stalingrad, they showed the world that Russia is stronger than it ever was. They kicked out the Germans from their country, marched all the way to Berlin, and hoisted the Soviet Flag on top of the Bundestag. On their way to Berlin, they occupied the countries that had been independent since the Civil War. To sum it up, the Soviet Union was the biggest victor in Europe.

The biggest loser? Poland. The Germans killed more than 16 % of the total Polish population. I don't need to say anything else.

The western allies, especially the US haven't put up much of a fight in the Europe theater. The Soviets really won the war in Europe. I think the Brits and the Americans have intervened to create a "buffer zone" since the Soviets would go all the way to Portugal liberating, which would break the balance of power.

Also, this. ^

In Asia and the Pacific, both China and Asia suffered terrible casualties. The former at the hands of Japan, the latter at the hands of US troops and the first nuclear bombs. But, Japan rose from the ashes pretty quickly, while China struggled for a very long time. I wouldn't call it winning, but it's clear that Japan is better off after the war than it was before. The United States won. It awed the world with it's new weapons. China lost.

[Stronk Serb]

you just believe all communist countries are great, Russia helped start the war with Poland and check your facts before you post.



22 million citizens of the Soviet Union died during the war. 7 million Germans died, of which I can guarantee you that 80% were killed by the Soviets. The pact which the Soviets signed, it was a non-attack treaty which was broken by the Nazis.

[britishboy]

22 million citizens of the Soviet Union died during the war. 7 million Germans died, of which I can guarantee you that 80% were killed by the Soviets. The pact which the Soviets signed, it was a non-attack treaty which was broken by the Nazis.

they still invaded Poland and it was 50/50 and it was the British and Americans doing bombing missions over germany and wasn't Germany a quarter through Russia?

[naglfari]

Soviets were the main guys who won the war for the allies.

They were also Nazi allies for the first 2 years. And of course Stalin went on to be as bad as or worse than Hitler.

[Stronk Serb]

they still invaded Poland and it was 50/50 and it was the British and Americans doing bombing missions over germany and wasn't Germany a quarter through Russia?



Not really. Only the Baltic countries and Finland were attacked by the Soviets. The Soviet army, despite stronger in manpower and materiel was demoralized due to Stalin's purge in '37 or '39, I forgot. In Finland the Soviets got repelled. The Nazis were secretly helping the Finns also.

[tovaris]

Uh, USA because if we hadn't of gotten in it everyone else woul've been screwed. lmao Yeah!

if the us hadent gothen involved the british might have been a little worst of and the undefetabe read army would probably have reached the atlantic coast

they still invaded Poland and it was 50/50 and it was the British and Americans doing bombing missions over germany and wasn't Germany a quarter through Russia?

german troops reched the end of a moscow bus line but were pushed back all the way to berlin and beond, that just goes to show you the slavic might and courage

[BrainDamage]

Obviously the Allies won and more specificlly America, the french lost (like always) at the start of the war, the british were pretty much screwed and as for the Soviets, they might have taken berlyn first you don't see the once great russia spreading communism do you? That leaves USA, they beat Japan, saved Britain and Norway and many other countries all that within only 3 years, all the rest were at it for waayyy longer before the US stepped in and the Allies were on the losing side...

[tovaris]

Obviously the Allies won and more specificlly America, the french lost (like always) at the start of the war, the british were pretty much screwed and as for the Soviets, they might have taken berlyn first you don't see the once great russia spreading communism do you? That leaves USA, they beat Japan, saved Britain and Norway and many other countries all that within only 3 years, all the rest were at it for waayyy longer before the US stepped in and the Allies were on the losing side...

Actuly Japan surenderd because the Sovits got invooved. And tha USA never had to fight the war on their soil while we liberated our country by ourselves and recoverd from complet ocupation.

[naglfari]

Japan surrendered pretty obviously in response to being nuked

[tovaris]

Japan surrendered pretty obviously in response to being nuked

They couldent care les about those nokes they fered the socialists so they surenderd to the capitalists simple. If they hadent surenderd the undefetable read army would have ocupied much of Japan before the americans managed to rech them.

[Stronk Serb]

Japan surrendered pretty obviously in response to being nuked

Nah, when the Soviets got involved, the emperor issued a cease-fire. The dropping of the bombs just hastened the surrender.

[naglfari]

You guys are funny

[tovaris]

You guys are funny

How do you meen that??? This is hystorical fact.

[naglfari]

The pro communists who love Stalin Russia. Are you time travelers? Where's the king George fanboys?

[tovaris]

The pro communists who love Stalin Russia. Are you time travelers? Where's the king George fanboys?

We do not like Stalin Russia, noone likes Stalin.
I am simply stating a hystorical fact to why Japan surenderd.

[britishboy]

if the us hadent gothen involved the british might have been a little worst of and the undefetabe read army would probably have reached the atlantic coast



german troops reched the end of a moscow bus line but were pushed back all the way to berlin and beond, that just goes to show you the slavic might and courage

and the British and and Americans had no might and courage? millions died and we were the ones bombing German factories any way this whole argument is stupid, we won and Russia was equally involved as America.

[Ballboy]

The USSR came out stronger at the end. Did America back the wrong side?

[britishboy]

Not really. Only the Baltic countries and Finland were attacked by the Soviets. The Soviet army, despite stronger in manpower and materiel was demoralized due to Stalin's purge in '37 or '39, I forgot. In Finland the Soviets got repelled. The Nazis were secretly helping the Finns also.

millions of normal men in Russia were forced to fight or be shot, most wasnt trained

[britishboy]

The USSR came out stronger at the end. Did America back the wrong side?

America is very close allies with the UK and do you mean they should have helped Germany?

[tovaris]

and the British and and Americans had no might and courage? millions died and we were the ones bombing German factories any way this whole argument is stupid, we won and Russia was equally involved as America.

I dident say the british werent curagous. British teror bombings unfortonatly dident reach the desired efect of the german people rising up againced the natzy. Russia was mor enwolved since they faught inwadors of their land while the USA faught the war for profit (not only economical).

[britishboy]

I dident say the british werent curagous. British teror bombings unfortonatly dident reach the desired efect of the german people rising up againced the natzy. Russia was mor enwolved since they faught inwadors of their land while the USA faught the war for profit (not only economical).

America thought the war because of growing public pressure to help britian and because of pearl harbor and the bombings damaged factories and persuaded some people to try and kill Hitler (none succeed though) and Russia was a massive help I agree but they couldn't have won it on there own, no country could have won it on there own. not even America.

[tovaris]

America thought the war because of growing public pressure to help britian and because of pearl harbor and the bombings damaged factories and persuaded some people to try and kill Hitler (none succeed though) and Russia was a massive help I agree but they couldn't have won it on there own, no country could have won it on there own. not even America.

Thai is true it the us hadent gotten inwolven the soviets would newer had atacked Japan and forced them to surender.

[britishboy]

Thai is true it the us hadent gotten inwolven the soviets would newer had atacked Japan and forced them to surender.

I personally believe no country could have won the war on its own, not in europe or the pacific, we needed eachother

[tovaris]

I personally believe no country could have won the war on its own, not in europe or the pacific, we needed eachother

To encres this internationa colobartion and comoradery we should unite the world in one republic, the Socialist World Republic. And leve in pece for ever.

We must also agre that if the Soviet Union hadent gotten involved Europe would be under the svastika today.

[Stronk Serb]

America is very close allies with the UK and do you mean they should have helped Germany?


It went like this: Pear Harbour. Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on th US. The US were actually trying to stay out of the conflict. They only sent material and vlounteer pilots.

[britishboy]

It went like this: Pear Harbour. Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on th US. The US were actually trying to stay out of the conflict. They only sent material and vlounteer pilots.

I know they were scared but did the right thing

[Stronk Serb]

I know they were scared but did the right thing



Yes but saying that they took on 50% of the Germans is false. In the USSR at least two million Nazis got a wooden cross instead of the Iron cross. In France there was not even a million of troops. The D-Day came while the Germans were exhausting themselves trying to fend back the Soviets. The Germns were diverting their most precious resources to fend back the Soviets. In France the Germans had to make use of captured enemy weapons (French and Belgian artillery) since most were sent to the eastern front. And how long the Germans there endured, it surprises me since they were outnumbered and outgunned, not as experienced as the ones in the east and they were ill-suppllied.

[britishboy]

Yes but saying that they took on 50% of the Germans is false. In the USSR at least two million Nazis got a wooden cross instead of the Iron cross. In France there was not even a million of troops. The D-Day came while the Germans were exhausting themselves trying to fend back the Soviets. The Germns were diverting their most precious resources to fend back the Soviets. In France the Germans had to make use of captured enemy weapons (French and Belgian artillery) since most were sent to the eastern front. And how long the Germans there endured, it surprises me since they were outnumbered and outgunned, not as experienced as the ones in the east and they were ill-suppllied.

Germany could have beaten Russia easily, but I do agree France didn't do that mmuch AND IT WAS 50/50 READ A HISTORY BOOK NOT PROPAGANDA

[Stronk Serb]

Germany could have beaten Russia easily, but I do agree France didn't do that mmuch AND IT WAS 50/50 READ A HISTORY BOOK NOT PROPAGANDA

In the whole war (fighting against Germany, Italy and Japan) it was:
Western Allies: 50%
Soviet Union: 50%
Only against Germany:
Western Allies: 20%
Soviet Union: 80%

[Ballboy]

America is very close allies with the UK and do you mean they should have helped Germany?

Why not? The USSR seems to have been just as bad if not worse as far as I can see.

[britishboy]

Why not? The USSR seems to have been just as bad if not worse as far as I can see.

Germany was worse but Russia was bad anyway were allies andvthey hate Russia

[britishboy]

In the whole war (fighting against Germany, Italy and Japan) it was:
Western Allies: 50%
Soviet Union: 50%
Only against Germany:
Western Allies: 20%
Soviet Union: 80%

your making them statistics up and no country could have won on it's own, we barley won together

[Stronk Serb]

your making them statistics up and no country could have won on it's own, we barley won together



Not really in Europe. The Brits could have stayed and let the USSR do the rest. The US did not have to get involved there.

[britishboy]

Not really in Europe. The Brits could have stayed and let the USSR do the rest. The US did not have to get involved there.

well why turn down a superpowers help? anyway no matter how much you love Americans they are the worlds only current superpower

[tovaris]

well why turn down a superpowers help? anyway no matter how much you love Americans they are the worlds only current superpower


USA is not the only superpower lets not forget Korea(ok not a world power but powerful enouth to frigthen USA that is why dictator ruled corea gets a mention), China, the rising India, nad the putin ruled Russia.

[TheBigUnit]

It is funny though, the western Allies had more numbers, tanks and everything then the Germans, but it took them heck lot more time to get into Germany herself.

The red army fought more savagely, raping and murdering anyone in their path, civilian/military alike, (they kinda were justified especially since the nazis did the same thing)

The western allies did more "liberating" (not destroying any cities in its path) and fought more conservativly than the russians who threw their soldiers into the front lines,

If japan wouldve fought russia instead of usa, the "undefeatable army" wouldve been destroyed

[TheBigUnit]

Germany was worse but Russia was bad anyway were allies andvthey hate Russia

In all honesty everyone hated the ussr

[TheBigUnit]

Not really in Europe. The Brits could have stayed and let the USSR do the rest. The US did not have to get involved there.

well why turn down a superpowers help? anyway no matter how much you love Americans they are the worlds only current superpower

No one wanted the soviets reaching france, partially the reason why we fought

USA is not the only superpower lets not forget Korea(ok not a world power but powerful enouth to frigthen USA that is why dictator ruled corea gets a mention), China, the rising India, nad the putin ruled Russia.

N Korea is a joke, you do mean South Korea right? I mean with all the Samsung products everyones getting your right!!!!
India is the defintion of a pacifist corrupt nation!
Is putin ever going to step down?

[Harry Smith]

In the whole war (fighting against Germany, Italy and Japan) it was:
Western Allies: 50%
Soviet Union: 50%
Only against Germany:
Western Allies: 20%
Soviet Union: 80%

that's wrong, the allies fought Japan pretty much alone, and fought in North Africa and Italy alone.I admit that the Soviet Union had a very hard fight on the Eastern Front but you can't right off the allies just because you hold anti-western views

[britishboy]

In all honesty everyone hated the ussr

true but they were helping us beat the Germans

[britishboy]

USA is not the only superpower lets not forget Korea(ok not a world power but powerful enouth to frigthen USA that is why dictator ruled corea gets a mention), China, the rising India, nad the putin ruled Russia.

America is the only current superpower it's a fact, China is very rich but lets not forget America spends $1 billion on defence a day and India is pathetic how do you even put them in the same sentence as the USA and Russia is powerful but no superpower

[britishboy]

USA is not the only superpower lets not forget Korea(ok not a world power but powerful enouth to frigthen USA that is why dictator ruled corea gets a mention), China, the rising India, nad the putin ruled Russia.

America is the only current superpower that's a fact, China is very rich but lets not forget America spends $1 billion on defence a day and India is pathetic how do you even put them in the same sentence as the USA and Russia is powerful but no superpower, and nk they didn't frighten America!? they are pathetic

[tovaris]

No one wanted the soviets reaching france, partially the reason why we fought



N Korea is a joke, you do mean South Korea right? I mean with all the Samsung products everyones getting your right!!!!
India is the defintion of a pacifist corrupt nation!
Is putin ever going to step down?

No i mean N Korea.
Putin will never step down he has the elian tehnolgie and will live for ever.

[Harry Smith]

America is the only current superpower that's a fact, China is very rich but lets not forget America spends $1 billion on defence a day and India is pathetic how do you even put them in the same sentence as the USA and Russia is powerful but no superpower, and nk they didn't frighten America!? they are pathetic

india have nuclear weapons and are growing

[tovaris]

America is the only current superpower it's a fact, China is very rich but lets not forget America spends $1 billion on defence a day and India is pathetic how do you even put them in the same sentence as the USA and Russia is powerful but no superpower

Have you recently caught a glimps of theyre arsenals? China has a batalion for every US solder and Russia has wepons unmached by any other power. Just because these countries dont stick their nose in so ,any foreighn afers dosent mean they are not superpowers.

[naglfari]

No i mean N Korea.
Putin will never step down he has the elian tehnolgie and will live for ever.

North Korea is only a threat in the sense that we really don't want to deal with more shit right now. The US has more military power than the next 10 countries combined and enough nukes to wipe out humanity several times over

[britishboy]

Have you recently caught a glimps of theyre arsenals? China has a batalion for every US solder and Russia has wepons unmached by any other power. Just because these countries dont stick their nose in so ,any foreighn afers dosent mean they are not superpowers.

again made up figures and its a fact I didn't make it up, if I was making it up the UK would be a super power as well

[britishboy]

india have nuclear weapons and are growing

harry even we could beat them up lol, they have unreal amounts of poverty and are generally fucked up, but I do agree they are growing

[tovaris]

North Korea is only a threat in the sense that we really don't want to deal with more shit right now. The US has more military power than the next 10 countries combined and enough nukes to wipe out humanity several times over

But in the end Korea is stil a thret.
They fire y single nuke at any of those countries they get turned themselves into a nuklear desert.

[tovaris]

again made up figures and its a fact I didn't make it up, if I was making it up the UK would be a super power as well

I never said you made it up.

[naglfari]

But in the end Korea is stil a thret.
They fire y single nuke at any of those countries they get turned themselves into a nuklear desert.

They're a threat to south Korea and Japan

[tovaris]

They're a threat to south Korea and Japan

Than why does the US care, h. Its because they could hit them.

[Stronk Serb]

that's wrong, the allies fought Japan pretty much alone, and fought in North Africa and Italy alone.I admit that the Soviet Union had a very hard fight on the Eastern Front but you can't right off the allies just because you hold anti-western views

All German troops the Western Allies fought were a quarter of what the Soviets fought. If that was 50/50, Soviet troops would be marching in Berlin at the beggining of '44. If it was like you claim, a lot less Soviets would die, not 22 million. The Pacific theatre was yours almost the whole war, except the Khalkin Gol incident and after Germany's capitulation, when the battle-hardened Soviet troops ran through a Japanese obstacle course they called "the Kwantung Army". The USSR took the full brunt of the German onslaught. The Germans were desperately trying to repel the Soviets that they left France and North Africa unattended. That's when you consolidated and routed them out of Africa, then Italy, and then France and Holland.

[britishboy]

All German troops the Western Allies fought were a quarter of what the Soviets fought. If that was 50/50, Soviet troops would be marching in Berlin at the beggining of '44. If it was like you claim, a lot less Soviets would die, not 22 million. The Pacific theatre was yours almost the whole war, except the Khalkin Gol incident and after Germany's capitulation, when the battle-hardened Soviet troops ran through a Japanese obstacle course they called "the Kwantung Army". The USSR took the full brunt of the German onslaught. The Germans were desperately trying to repel the Soviets that they left France and North Africa unattended. That's when you consolidated and routed them out of Africa, then Italy, and then France and Holland.

22 million died because they were crap at fighting and if anything they focused more on the Western front, we also helped by heavily bombing them, just like we did with the 'great' Serbia.

[Harry Smith]

All German troops the Western Allies fought were a quarter of what the Soviets fought. If that was 50/50, Soviet troops would be marching in Berlin at the beggining of '44. If it was like you claim, a lot less Soviets would die, not 22 million. The Pacific theatre was yours almost the whole war, except the Khalkin Gol incident and after Germany's capitulation, when the battle-hardened Soviet troops ran through a Japanese obstacle course they called "the Kwantung Army". The USSR took the full brunt of the German onslaught. The Germans were desperately trying to repel the Soviets that they left France and North Africa unattended. That's when you consolidated and routed them out of Africa, then Italy, and then France and Holland.

I seem to remember that the British faced the Germans's alone for nearly a year, we were on the back foot, don't write off the Battle of Britain just because you dislike the west

[britishboy]

Than why does the US care, h. Its because they could hit them.

they cant, they care because south Korea is an ALLIE and they have bases in japan

[tovaris]

22 million died because they were crap at fighting and if anything they focused more on the Western front, we also helped by heavily bombing them, just like we did with the 'great' Serbia.

The undefetable read army was not crap at fighting, if they were they wouldent have won the war.
And the british teror bombing campains acived little only sloed the III Reich industry a little.

[Harry Smith]

The undefetable read army was not crap at fighting, if they were they wouldent have won the war.
And the british teror bombing campains acived little only sloed the III Reich industry a little.

Battle of Britain, I know you love giving Uncle Joe a boost but he didn't win the War on his own, just like the Americans didn't. The soviets were not unbeatable, they suffered terribly during '41 and got there asses kicked in Afghanistan in the 80's.

You need to separate History from Personal views

[tovaris]

I seem to remember that the British faced the Germans's alone for nearly a year, we were on the back foot, don't write off the Battle of Britain just because you dislike the west

Keep your nickers on nobody is writing of the battle for britan, however you put it it was a good defence fight but did not contribute in beating the germans much.

[britishboy]

The undefetable read army was not crap at fighting, if they were they wouldent have won the war.
And the british teror bombing campains acived little only sloed the III Reich industry a little.

'the undefetable' yep you definitely listen to propaganda we might need to send up a few more bombers to Serbia they are doing the propaganda thing again

[tovaris]

Battle of Britain, I know you love giving Uncle Joe a boost but he didn't win the War on his own, just like the Americans didn't. The soviets were not unbeatable, they suffered terribly during '41 and got there asses kicked in Afghanistan in the 80's.

You need to separate History from Personal views

They suferd in '41 because Stalin was an idiot. And in Afganistan they retreted because they were betraied by the wery people that asked them to protect them (an onrable fighting retreat to put it in british diplomatic terms).

[Harry Smith]

They suferd in '41 because Stalin was an idiot. And in Afganistan they retreted because they were betraied by the wery people that asked them to protect them (an onrable fighting retreat to put it in british diplomatic terms).

So then they were quite clearly Beatable? Albeit not through their fault in your opinion but they were still defeated.

So do you know see that Britain helped defeat the Nazis?

[tovaris]

'the undefetable' yep you definitely listen to propaganda we might need to send up a few more bombers to Serbia they are doing the propaganda thing again

Pardon my french...(not realy)
but you are an idiot, firstla i do not leve in serbia secondly „the undefetable” is simply a historica term for it was refered to this waa by the soviets and most of the world at the time.

[naglfari]

Than why does the US care, h. Its because they could hit them.

We protect our allies and if anything happened to either country it'd be pretty bad for the global economy

[tovaris]

you know see that Britain helped defeat the Nazis?


I neve said they dident.

[Stronk Serb]

I seem to remember that the British faced the Germans's alone for nearly a year, we were on the back foot, don't write off the Battle of Britain just because you dislike the west

I never worte that battle off. The Germans started bombing your airbases, but you bombed some German cities afterwards which made Hitler pissed, so he said he wants London in dust. Then, the only losses were the planes lost in the air and civilian casualties. Some RAF pilots said that if the Germans continued bombing the airbases, a ground invasion would ensue. The bombing raids were called off in '41 so that the Germans could invade the USSR.

[Harry Smith]

Everyone on this Post.

You can argue about this until the cows come home. The important thing was the both the Soviets, Americans, French and British helped defeat the Germans. You can argue over who had the the greatest effect but the bottom line is that each nation was part of the Jigsaw which helped defeat the Nazis.

- The US built so much equipment, bombers, fighters, tanks, trucks, helmets, food etc. They defeated the Japanese, lead the Allies through France and helped bomb the Remains of the third Reich. They provided the money for the war and the manpower for the West.

- The British fought in North Africa, they helped save the Oil fields of the Middle east and the Suez Canal, they defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940 and then went on to lead the Bombing raids over Germany. They were the major Naval Superpower in Europe and used this to great affect.

- The french provided the Colonies for the Allies and helped with tactical strikes in France, don't write off the free french.

-The soviet union did a very good job I won't deny, they fought the Germans for 4 years straight whilst suffering massive losses. They had the best tank of the war and the morale of there troops was very good. The fought very well in Berlin, they attacked it with such force to make sure the battle didn't turn into a siege.

All the countries had there ups and down to the war. Don't try and make out that one side single handily won the war because they didn't. It was a combined effort based on the need to survive. Don't make it about your own personal beliefs

[youthought08]

The allies won WW2.

[tovaris]

Everyone on this Post.

You can argue about this until the cows come home. The important thing was the both the Soviets, Americans, French and British helped defeat the Germans. You can argue over who had the the greatest effect but the bottom line is that each nation was part of the Jigsaw which helped defeat the Nazis.

- The US built so much equipment, bombers, fighters, tanks, trucks, helmets, food etc. They defeated the Japanese, lead the Allies through France and helped bomb the Remains of the third Reich. They provided the money for the war and the manpower for the West.

- The British fought in North Africa, they helped save the Oil fields of the Middle east and the Suez Canal, they defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940 and then went on to lead the Bombing raids over Germany. They were the major Naval Superpower in Europe and used this to great affect.

- The french provided the Colonies for the Allies and helped with tactical strikes in France, don't write off the free french.

-The soviet union did a very good job I won't deny, they fought the Germans for 4 years straight whilst suffering massive losses. They had the best tank of the war and the morale of there troops was very good. The fought very well in Berlin, they attacked it with such force to make sure the battle didn't turn into a siege.

All the countries had there ups and down to the war. Don't try and make out that one side single handily won the war because they didn't. It was a combined effort based on the need to survive. Don't make it about your own personal beliefs

This therd was merly ment to debate who had the most credite in a certan part of the world, and whos defet of the enemy was most noticable in that region. Not to find the owerall winner. There is no doubt that all efected nations contributed to the overall victory even S American volentires and the Brasilian troops contributed.

[britishboy]

I never worte that battle off. The Germans started bombing your airbases, but you bombed some German cities afterwards which made Hitler pissed, so he said he wants London in dust. Then, the only losses were the planes lost in the air and civilian casualties. Some RAF pilots said that if the Germans continued bombing the airbases, a ground invasion would ensue. The bombing raids were called off in '41 so that the Germans could invade the USSR.

we killed many more German civilians than they killed British civilians

[TheBigUnit]

No i mean N Korea.
Putin will never step down he has the elian tehnolgie and will live for ever.
Once again, North Korea is a joke

harry even we could beat them up lol, they have unreal amounts of poverty and are generally fucked up, but I do agree they are growing
India has the potential but who knows

All German troops the Western Allies fought were a quarter of what the Soviets fought. If that was 50/50, Soviet troops would be marching in Berlin at the beggining of '44. If it was like you claim, a lot less Soviets would die, not 22 million. The Pacific theatre was yours almost the whole war, except the Khalkin Gol incident and after Germany's capitulation, when the battle-hardened Soviet troops ran through a Japanese obstacle course they called "the Kwantung Army". The USSR took the full brunt of the German onslaught. The Germans were desperately trying to repel the Soviets that they left France and North Africa unattended. That's when you consolidated and routed them out of Africa, then Italy, and then France and Holland.
Battle Hardened??? The troops there never fought in a battle before

'the undefetable' yep you definitely listen to propaganda we might need to send up a few more bombers to Serbia they are doing the propaganda thing again
Haha the Soviet Union propaganda included "the great harvest" for hours the TV would show people reaping wheat as if it a miracle

They suferd in '41 because Stalin was an idiot. And in Afganistan they retreted because they were betraied by the wery people that asked them to protect them (an onrable fighting retreat to put it in british diplomatic terms).
Stalin was not an idiot in some terms, I mean there was the purge and the like 50 million executed (outnumbers everyone killed in wwii) but his nonaggresion pact saved russias ass, 41' the russian army was outdated and illequipped,
The russians got whooooped in their afghan war no onrable retreat

[Stronk Serb]

Once again, North Korea is a joke


India has the potential but who knows


Battle Hardened??? The troops there never fought in a battle before


Haha the Soviet Union propaganda included "the great harvest" for hours the TV would show people reaping wheat as if it a miracle


The Soviet troops which attacked the Kwantung Army were shipped from Europe. The Kwantung Army did not see real battle. No there is no propaganda here.

[britishboy]

The Soviet troops which attacked the Kwantung Army were shipped from Europe. The Kwantung Army did not see real battle. No there is no propaganda here.

now I understand why we had to bomb Serbia

[Stronk Serb]

'the undefetable' yep you definitely listen to propaganda we might need to send up a few more bombers to Serbia they are doing the propaganda thing again

Learn to read, Maticek is in Slovenia, not Serbia. And there is no propaganda here.

[britishboy]

Learn to read, Maticek is in Slovenia, not Serbia. And there is no propaganda here.

is that what the propaganda told you? and Slovenia I've never even herd of that, another third world country I assume

[tovaris]

is that what the propaganda told you? and Slovenia I've never even herd of that, another third world country I assume

learn to see past your countries propaganda than lock at the world.
I asume you have never heard of the EU ether or watched the world news in the last month. (im not mantoning the world news as a good thing).

[Stronk Serb]

is that what the propaganda told you? and Slovenia I've never even herd of that, another third world country I assume



Slovenia is by far the most advanced former Yugoslav country. I did not know third-world.countries are accepted ito the Europan Union.

[britishboy]

learn to see past your countries propaganda than lock at the world.
I asume you have never heard of the EU ether or watched the world news in the last month. (im not mantoning the world news as a good thing).

Britian is a key player in the eu idiot of course I've herd of it

[Sir Suomi]

Technically speaking, the allies could have been called "Victorious" in World War II. But nobody really "Won" the war. Tell me, after 60-80 million people killed, how anyone won that war.

[tovaris]

Britian is a key player in the eu idiot of course I've herd of it

And the other members... oh I dont know... Slovenija... curently most talked about member (not a good thing i repet)

[britishboy]

Slovenia is by far the most advanced former Yugoslav country. I did not know third-world.countries are accepted ito the Europan Union.

well they are such as Romania Bulgaria Slovenia and Turkey might be joining soon thats why the UK is leaving soon

[britishboy]

Slovenia is by far the most advanced former Yugoslav country. I did not know third-world.countries are accepted ito the Europan Union.

well they are such as Romania Bulgaria Slovenia and Serbia and Turkey might be joining soon thats why the UK is considering leaving soon

[britishboy]

And the other members... oh I dont know... Slovenija... curently most talked about member (not a good thing i repet)

no one cares about them it's the immigrants coming over here we care about (and want to get rid of) we only really care about Germany and France ( because they are key players like the UK )

[tovaris]

well they are such as Romania Bulgaria Slovenia and Serbia and Turkey might be joining soon thats why the UK is considering leaving soon

What world do you leve in Serbija is not a member of the EU? Ever been to Turkey they are as Europeanly developed as the british or the germans, people go there from all over the world to shop... Croatia is joining this summer are they a third world country?

If you wish to debate this further PM me or start a there tis is getting a bit of the topic.

[Stronk Serb]

What world do you leve in Serbija is not a member of the EU? Ever been to Turkey they are as Europeanly developed as the british or the germans, people go there from all over the world to shop... Croatia is joining this summer are they a third world yountry!

If you wish to debate this further PM me or start a there tis is getting a bit of the topic.

Croatia is not a third world country.
To Britishboy: a third world country is not a country in which live anti-western people and who are putting the facts which are against the things your media told you. Just vecause I do not like the NATO and it's leading countries does not mean the country where I live, Serbia is third world country.

[survivorguilt]

Japan surrendered pretty obviously in response to being nuked

Actually based on the peace negotiations that the US was having with Japan two weeks before the nuking it looked like Japan was planning on surrendering anyhow.

[britishboy]

Croatia is not a third world country.
To Britishboy: a third world country is not a country in which live anti-western people and who are putting the facts which are against the things your media told you. Just vecause I do not like the NATO and it's leading countries does not mean the country where I live, Serbia is third world country.

of course not and croatia is a second world and politics does not affect what kind of country it is and Serbia is a first world country (source google) and my friend was telling me a couple of days ago it's good for a holiday

[Stronger]

What world do you leve in Serbija is not a member of the EU? Ever been to Turkey they are as Europeanly developed as the british or the germans, people go there from all over the world to shop... Croatia is joining this summer are they a third world country?

If you wish to debate this further PM me or start a there tis is getting a bit of the topic.

Croatia is not a third world country.
To Britishboy: a third world country is not a country in which live anti-western people and who are putting the facts which are against the things your media told you. Just vecause I do not like the NATO and it's leading countries does not mean the country where I live, Serbia is third world country.

Third World Country has two meanings, a neutral country that is non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. In today's terms people look at it as poorer countries, that struggle with economic development.

So in Cold War terms both are Third World's but in the second definition, Croatia and Serbia are not third world countries.

[Azunite]

Let's examine them all one by one, I am going to write about possible winners.

Germany: Thanks to the war they pioneered more than half of modern day technologies during the war. They didn't gain much by this, but they served the world the technology it stands on at this very moment. They got out of their Treaty of Versailles. They were split up in two, true, but thanks to de-militarisation their engineers concenctrated on other branches of technology, thus becoming world leaders.

Soviet Union: I think every logical historian would say it contributed more than the US. The battle in the west came to a halt, whereas the Soviets won their battles on their own. The US relied on French reconaissance and British transportation. Found the chance to expand into the world and communism.

Japan: Well, they got nuked, true, but the same situation with Germany: Their de-militarisation contributed their massive advancement in technology, while they had a stack of engineers working on other things.

US: Earned the adjective "Saver of the West." This is it pretty much everything, except the consequences of its new rank.

[TheBassoonist]

It's clear that the Allies won and set up the UN how they wanted: with their countries given the veto in the Security Council. So let's look at the United States, Soviet Union, China, France, and the United Kingdom in the long term to see who fared better.

France was effectively destroyed by the war. I can't say that they won.

The United Kingdom fared better than France, but lost its title of superpower shortly after the war ended. The British Empire fell apart; its colonies became independent states. The UK didn't win the war.

In China, the communists and nationalists went back to fighting their civil war after WWII had ended. The communists forced the nationalists to Taiwan, which took China's seat in the United Nations. China was split, Mao took over, and the effects of his rule are still felt today. A lack of economic and social freedom in the 20th century has given way to just a lack of social freedom, but China still suffers. China didn't win WWII.

After the war, the United States and Soviet Union were thrust into a 50 year long Cold War, which could have brought the total destruction of all life on Earth. Thankfully, both sides kept their wits about them and didn't kill everyone. But the Cold War ended with the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union. The United States kept its title as a superpower, and still exists.

To answer the question, I'd have to say that the United States, having fared better in the long run, won WWII. That being said, the Soviet Union played an important role in defeating the Axis powers. The Allies would've lost if Hitler hadn't executed Barbarossa. With the Germans distracted on the new Eastern Front, the Allies on the Western Front were facing less dense forces, and were able to win.

[britishboy]

It's clear that the Allies won and set up the UN how they wanted: with their countries given the veto in the Security Council. So let's look at the United States, Soviet Union, China, France, and the United Kingdom in the long term to see who fared better.

France was effectively destroyed by the war. I can't say that they won.

The United Kingdom fared better than France, but lost its title of superpower shortly after the war ended. The British Empire fell apart; its colonies became independent states. The UK didn't win the war.

In China, the communists and nationalists went back to fighting their civil war after WWII had ended. The communists forced the nationalists to Taiwan, which took China's seat in the United Nations. China was split, Mao took over, and the effects of his rule are still felt today. A lack of economic and social freedom in the 20th century has given way to just a lack of social freedom, but China still suffers. China didn't win WWII.

After the war, the United States and Soviet Union were thrust into a 50 year long Cold War, which could have brought the total destruction of all life on Earth. Thankfully, both sides kept their wits about them and didn't kill everyone. But the Cold War ended with the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union. The United States kept its title as a superpower, and still exists.

To answer the question, I'd have to say that the United States, having fared better in the long run, won WWII. That being said, the Soviet Union played an important role in defeating the Axis powers. The Allies would've lost if Hitler hadn't executed Barbarossa. With the Germans distracted on the new Eastern Front, the Allies on the Western Front were facing less dense forces, and were able to win.

the UK was involved in the cold war and we done just as much as the us did in the war and we created the commonwealth

[Origami]

This thread is beyond stupid already. It's obvious that it is, at it's core, a bunch of anti-westerners circle jerking over "glorious Soviet Russia."

But what's worse is that every comparison to the war front is the land battles. Seriously? This is World War II god dammit, did you all forget about the naval front? To kill off the Soviet circle jerk in one solid blow, Soviet Russia's naval force was the most pathetic excuse for a navy at the time. You say Russia forced Japan to surrender? Nay, America took the full brunt of Japan's amazing navy in the Pacific. I promise you, without America's intervention, Japan would have royally fucked Russia since it had absolutely no way to stop Japan's naval forces.

On top of that, the German wolf packs dominated the Atlantic. Germany was sinking American merchant ships to cut off it's aid to the UK. Where was Russia in this? Again, it was America and the UK which had to fight yet another battle on top of an already taxing land battle.

You debate one of history's most devastating wars and completely neglect one of it's most pivotal aspects? The simple truth is that no one won WWII. It was an absolutely tragedy for all of mankind no matter how you look at it. No one prospered from it, everyone was left in miserable shambles due to it's death and economic tolls.

And why the fuck were you people even talking about India and North Korea having nukes? Stay on topic, they didn't have the level of technology to even be worth significantly mentioning at that time.

[Left Now]

US and UK think they won the WWII,but i think USSR won it last,because they couldn't do anything if Russians didn't win Nazi forces in Eastern Europe.
And the other side,i believe that no one won that war,there was just wasting of anything in WWII.

[Stronk Serb]

This thread is beyond stupid already. It's obvious that it is, at it's core, a bunch of anti-westerners circle jerking over "glorious Soviet Russia."

But what's worse is that every comparison to the war front is the land battles. Seriously? This is World War II god dammit, did you all forget about the naval front? To kill off the Soviet circle jerk in one solid blow, Soviet Russia's naval force was the most pathetic excuse for a navy at the time. You say Russia forced Japan to surrender? Nay, America took the full brunt of Japan's amazing navy in the Pacific. I promise you, without America's intervention, Japan would have royally fucked Russia since it had absolutely no way to stop Japan's naval forces.

On top of that, the German wolf packs dominated the Atlantic. Germany was sinking American merchant ships to cut off it's aid to the UK. Where was Russia in this? Again, it was America and the UK which had to fight yet another battle on top of an already taxing land battle.

You debate one of history's most devastating wars and completely neglect one of it's most pivotal aspects? The simple truth is that no one won WWII. It was an absolutely tragedy for all of mankind no matter how you look at it. No one prospered from it, everyone was left in miserable shambles due to it's death and economic tolls.

And why the fuck were you people even talking about India and North Korea having nukes? Stay on topic, they didn't have the level of technology to even be worth significantly mentioning at that time.


I never mentioned the Soviet Navy being the best. They had a pitiful navy at that time. If your carriers were not absent in Pearl Harbour, both the US and the USSR would get fucked. The US because their domination of the Pacific has been severed, and the Soviets for already being slaughtered by the Germans. When the Soviets started moving their troops into Manchuria, the Japanese knew they at that time did not stand a chance, since the Japanese Navy in '45 was pretty much destroyed by the US. The nuking just made them surrender faster, and agree to the Allies' terms in Potsdam. Essentially unconditional surrender.

[britishboy]

I never mentioned the Soviet Navy being the best. They had a pitiful navy at that time. If your carriers were not absent in Pearl Harbour, both the US and the USSR would get fucked. The US because their domination of the Pacific has been severed, and the Soviets for already being slaughtered by the Germans. When the Soviets started moving their troops into Manchuria, the Japanese knew they at that time did not stand a chance, since the Japanese Navy in '45 was pretty much destroyed by the US. The nuking just made them surrender faster, and agree to the Allies' terms in Potsdam. Essentially unconditional surrender.

agree with the first half not the second and making up more facts are we? the Japanese taken alot of China and was very powerful, they had suicide bombers and they all fought to the death until the second nuke hit that's when they surrendered this is because of a lot of propaganda and them being extremely 'proud'

[Joshua2000]

The simple truth is that no one won WWII. It was an absolutely tragedy for all of mankind no matter how you look at it. No one prospered from it, everyone was left in miserable shambles due to it's death and economic tolls.

Maybe I'm wrong, but didnt WW2 pull the USA out of the Great Depression? That's prospering a little isn't it?

[Stronk Serb]

agree with the first half not the second and making up more facts are we? the Japanese taken alot of China and was very powerful, they had suicide bombers and they all fought to the death until the second nuke hit that's when they surrendered this is because of a lot of propaganda and them being extremely 'proud'

They would have surrendered when the Soviets invaded Japan. The nuking just saved the both sides from the casualties and fighting.

About the Japanese being very strong, have you heard of the Khalkin Gol incident? It was in '39 I think. The Japanese got imperially fucked by the Soviets. That is where Georgiy Zhukov distinguished himself as a great commander.

[britishboy]

They would have surrendered when the Soviets invaded Japan. The nuking just saved the both sides from the casualties and fighting.

About the Japanese being very strong, have you heard of the Khalkin Gol incident? It was in '39 I think. The Japanese got imperially fucked by the Soviets. That is where Georgiy Zhukov distinguished himself as a great commander.

they was marching right into china they only slowed down when America got involved and do you know anything that doesn't involve communism?

[britishboy]

Maybe I'm wrong, but didnt WW2 pull the USA out of the Great Depression? That's prospering a little isn't it?

wrong :") the allied won do you see Hitler running around? no that cos he killed himself cos Brits+ Americans = run! ;)

[Stronk Serb]

they was marching right into china they only slowed down when America got involved and do you know anything that doesn't involve communism?

The Soviets kicked their asses out of Mongolia. The Japanese went into Mongolia 10 kilometers deep. The Soviets got pissed and kicked them out. They did not really venture ino China untill the capitulation of Germany where they went in and kicked Kwantung Army's ass, again. Yes, this thing does not involve communism:
The Battle of Midway was a turning point in the Pacific theatre, there the Red Cavalry trampled all Japanese carriers with their horses, and cut their planes into ribbons with their cavalry swords. Joking, the Red Cavalry was disbanded a bit before the war I think. The US kicked the Japanese carriers all the way to the bottom. Despite being outnumbered, outgunned and not well trained, the US did it . If they lost, they and probably the Soviet Union would get fucked, but not as hard in '41 since the Soviets started slowly pushing the Germans back.

[britishboy]

The Soviets kicked their asses out of Mongolia. The Japanese went into Mongolia 10 kilometers deep. The Soviets got pissed and kicked them out. They did not really venture ino China untill the capitulation of Germany where they went in and kicked Kwantung Army's ass, again. Yes, this thing does not involve communism:
The Battle of Midway was a turning point in the Pacific theatre, there the Red Cavalry trampled all Japanese carriers with their horses, and cut their planes into ribbons with their cavalry swords. Joking, the Red Cavalry was disbanded a bit before the war I think. The US kicked the Japanese carriers all the way to the bottom. Despite being outnumbered, outgunned and not well trained, the US did it . If they lost, they and probably the Soviet Union would get fucked, but not as hard in '41 since the Soviets started slowly pushing the Germans back.

your well smart your like a walking google:)

[Stronk Serb]

your well smart your like a walking google:)

I acknowledge the US success. It was like Stalingrad of the Pacific. The enemy took casualties from which it has never recovered. The Japanese had a superior navy. You can hardly say that about the equipment of their ground forces, high-calibe anti-materiek rifles destroyed Japanese tanks in one shot mostly. Still they forced the Brits out of Malesia and Singapore. The Brits united with the Dutch, US, elements of the Australian air force and navy, and defended themselves as hard as they could.

[britishboy]

I acknowledge the US success. It was like Stalingrad of the Pacific. The enemy took casualties from which it has never recovered. The Japanese had a superior navy. You can hardly say that about the equipment of their ground forces, high-calibe anti-materiek rifles destroyed Japanese tanks in one shot mostly. Still they forced the Brits out of Malesia and Singapore. The Brits united with the Dutch, US, elements of the Australian air force and navy, and defended themselves as hard as they could.

was britian in Japan? I never knew that I thought we would have been more concerned about being invaded

[Stronk Serb]

was britian in Japan? I never knew that I thought we would have been more concerned about being invaded


The colonial armies and fleets put up a small fight against the Japs. The US took the full brunt though.

[britishboy]

The colonial armies and fleets put up a small fight against the Japs. The US took the full brunt though.

lol the usa was just pissed about pearl harbor

[Stronk Serb]

lol the usa was just pissed about pearl harbor

And the Phillipines, China etc. The colonial forces got no reinforcements from their countries. They fought with what they had.

[Stronger]

Maybe I'm wrong, but didnt WW2 pull the USA out of the Great Depression? That's prospering a little isn't it?

Yes it did, because the US switched to producing military items, etc.

wrong :") the allied won do you see Hitler running around? no that cos he killed himself cos Brits+ Americans = run! ;)

Your answer makes no sense what so ever, what you said has nothing to do with what Joshua had asked.

lol the usa was just pissed about pearl harbor

Why wouldn't we be, you seem to blow it off like a joke, when it certainly wasn't.

[Harry Smith]

They would have surrendered when the Soviets invaded Japan. The nuking just saved the both sides from the casualties and fighting.

About the Japanese being very strong, have you heard of the Khalkin Gol incident? It was in '39 I think. The Japanese got imperially fucked by the Soviets. That is where Georgiy Zhukov distinguished himself as a great commander.

The soviet wouldn't of be able to invade Japan, they didn't have enough transport ships or experienced Marine divisions or specialized landing crafts. The allies said they would need 55 Divisions on one beach head, the Soviet Navy simply could supply that many divisons. It would have been like Gallipoli, say for example if the US never entered the war then the soviets would of had no chance. A Naval Landing is the hardest thing to master in warfare

[mattywiz96]

im an a level history student with an A* it was no win for anyone. everyone lost millions on men, land, money, and basically fucked up all sorts just because of a bad shaving accedent named hitler

[randomnessqueen]

nobody
in a war, everyone loses

[Origami]

I never mentioned the Soviet Navy being the best. They had a pitiful navy at that time. If your carriers were not absent in Pearl Harbour, both the US and the USSR would get fucked. The US because their domination of the Pacific has been severed, and the Soviets for already being slaughtered by the Germans. When the Soviets started moving their troops into Manchuria, the Japanese knew they at that time did not stand a chance, since the Japanese Navy in '45 was pretty much destroyed by the US. The nuking just made them surrender faster, and agree to the Allies' terms in Potsdam. Essentially unconditional surrender.

Your counter argument didn't do anything to prove your point. "I never mentioned the Soviet Navy being the best best," I didn't say you did. I said you didn't mention it at all. Instead you acted like the Soviet's single-handedly defeated Nazi Germany. You say the US and UK didn't pull their own, essentially but completely neglect the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. Here's a hint, it doesn't matter what the Soviets achieved on the land. If not for the naval victories in the Pacific, they would have never gotten half as far as they did.

Furthermore, you forget why the Soviets were so successful. Mind you, they didn't accomplish much until Hitler attempted to foolishly invade them during the winter. And guess what, it was the weather, not the Soviet forces, that demoralized and forced the Nazi troops to withdraw. Hitler essentially gave them the biggest moral advantage in history, and morale is everything.

What's worse is that you use made up statistics. I assure you, the Soviet did not hold down 80% of Nazi Germany alone. Why? Because Nazi Germany was no strong enough to hold off the combined forces in the West with a tiny 20% of their troops. It just doesn't work that way. The Soviets had terrain and numerical advantages, that's all. They sent hundreds of thousands of untrained men to die and you think they won WWII? That's anything but a win. They essentially used human meat shields to advance their military force. The USSR was not weak, by any standards, but I assure you that you are over exaggerating their power. You're too consumed in your views of Russia being superior to the world that you neglect simple truths.

Maybe I'm wrong, but didnt WW2 pull the USA out of the Great Depression? That's prospering a little isn't it?

It didn't pull them out so much as it accelerated their coming out. The US was on it's way out of the Great Depression, just not at a remarkable pace. So, yes, they prospered a little but the war was still very taxing on them in all regards.

[Stronk Serb]

Your counter argument didn't do anything to prove your point. "I never mentioned the Soviet Navy being the best best," I didn't say you did. I said you didn't mention it at all. Instead you acted like the Soviet's single-handedly defeated Nazi Germany. You say the US and UK didn't pull their own, essentially but completely neglect the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. Here's a hint, it doesn't matter what the Soviets achieved on the land. If not for the naval victories in the Pacific, they would have never gotten half as far as they did.

Furthermore, you forget why the Soviets were so successful. Mind you, they didn't accomplish much until Hitler attempted to foolishly invade them during the winter. And guess what, it was the weather, not the Soviet forces, that demoralized and forced the Nazi troops to withdraw. Hitler essentially gave them the biggest moral advantage in history, and morale is everything.

What's worse is that you use made up statistics. I assure you, the Soviet did not hold down 80% of Nazi Germany alone. Why? Because Nazi Germany was no strong enough to hold off the combined forces in the West with a tiny 20% of their troops. It just doesn't work that way. The Soviets had terrain and numerical advantages, that's all. They sent hundreds of thousands of untrained men to die and you think they won WWII? That's anything but a win. They essentially used human meat shields to advance their military force. The USSR was not weak, by any standards, but I assure you that you are over exaggerating their power. You're too consumed in your views of Russia being superior to the world that you neglect simple truths.


Look at the numbers. The western allies fought and killed more or less about 500,000 Germans in France. They encountered that much in Africa and Italy. Maximum was 1-1.5 million + bombing raids where civilians died like crazy. The Soviets took most of the other part by crushing the Germans under the weight of their bodies. For every German offensive, they commited at least 500,000-750,000 men. Kursk, Stalingrad, Mosow, Leningrad attack, breaching into Germany made them commit more forces since they knew that the western Allies showed mercy. I stated in my later posts that if it wasn't for the US navy and their commitment in the Pacific, the USSR would probably get squished into a sandwich by the Japanese and Germans. 80% of the German ground forces is a maximum the Soviets fought. Over 5 million German military losses happened on the Eastern front. Source: Wikipedia.

[britishboy]

Look at the numbers. The western allies fought and killed more or less about 500,000 Germans in France. They encountered that much in Africa and Italy. Maximum was 1-1.5 million + bombing raids where civilians died like crazy. The Soviets took most of the other part by crushing the Germans under the weight of their bodies. For every German offensive, they commited at least 500,000-750,000 men. Kursk, Stalingrad, Mosow, Leningrad attack, breaching into Germany made them commit more forces since they knew that the western Allies showed mercy. I stated in my later posts that if it wasn't for the US navy and their commitment in the Pacific, the USSR would probably get squished into a sandwich by the Japanese and Germans. 80% of the German ground forces is a maximum the Soviets fought. Over 5 million German military losses happened on the Eastern front. Source: Wikipedia.

over a million soviets died in stalingrad so it was not easy but there strength of numbers, the Germans or West couldn't match

[TheBigUnit]

The Soviets took most of the other part by crushing the Germans
where civilians also died like crazy

you also forgot to add the underlined part, so i helped edit it a bit

[Origami]

Look at the numbers. The western allies fought and killed more or less about 500,000 Germans in France. They encountered that much in Africa and Italy. Maximum was 1-1.5 million + bombing raids where civilians died like crazy. The Soviets took most of the other part by crushing the Germans under the weight of their bodies. For every German offensive, they commited at least 500,000-750,000 men. Kursk, Stalingrad, Mosow, Leningrad attack, breaching into Germany made them commit more forces since they knew that the western Allies showed mercy. I stated in my later posts that if it wasn't for the US navy and their commitment in the Pacific, the USSR would probably get squished into a sandwich by the Japanese and Germans. 80% of the German ground forces is a maximum the Soviets fought. Over 5 million German military losses happened on the Eastern front. Source: Wikipedia.

I'm not doubting that the Soviet forces fought a greater number of the Nazis by any means. Nor am I doubting that they held off a substantially larger number of Nazi forces. But look at your statistics, what country had the military might to fight off the UK and US at this time with only 20% of it's forces? No one. Germany had no geographical advantages, anywhere with the exception of few choke holds where the Allies to the west were forced into due to neutral countries at the time.

What I'm saying is that 80% is an exaggeration. 65-70% of the Nazi GROUND forces is a much more reasonable number. But once you factor in the Nazi navy and air power, that number diminishes to nearly 50%. The Soviet forces did an amazing job and played a huge role in the European theater, yes. But you exaggerate it a bit too much.

And in all fairness, the Soviets punched their way to Berlin. Unfortunately, that is a stupid strategical error. Had the allies not been pushing from the West, the Soviets would have literally cut their forces in two and found themselves isolated and inevitably slaughtered in Berlin.

As I said in my first post, no body won WWII. Some people just took fewer deaths, but it was an equal fight on all fronts.

[Stronk Serb]

I'm not doubting that the Soviet forces fought a greater number of the Nazis by any means. Nor am I doubting that they held off a substantially larger number of Nazi forces. But look at your statistics, what country had the military might to fight off the UK and US at this time with only 20% of it's forces? No one. Germany had no geographical advantages, anywhere with the exception of few choke holds where the Allies to the west were forced into due to neutral countries at the time.

What I'm saying is that 80% is an exaggeration. 65-70% of the Nazi GROUND forces is a much more reasonable number. But once you factor in the Nazi navy and air power, that number diminishes to nearly 50%. The Soviet forces did an amazing job and played a huge role in the European theater, yes. But you exaggerate it a bit too much.

And in all fairness, the Soviets punched their way to Berlin. Unfortunately, that is a stupid strategical error. Had the allies not been pushing from the West, the Soviets would have literally cut their forces in two and found themselves isolated and inevitably slaughtered in Berlin.

As I said in my first post, no body won WWII. Some people just took fewer deaths, but it was an equal fight on all fronts.

Fight off? Did the Germans fight off the western Allies? As much as I dislike the west, I am pretty positive that the Allies had taken the fight to the enemy. The Germans weren't fighting you off. They were doomed since D-Day. That was a fighting retreat, not a defensive fight. Looking at the numbers the Soviets took out 70%-75%. The US were more deployed in the Pacific theatre then in Europe. The Brits fought in Africa and Italy alongside the US. France and BENLUX was next. In all due honesty judging by the numbers, the Soviets took out at least 70%.

[britishboy]

i'm not doubting that the soviet forces fought a greater number of the nazis by any means. Nor am i doubting that they held off a substantially larger number of nazi forces. But look at your statistics, what country had the military might to fight off the uk and us at this time with only 20% of it's forces? No one. Germany had no geographical advantages, anywhere with the exception of few choke holds where the allies to the west were forced into due to neutral countries at the time.

What i'm saying is that 80% is an exaggeration. 65-70% of the nazi ground forces is a much more reasonable number. But once you factor in the nazi navy and air power, that number diminishes to nearly 50%. The soviet forces did an amazing job and played a huge role in the european theater, yes. But you exaggerate it a bit too much.

And in all fairness, the soviets punched their way to berlin. Unfortunately, that is a stupid strategical error. Had the allies not been pushing from the west, the soviets would have literally cut their forces in two and found themselves isolated and inevitably slaughtered in berlin.

As i said in my first post, no body won wwii. Some people just took fewer deaths, but it was an equal fight on all fronts.

finnaly someone agrees with me!!:')

[Origami]

Fight off? Did the Germans fight off the western Allies? As much as I dislike the west, I am pretty positive that the Allies had taken the fight to the enemy. The Germans weren't fighting you off. They were doomed since D-Day. That was a fighting retreat, not a defensive fight. Looking at the numbers the Soviets took out 70%-75%. The US were more deployed in the Pacific theatre then in Europe. The Brits fought in Africa and Italy alongside the US. France and BENLUX was next. In all due honesty judging by the numbers, the Soviets took out at least 70%.

I'll blame it on a language barrier that you assumed my saying "fight off" meant they actually were doing it. I was saying they couldn't fight off the US and UK with only 20% of their forces which, given your original 80%, is what you were saying they did.

The Nazi infantry and ground armor would have to account for about 90% of their total military force, by what your saying. As that's all Russia really fought. And we all know that isn't so. When you account in the German navy and Air Force, the fight was much, much closer to a 50/50 split, as I said.

[Stronk Serb]

I'll blame it on a language barrier that you assumed my saying "fight off" meant they actually were doing it. I was saying they couldn't fight off the US and UK with only 20% of their forces which, given your original 80%, is what you were saying they did.

The Nazi infantry and ground armor would have to account for about 90% of their total military force, by what your saying. As that's all Russia really fought. And we all know that isn't so. When you account in the German navy and Air Force, the fight was much, much closer to a 50/50 split, as I said.

Nazi Germany had maximum 10,000 planes including the ones from Lufthansa. They had a moderately sized fleet. Smaller then the UKs. 3,500,000 Germans did not serve in the navy and air force. The German U-boats had the crew of about 50 sailors maximum I think. There was not even a thousand U-boats. Germany had few battleships and aircraft carriers. 3,500 men per battleship and 5,000 men per carrier. Cruisers, depending on size, 1,000-2,000 men. Destroyers 250-500 men. With all ships they had, I am guessing that the navy would have let's say... 300,000 serving men. Air force 50,000-70,000 men, due to mechanics and non-flight personell.

[Origami]

Nazi Germany had maximum 10,000 planes including the ones from Lufthansa. They had a moderately sized fleet. Smaller then the UKs. 3,500,000 Germans did not serve in the navy and air force. The German U-boats had the crew of about 50 sailors maximum I think. There was not even a thousand U-boats. Germany had few battleships and aircraft carriers. 3,500 men per battleship and 5,000 men per carrier. Cruisers, depending on size, 1,000-2,000 men. Destroyers 250-500 men. With all ships they had, I am guessing that the navy would have let's say... 300,000 serving men. Air force 50,000-70,000 men, due to mechanics and non-flight personell.

It's not the numbers of men, but the actual force. Something Soviet Russia didn't understand as it sent hordes of untrained soldiers into their death. The German U-Boats were monsters in the Atlantic ocean. Arguably, they were more devastating the the German Panzer units and their blitzkrieg assaults. You keep looking at numbers as 1 man = 1 man. Mind you, 1 aircraft can equal 100-200 men in sheer force. The German's, though small, had a powerful and feared Air and Naval force. German pilots were feared in the sky and their U-boat crews were the terror of the ocean. It wasn't as simple as 1 bullet kills 1 guy like it was with the Soviets. You have to understand that when deciding how a war was really fought. 500,000 soldiers on land could equal the same force of 50,000 at sea.

[SkatingHero]

The United States of America Leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki........studies show that was the reason Japan surrendered.

[tovaris]

The United States of America Leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki........studies show that was the reason Japan surrendered.

American studies just the oposite

[SkatingHero]

American studies just the oposite I never said they were American studies.

[tovaris]

I never said they were American studies.

I never said they were I'm merely stating that your peoples people release that their people made a mistake that's all.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Really, nobody won. But the allies lost the least.

[SkatingHero]

i never said they were im merly stating that your peoples peole realise their people made a mistake thats all
You made a spelling error.

[Origami]

You made a spelling error.

He makes mistakes all the time in his spelling. No room for that here.

[BrainDamage]

Actuly Japan surenderd because the Sovits got invooved. And tha USA never had to fight the war on their soil while we liberated our country by ourselves and recoverd from complet ocupation.

Japan gave up because they had two nukes dropped on their ass and didn't want any further loss of life... And USA did fight on their own ground although not very long: Pearl Harbor...

[tovaris]

Japan gave up because they had two nukes dropped on their ass and didn't want any further loss of life... And USA did fight on their own ground although not very long: Pearl Harbor...

Perl harbor was a smal scale „incident”.
The war party in Japan couldent care less about those nukes they, including the emparor, fered what would happen if the Soviats come.

[BrainDamage]

Perl harbor was a smal scale „incident”.
The war party in Japan couldent care less about those nukes they, including the emparor, fered what would happen if the Soviats come.

If you learnt your history you would know that Japan wanted america, Germany wanted most of Europe and Asia and Italy wanted the regions of the old Roman empore... Japan didn't give a fuck about Russia they were and still are a bunch of drunkerds. If you have 2 nuclear bombs that destroys two of your largest cities do you really think they would stop at two if Japan didn't surrender... Fuck no! Japan gave up because of America, not once have I heard about the Japanese caring about Stalin...

[Origami]

If you learnt your history you would know that Japan wanted america, Germany wanted most of Europe and Asia and Italy wanted the regions of the old Roman empore... Japan didn't give a fuck about Russia they were and still are a bunch of drunkerds. If you have 2 nuclear bombs that destroys two of your largest cities do you really think they would stop at two if Japan didn't surrender... Fuck no! Japan gave up because of America, not once have I heard about the Japanese caring about Stalin...

Actually, they were in the process of surrendering, however, on their conditions. The nukes were just a big "fuck you, do shit our way" action. And the Soviets weren't a pressing threat, but as Germany lost in Eastern Europe and Japan lost in the Pacific it began to create an opening for the Soviet advance on Japan.

They wanted to surrender due to fear of Soviet brutality, but yes, America FORCED them into surrender.

[Harry Smith]

If you learnt your history you would know that Japan wanted america, Germany wanted most of Europe and Asia and Italy wanted the regions of the old Roman empore... Japan didn't give a fuck about Russia they were and still are a bunch of drunkerds. If you have 2 nuclear bombs that destroys two of your largest cities do you really think they would stop at two if Japan didn't surrender... Fuck no! Japan gave up because of America, not once have I heard about the Japanese caring about Stalin...

Japan didn't want america, they simply wanted the american pacific naval fleets to be out of action to allow them to get there hands on the resource rich southern asia e.g malaya. The russian may be drunk but they are drunks that beat defeated the german army when they were at there best

[BrainDamage]

Japan didn't want america, they simply wanted the american pacific naval fleets to be out of action to allow them to get there hands on the resource rich southern asia e.g malaya. The russian may be drunk but they are drunks that beat defeated the german army when they were at there best

Wroooong America wasn't part of the war up until Pearl Harbor, if they only wanted asia then they would have left america alone...

And as for Germany... Who now controls europs wealth? They do...
Russia, the country with the largest acerage of land and what do they have, a handful of rich people and the rest of the country is living off of potatos and can't afford shoes...

[britishboy]

Wroooong America wasn't part of the war up until Pearl Harbor, if they only wanted asia then they would have left america alone...

they wanted America out of the picture ad America wasn't happy with the Japanese empire expanding

[tovaris]

If you learnt your history you would know that Japan wanted america, Germany wanted most of Europe and Asia and Italy wanted the regions of the old Roman empore... Japan didn't give a fuck about Russia they were and still are a bunch of drunkerds. If you have 2 nuclear bombs that destroys two of your largest cities do you really think they would stop at two if Japan didn't surrender... Fuck no! Japan gave up because of America, not once have I heard about the Japanese caring about Stalin...

Japan wanted USA to stay out of the war.
I would not insult the Russian nation if I were you.
The nuke did not influence their surrender as much as did the Russian invasion.

[Sugaree]

Japan wanted USA to stay out of the war.
I would not insult the Russian nation if I were you.
The nuke did not influence their surrender as much as did the Russian invasion.

Oh give it up. You've been refuted enough times to know that Russia was barely involved in the Pacific Theater. Seriously, give it up.

[tovaris]

Oh give it up. You've been refuted enough times to know that Russia was barely involved in the Pacific Theater. Seriously, give it up.

They got involved because USA wanted them to do so and they concurred quite some land in mainland Asia and also some Japanese islands, the Japanese did not surrender because of what the Russians did they were afraid of what they would probably do.

[Origami]

They got involved because USA wanted them to do so and they concurred quite some land in mainland Asia and also some Japanese islands, the Japanese did not surrender because of what the Russians did they were afraid of what they would probably do.

Exactly this. As I've said already, the nuclear attacks HASTENED the surrender of the Japanese people. The surrender was inevitable, yes, but Japan was not about to surrender on anyone's terms but their own. Both America and Russia would have had to been knocking on the emperor's door before they surrendered, honestly.

They feared Soviet brutality, but not to the point of surrendering any time soon.

[tovaris]

Exactly this. As I've said already, the nuclear attacks HASTENED the surrender of the Japanese people. The surrender was inevitable, yes, but Japan was not about to surrender on anyone's terms but their own. Both America and Russia would have had to been knocking on the emperor's door before they surrendered, honestly.

They feared Soviet brutality, but not to the point of surrendering any time soon.

They calculated to whom it would be better to surrender and they realized that the USA was the lesser evil for them. I newer denied that the bombings didn't hasten their surrender but they were not a crucial factor in the decision to surrender.

[Origami]

They calculated to whom it would be better to surrender and they realized that the USA was the lesser evil for them. I newer denied that the bombings didn't hasten their surrender but they were not a crucial factor in the decision to surrender.

Sorry. I only quoted you but it was a very general statement. Mainly to kill the whole "America was the only reason Japan surrendered argument." That's like saying Germany only lost because of Russia. A small role doesn't mean no role, but these kiddos (arguing both sides) seem to think that.

[chrisf55]

I can't say I understand the question. If you are talking about which side, the Allies without a doubt. But naming a country is harder. The answer would most likely be one of the European countries, even though the US stepped in later on and ended the war.

[BrainDamage]

Japan wanted USA to stay out of the war.
I would not insult the Russian nation if I were you.
The nuke did not influence their surrender as much as did the Russian invasion.

Oh yes and what are the Russians gonna do? Going to drown me in Vodka? Gonna Nuke me? Goodluck with that... Russias time is over... Japan couldn't care less about the soviet union... And why the fuck would Japan attack america if they wanted them to stay out of the war, are you a fucking moron!?!? Its like slapping a lion and thinking it will walk away!
Germany didn't only lose because of Russia, they were being attacked from both sides... Russia only got there first...

[Horatio Nelson]

The Allies won, not much more to it.

[tovaris]

Oh yes and what are the Russians gonna do? Going to drown me in Vodka? Gonna Nuke me? Goodluck with that... Russias time is over... Japan couldn't care less about the soviet union... And why the fuck would Japan attack america if they wanted them to stay out of the war, are you a fucking moron!?!? Its like slapping a lion and thinking it will walk away!
Germany didn't only lose because of Russia, they were being attacked from both sides... Russia only got there first...

You dont get the japanise logic don't you?

[Stronk Serb]

They calculated to whom it would be better to surrender and they realized that the USA was the lesser evil for them. I newer denied that the bombings didn't hasten their surrender but they were not a crucial factor in the decision to surrender.

Despite my dislike of the west, I disagree. When the Soviets invaded Manchuria, the Japanese knew all is lost and that the can only put a final stand, and survive long enough to surrender on their terms. When the bombs were dropped, the Japanese were scared, shitless. They surrendered because of the fear that other bombs would be dropped all across Japan. It hastened their surrender, and to the American terms, since they were far more merciful.

[Stronk Serb]

Oh yes and what are the Russians gonna do? Going to drown me in Vodka? Gonna Nuke me? Goodluck with that... Russias time is over... Japan couldn't care less about the soviet union... And why the fuck would Japan attack america if they wanted them to stay out of the war, are you a fucking moron!?!? Its like slapping a lion and thinking it will walk away!
Germany didn't only lose because of Russia, they were being attacked from both sides... Russia only got there first...



Yes, they will drown you in vodka untill you dissolve, and then lock you in Cherbobyl, Reactor 4. The Americans were ready to intervene against the Japanese. That's why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. To put the American fleet out of order.

[BrainDamage]

Yes, they will drown you in vodka untill you dissolve, and then lock you in Cherbobyl, Reactor 4. The Americans were ready to intervene against the Japanese. That's why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. To put the American fleet out of order.

Incorrect America was totally against the war up until the incident at pearl harbor 1. And 2. Why the fuck would they only attack a single fucking base!?!

[BrainDamage]

You dont get the japanise logic don't you?

So your saying that because I say the Japanese are good strategists and denying that they are idiots I don't understand them?

[Stronk Serb]

Incorrect America was totally against the war up until the incident at pearl harbor 1. And 2. Why the fuck would they only attack a single fucking base!?!

Because they did not want the US Pacific fleet interfering. On December 7th, the day of the PH attack, the invasion of the Phillipines was scheduled to start. The US had a small garrison in the Phillipines, so cutting them off was a priority also.

[BrainDamage]

Because they did not want the US Pacific fleet interfering. On December 7th, the day of the PH attack, the invasion of the Phillipines was scheduled to start. The US had a small garrison in the Phillipines, so cutting them off was a priority also.

Why would they attack them if the didn't want American soil...

[tovaris]

Why would they attack them if the didn't want American soil...

They wanted to scer of the US and also cripple them, so that they could not atack tham or give military ade to SE Asia

[Stephan]

Capitalism.

[Stronk Serb]

Why would they attack them if the didn't want American soil...

To cut off possible American aid to their Phillipine garrison and European colonies in South-Southeast Asia.

[Sugaree]

Capitalism.

The reasons as to why the economy collapsed is that way, champ.

[BrainDamage]

They were against the fucking war, are you retarded, can't you read!?!

[Stronk Serb]

They were against the fucking war, are you retarded, can't you read!?!

They were, but if the Japanese invaded the Phillipines, they would fight the US garrison which would get reinforcements, and the fleet would squash the Japanese. By maiming the Pacific fleet on December 7th, the Japanese could easily conquer the Phillipines and the rest of Pacific Asia.

[Left Now]

You know who won the WWII?It was Gun factories which won WWII,because they got a lot of money before,during and after that goddamn war.A lot of German,English and US gun factories won that war and now we are debating about who won the war?
Who won that war?If you ask me,i will tell you that who won got richer in that war.

[tovaris]

You know who won the WWII?It was Gun factories which won WWII,because they got a lot of money before,during and after that goddamn war.A lot of German,English and US gun factories won that war and now we are debating about who won the war?
Who won that war?If you ask me,i will tell you that who won got richer in that war.

well said