Who Really Won World War Two?

Who Really Won?

On the 1st of September 1939 Nazi Germany invaded Poland.  Two days later Great Britain and France declared war on Germany, and thus begun the Second World War.  The biggest and most deadly conflict in out planet’s history.  In short time it engulfed 3 continents, its participants came from every continent bar Antarctica.  It lasted 6 years and one day, it was not until September the 2nd of 1945 that Japan surrendered.  Countless millions perished, hundreds of cities were turned to ruins.  But who actually gained from the conflict?  Who achieved their aims?

In the strictest military sense all those on the side of the Allies won.  Germany was defeated, Italy surrendered and Imperial Japan finally gave up after the United States dropped two atomic bombs on two of Japan’s cities.  All their puppet states and allied nations like Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, surrendered.  So every year since 1945 those who fought on the side of the Allies celebrate VE and VJ days.  However not many have a lot to celebrate.  At least until recently.

War brings change.  And a significant geopolitical change followed WWII.  The world looked much different than it did just six short years earlier.  Borders we realigned, countries went missing, some new ones appeared, everyone needed new maps.  Empires died in the aftermath of WWII, the so called victors lost most of their territories.  It seems that from all of the participants there were only two nations who actually WON World War II.  Yes it came at a great price, and to the victors should go the spoils, but we are led to believe that there were more than two victors.  Hell tens of nations have parades and commemorations every year, celebrating the defeat of the Axis powers.  Great.  But lets look at what they actually won.

Take Poland for example, you know that country in the center of Europe that everyone went to war over.  Yes, that one, the one Germans invaded and the Brits and the French would not allow to perish.  Well in the end it turned out to be a bit more than just a fight for Danzig.  But that’s where it started.  So what did Poland get for losing almost 6 million of its citizens, for having many of its cities in ruins, for 5 years of brutal occupation, for losing its best and brightest?  Well it lost some of its most Polish cities like Lvow and Vilno, it lost its eastern territories.  To be fair Uncle Joe and Roosevelt gave Poland some of Germany’s territories, richer, more developed.  But Poland also lost its freedom, because the price for Breslau and Stettin was 45 years of brutal communist rule under the yoke of Stalin and his successors.  Poland’s legitimate government became exiled, its best and brightest (those whom Hitler did not manage to murder) were thrown in jails or gulags, were tortured, murdered, made paupers, were exiled.  Hooray for Poland for losing almost 20% of its population in fighting the Nazi menace.  Well that’s one country that did not enjoy victory as much as it should.

But its only Poland, so who cares, even if it was the fourth largest contributor to the fight against the Nazis, it was not seen as a serious country that mattered much.  Lets look at real powers, those who stood with Poland.  Yes, the major powers of great Britain and France won WWII.  Only to lose most if their influence and power and their empires.  Now the last of those was a good thing, freedom is great.  But I doubt that is how the French and the Brits envisioned their victories.  Lets keep going shall we.  The Baltic states ceased to exist alltogether, they were swallowed by the Soviet Union.  Yugoslavia did ok, but it fell under Tito and his murderers.  Belgium and Holland also lost whatever was left of their empires soon after WWII.  Iceland became a protectorate of the United States instead of Denmark.  Norway managed to make out ok, but Finland, pushed under Hitler’s protection by Stalin lost some of its territories.

The nations allied with Great Britain, New Zeeland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, got just a thank you.  Asia became one big mess, Korea is still divided to this day, half of it still under a despotic maniac always on the brink of starvation to say nothing of oppression.  China, already in a civil war lost millions and fell under the Red menace.  Vietman was divided.  All this just for a promise from Uncle Joe to declare war on Japan.  What a deal.  Easiest victory ever.

The Soviet Union did fight, and gallantly too, but before it did lets remember something.  It made a pact with Hitler allowing him to start WWII, it also invaded Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.  Soviet judges then presided over Nazi generals and tried them for waging wars of aggression, you can’t make this stuff up.  Soviet Union it appears, was allied with Nazi Germany!!!  Yes.  But it managed to do this in a way that Allied powers did not see it as an enemy.  Hell even the Poles hardly fought the Red Army after it invaded.  Then when Hitler invaded the USSR the commies became part of the Allies.  The Allies bent over backwards to accommodate the Soviets, sacrificing whole nations to please Uncle Joe.  Now I get realpolitik and understand why it was done.  I too would probably say what Churchill said about the communists.  Fair enough.  But there it something fundamentally wrong with this picture.

So what did Uncle Joe get for allying himself with Adolf and then being betrayed by him?  Well he got the Baltic States, gained territories from Poland, Germany, Romania, Finland, China, and Japan, also, control of Easter Europe, and parts of Asia.  Did I miss anyone?  The Soviet Union became a proper empire, with control of large parts of the world and influence that outgrew anything they could have imagined.  Its amazing, a truly genius political move.  they helped start WWII and got rewarded in the end.  They did not even want to switch sides.  Stalin was quite willing to see Hitler’s Germany destroy large parts of Europe and the world before he would actually do anything.  But Hitler was an idiot, and the commies won.

The other victors were the Americans.  While they did not receive major territories for their troubles they did gain influence.  The isolationist America became a leading world power.  Its influence was truly worldwide.  Its only challenger was the Soviet Union.  Instead of letting the world burn on its own, America developed alliances all over the globe.  The world became polarized between the forces of democracy led by the United States and the forces of communism, those were of course led by the Kremlin.  Fortunately the  Cold War is over now.  Most of the places touched by WWII have once again become free and can finally truly celebrate.

However, for decades there were only two places that could really celebrate on May 9th and September the 2nd.  And those were Washington DC and Moscow.  Because for all their sacrifice and blood in defeating the Nazi menace most other nations were not really victorious.  Its not true that there are no victors in war, but there are not as many as we like to believe.


The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://rlisu.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/who-really-won-world-war-two/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

42 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. The Soviets by far were the most important Allied country. Let’s face it: World War II was won and lost on the Eastern Front. It’s where the vast majority of the German military was concentrated from June 1941 until the end of the war in Europe. Germany knew it had to beat the Soviets or lose the war. Which country broke the back of the German military? That would be the Soviet Union. Eight out of ten German war dead were killed fighting the Soviets on the Eastern Front. The other two out of ten can be divided up between fighting the U.S. and Britain on the Western Front, in Italy, in North Africa and in all the German invasions starting with the invasion of Poland. 80% versus less than 20% for the U.S., no contest. Before anyone says anything about Lend-Lease it had literally no impact on the fighting before the outcome of the war was decided. The defense of Moscow in late 1941 guaranteed that the Germans wouldn’t win the war in 1941. The campaign in the south (Operation: Blue) leading up to the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Stalingrad itself sealed Germany’s fate, there was no way that it could win the war after its crushing defeat at Stalingrad in which it lost all of 6th Army, part of 4th Panzer Army and a great amount of Rumanian, Hungarian and Italian forces. Stalingrad wrapped up in early February 1943. From that point on Germany couldn’t win the war. It tried a much smaller offensive in summer 1943 to try to pinch off the Kursk salient and got its butt handed to it, losing most of its remaining armored units in the process. After that it was all downhill for Germany.

    What was the U.S. doing at the time of Stalingrad and then Kursk? During the Stalingrad battle the best the U.S. could do was to play a junior role next to the British in invading Vichy French Algeria and Morocco. During Kursk? The U.S. was again assigned to play second fiddle to the British in the invasion of Sicily. And what were the Soviets doing when the U.S. and Britain and Canada were trying their best to carve out a little bit larger of a beachhead at Normandy? The Soviets were crushing the German Army Group Center, its biggest concentration of forces and numerically its worst defeat of the war. I say numerically because by that point there was no way Germany could win so it was of much less significance than Stalingrad. The U.S. and Britain would not have even launched their invasion of Normandy if the Soviets hadn’t already broken the back of Germany on the Eastern Front and ensured that it was militarily crippled. D-Day was most certainly not the turning point of the war and its biggest importance was to ensure that the Soviets wouldn’t end up “liberating” France after kicking Germany’s behind. Basically the U.S. and Britain picked away around the margins while the Soviets were in the knock down, drag out fight of their lives to decide the outcome of the war. With the outcome no longer in doubt as Germany had been crippled already the U.S. and Britain then were able to mount an invasion of Normandy. The Soviets would have beaten the Germans entirely without American help but it would have taken longer. The best one can say about the U.S. contribution to the war against Germany was that it helped out somewhat and caused it to end sooner than it would have otherwise but the Soviets by FAR were the deciding factor in actually CAUSING the war to turn out the way it did with Germany losing instead of winning. Read “Slaughterhouse: The Encyclopedia of the Eastern Front”. It is loaded with all kinds of statistics showing just how insignificant the U.S. effort against Germany was compared with that of the Soviets. Anybody who doesn’t realize that the war was decided on the Eastern Front and that everything else was a sideshow by comparison doesn’t know that much about World War II.

    As for Japan? Sure, I’ll give the U.S. that one. America was by far the most important country in defeating Japan. But Japan was by far a MUCH lesser threat to the world than Nazi Germany, anyone can see that. And furthermore, it wasn’t the atom bombs that persuaded Japan to surrender but rather the Soviet Union ending its non-aggression treaty with Japan in August 1945 and entering the war, then proceeding to whip the snot out of the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria, Japan’s biggest defeat of the war on land. But being a maritime nation Japan had lost the war at sea already and was just playing for time and hoping to bleed the Allies enough to get a negotiated peace. It counted on the neutral Soviets to mediate that negotiated peace. But when the Soviets entered the war against Japan its government knew that the game was up, that now the whole world was against them, and if they didn’t surrender QUICKLY they could well end up with the Soviets occupying half of their country. But the U.S. was instrumental in defeating Japan in the naval battles that cost it the war so I will give the U.S. that one, it did more to beat Japan than anyone else. But Japan was small potatoes compared to Germany. And remember, the Soviets were fighting all alone on the Eastern Front against the best that Germany, Italy, Rumania, Hungary and puppet state Slovakia could send against them. And they whipped them all. With Germany being overwhelmingly the biggest Axis threat and with the Soviets being the nation that did overwhelmingly more to defeat Germany than everyone else PUT TOGETHER, I’d say it’s a pretty easy conclusion to draw that the Soviets won World War II and that the rest of the Allies merely helped out.

    • Nice username there. And thanks for pointing out the obvious and the little history lesson, even if it was not needed. However you either did not read my post or did not understand it at all. It was not about who contributed more to WWII, it was about who gained from it.
      Basically you typed a lot for nothing.
      Also I would argue that it was not Moscow or Stalingrad, but that “little offensive” later that summer, Kursk, which ended any hopes of Germany winning the war in the east. It ended in complete annihilation of any mobile reserves Germany had. From then on Germany never held the initiative in the east and was only reduced to defensive operations and local counter attacks, whereas in February of 43 (after Stalingrad)von Manstein was able to launch a grand counter offensive that retook Kharkov and cost the Soviets hundreds of thousands in dead and wounded and taken prisoner as well as thousands of tanks and artillery pieces. It was also after Stalingrad that Stalin wanted to sign a peace treaty with Hitler to end the war. But they could not come to terms when it came to borders. That was in the spring of 1943. However after Zitadelle there were no more such negotiations, even indirect ones.
      So again, thanks for the “history” lesson, but you completely missed the point of my post. I know who did what in WWII (it it my specialization after all), my point was about who gained what in the peace that came after.

      • Yes, brutal truth pointed out some nice history facts that most Americans refuse to aknoledge.

    • dude you’re f****** crazy because if it wasn’t for America you guys Cold of lost cuz you guys lost like 20 million f****** Russians that’s why Japan said they have woken up the sleeping giant

      • We would’ve lost if USA, USSR, or Britain fell. Yes America did a great deal but saying you won us the war isn’t fair in the slightest you entered two years into it which gives you a clear advantage not saying they didn’t contribute but don’t arrogant enough to say it was just you

  2. Fue la URSS quien derrotó al Eje (no solo la Alemania nazi, sino también Italia, Rumanía, Hungría, Eslovaquia, Finlandia y todos los voluntarios fascistas de la Europa ocupada), a su vez contaba con todos los recursos del continente bajo su ocupación y con gobiernos colaboracionistas en el poder, por lo que cuando el Caudillo alemán (Fürher) lanzó la Operación Barbarroja contra la URSS, era el mayor ejército que nunca antes había contemplado la Humanidad en toda la historia (y aún no se ha visto nada comparable), el mismo, pero en un número muchísimo menor, había acabado en pocas semanas, algunos en unos pocos días, con los ejércitos polaco, danés, noruego, neerlandés, belga, francés, yugoslavo y griego y todos ellos contando con la ayuda británica, igualmente derrotados y obligados a aislarse en sus islas y permanecer a la defensiva (muchísimo le tienen que agradecer los británicos a que el Caudillo alemán renunciase a seguir atacando a Inglaterra por comenzar el ataque contra la URSS, los británicos ya se encontraban al límite de su resistencia, y no hacían más que suplicar a los estadounidenses su auxilio) .
    Mucho se ha hablado falsamente de que la Unión Soviética y el Tercer Imperio Alemán eran aliados, recordemos que un Pacto de No Agresión, no es lo mismo que uno de Ayuda Mutua, y ni mucho menos que una alianza, de hecho bajo ese baremo los británicos y franceses fueron aliados de los nazis, ya que firmaron multitud de Pactos y Tratados con los nazis antes de que los soviéticos lo hiciesen en verano del 39, desoyendo precisamente el llamado soviético para frenar el avance del fascismo, (que yo recuerde fueron los Naval con Inglaterra, Ocupación de Sarre, Militarización de Renania, Pacto de No Agresión con Polonia, Pacto a Cuatro con Italia, Fancia e Inglaterra, Pactos de No Agresión con Inglaterra y con Francia, Pacto de Munich, etc.) y fruto de esos Pactos los alemanes se anexionaron Austria, los Sudetes checos, Chequia y ocuparon Eslovaquia, en la ocupación de Checoslovaquia participaron los polacos y húngaros, y se aproximaron a las fronteras soviéticas a la que amenazaba directamente (al parecer por todo el trabajo diplomático anterior era la última intención de franceses y principalmente británicos), con todo nadie se le ocurre decir que británicos, franceses o polacos entre otros fueron aliados de los nazis.
    Además en el Pacto de No Agresión ente la Alemania nazi y la URSS, se habla de un acuerdo secreto por el que se repartieron Polonia y los soviéticos ocuparon las repúblicas bálticas y la Besarabia rumana, no creo que existiese tal acuerdo lo que los soviéticos ante la invasión alemana de Polonia y una vez que los polacos rechazaron la ayuda soviética, los soviéticos quisieron recuperar las tierras que habían concedido en su retirada de la PGM, o que los polacos les arrebataron en el 20 aprovechándose de la guerra civil en Rusia, con lo que pretendían crear un corredor de defensa ante la amenaza nazi, al igual que hicieron con Finlandia en la guerra de invierno en donde alejaron la frontera soviético-finesa de Leningrado, ante la posibilidad de que los nazis utilizasen a Finlandia como puente para un ataque sobre la antigua capital zarista, lo cual efectivamente ocurrió en el 41.
    Después en cuanto a los acontecimientos bélicos ya se han explicado con anterioridad siendo el ejército y pueblo soviéticos los que derrotaron al Eje (ya que en el este emplearon el grueso de sus fuerzas), pero debido al gran coste en vidas y penurias así como económico, no fue la URSS quien ganó la SGM sino los EUA que se situaron en Europa (aun no se han retirado) y en todo el mundo con un coste en vidas relativamente pequeño, y con su territorio intacto y económicamente reforzada.
    Un saludo

    • Some nice points there mate. But the Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact was more than your average pact. The secret bits provided for full cooperation and division of territories after the German invasion. It basically allowed Germany to invade Poland without nay fear from the Soviets. Plus the secret trade agreement gave Germany the vital matériels it needed. While it was natural for the USSR to make such a pact, it does not make it any better. And yes, the Poles too acted like twits before the invasion, as did the West. But that was not the point. Nor was my post about the military victory in WWII. But the political victory. In the end, the USSR really won that war. It gained the most. And at the expense sometimes of its supposed allies. It built an empire on the backs of the people it was fighting to save, among other things. So that is why they were the great victors. And I stand by my “allies” comment. Yes everyone dealt with Hitler, but not as much as Stalin did, and no one gained as much as the Reds did. Also no one cooperated as much. This was open conflict. Not a redrawing of borders (stealing land like the Poles did) like with Sudetenland. After Germany invaded Poland the Soviets did the same. They waited to see if there would be any consequences, but that is what it was, invasion and declaration of war. Technically Poland was also at war with the Soviets. And because of that the Western Allies should have been at war with the Soviets as well. Yes Stalin knew that no one would be stupid enough to actually declare war on him, but they should have technically.
      They also did not really lose any of their territory in the 1920 war. That territory was either Polish or belonged to the other nations. It was never Russian to claim. Cheers.

  3. Poland won ww2

    • Poland was one of the biggest losers of the war.

      • it depends how u define winning and losing . Poland to the bitter end was proud and fair .Poland helped countries which dug a knife in the Poland back.Poland lost people but keep honor.This country has values.I greet Poland

  4. Do you think that the Soviet Union could have own the war without the other Allied Forces?

    • Yes, the Soviet Union could have won the war in Europe without any help. 80% of the German army was killed by the red army. In addition, Russia was fighting Finland, Romania, and Hungary and it defeated them single handedly. In other words Finland lost 100,000 troops, Romania lost 300,000 troops, and Hungary lost 300,000 troops. While America was still masterbating at Pearl Harbor, the red army was already defeating the Germans at Moscow. 3 million red army soldiers were forced to surrender because of Stalin’s stupidity. 3 million is more than enough to defeat the remaining 20%. As for supplies? If it had not been for Stalin, Russia would never have lost the Ukraine which is where a lot of food came from. In addition, Germany would never have managed to destroy so many soviet farctories, planes, and tanks.

      • Except that the Germans did not manage to destroy many Soviet factories and Stalin moved most of them behind the Urals, out of range of German bombers.

        You speculate a lot, if this and that. But I only deal in facts. Fact was that 3 million did perish or were taken prisoner. Fact was that Stalin made mistakes. As did Hitler. As things stood, as I explained below this, it’s difficult to see the USSR prevailing without the aid of the UK and the US. Not impossible, but difficult. It’s also quite possible that Germany could be victorious. We will never know. But your logic makes no sense.

      • If America could supply both itself AND other countries in ww2 then why could Russia with a bigger population and a country with three times as much land supply itself? The answer is simple. The Germans destroyed over 2,000 soviet planes in the first day of the invasion. The majority of these planes were still on the ground. Stalin entrusted stupid leaders for his army and purged good ones. Out of the three marshalls of the red army in 1939, only one(timoshenko) was any good. I repeat if it had not been for Stalins stupidity then Russia would never have lost so many men, materials, and living space and would not have needed the supplies from the US.
        Those are your facts Rlisu. Pls write back.

      • Sorry, can’t reply to you directly, hopefully this will show up under your last post. But ask and you shall receive, here is my reply.

        Answer is simple, when it comes to production, like food. Communism failed miserably from the beginning. It goes against human nature. The backward, agrarian, Tsarist Russia was the breadbasket of Europe (mainly Ukraine) and used to export 50% of its grains. By the 1920, after forced collectivization the Russians were starving. Only US aid saved millions of Russian lives from starvation in the 20’s. In the 30’s when Stalin continued forced collectivization he starved up to 10 million people. From the beginning the USSR never produced enough of anything. I lived under this system, later, much later, and I know about lines, coupons, and shortages. Despite its population and land mass, the USSR was incapable to feed itself.

        But with the rest you are going in circles. Of course Stalin was responsible for much of the losses all through out the war, not just in its early stages. But Hitler’s stupidity and arrogance were just as influential on the German side. That the purges happened did not help. However the Soviets, no matter who led them on the field of battle, did not understand combined arms tactics. The thing that became known as Blitzkrieg. Aside from a very few officers in the world, no one knew how to defend it. The Russians military dogma went against such fighting. It took them most of two years of actual fighting to get it right. Plus 2 years of watching other attempt to defend against the German machine. Perhaps the losses might have been slightly minimized, but overall Germany would still move deep into Russia in 41, and later in 42. They lose 2000 planes either way. No matter who is in charge. But material losses were not really an issue. They did need US aid. It helped, no one can deny that. But overall they still outproduced Germany, which was fighting on other fronts and fought a huge air war all throughout WWII in the West costing it valuable men and materiel. By 1943 they were producing 3 times as much as Germany. Their biggest blunder was not to change to a war economy. Overall, for example, I think they produced somewhere around 8500 Pzkw IV’s (all models from A through J and F2), the main battle tank of the Wehrmacht. In just one year the USSR made around 20000 T-34 tanks (figures are from my head, from what I remember of studying this stuff, so might not be exact, but are close). That is just one tank, they had many types. Granted that was the mainstay of the Soviet tank arm later in the war, but still, you get the picture.

        The Soviets needed more stuff than other countries did because they went through it more than others. Their tactics, even after considerable improvement, were poor, their battlefield leadership was awful (from Lieutenant on up, from NCOs would be even more accurate). Their tanks lacked radios, only platoon commanders had them and had to use signals (flags, flares, etc) to change objectives during operations. Because of all that their tactics were rigid. There was no initiative. They lost millions and millions of soldiers. The whole German nation lost 9.3 million people in 6 years of war on numerous fronts, including civilians. The Soviet Army lost about that much in 4 years of fighting, and those are only combat personnel. Just imagine the carnage. Of course Stalin is at fault for a lot of it. But not all, and we can’t just ignore the fact that he indeed was in charge (bar the first couple of weeks when he almost lost his mind and almost went crazy, that is how shocked he was).

        So you can’t just say it’s only him and without hims such and such would happen. We don’t know. Once you change one thing then you change everything, the speculation is endless, and fruitless. It’s not really worth the effort. Believe me, I tried. And your last sentences were not facts but conclusions, correct conclusions, more or less, but still. Fact was that Stalin WAS in charge. And nothing can change that. It turned out that US aid was needed and at the time vital. Not tanks, not really (I think thye actually sold some of the Grants and Shermans they got from the US to the…. Japanese). Soviet tanks were better. But locomotives, tracks, rail cars, trucks, Jeeps, food, Without that aid, weapons would not have been produced on time, they would not be delivered on time. The Soviets would not be able to amass great stocks in order to conduct their great offensives. It would have an effect on operations. It might have prolonged the war by months, and it would cost the Soviets even more dead. Even with that “living space” they would not be able to produce enough to feed both their massive armies, and their huge workforce, and that’s not even considering the kiddies and the old.

        In that spirit, one can’t simply deny the contributions that the Western Allies have made. No one obviously is claiming that it was the US or the UK that won the war, but I will stand by my original claim, it was British willpower, Russian blood and American materials that won it. It would be unfair to minimize the great sacrifice of the Soviet people, but one can not forget that Hitler would have thought twice about starting the war in 39 if it wasn’t for that Pact they made. A pact which technically made the USSR Nazi Germany’s ally, and an aggressor, as bad as Germany, in 1939 when they invaded Poland.

        But the whole point of my original post was about who GAINED most from the war. The title was written like that on purpose, but it seems that it was not as “clever” as I thought, because everyone keeps arguing over who won on the field of battle. I was actually talking about political victories. Take Poland for example. No one aside from the Big Three (UK, US, USSR) contributed more to the war effort than the Poles, who fought from the first day to the last, all over Europe and Africa. And what was their prize for fighting the Nazis? Occupation, tyranny, three years of civil war, massive demographic changes, for the worse, and countless dead. I simply don’t understand why anyone in Poland would celebrate the end of the European War. Poland went from being a mufti-cultural, fairly tolerant (for the times) society, to a homogenic country which lost so much of its diversity and colour. Is that a victory? 6 million dead citizens, borders moved and no one BUT ethnic, and Catholic, Poles in the country. There were no happy endings in Poland at that time. No great, uplifting stories to be made into fun patriotic movies. No, only sad tales of horror and destruction. The so called “winners” were only survivors. And those who made it home found only ashes and memories of lost loved ones.

        That was the whole point of my post. By all means, I don’t mind talking about any aspect of WWII in Europe, so don’t be shy, I like discussions. However, the main point should never be forgotten. Do you know what happened to some of Poland’s greatest heroes? Gen Maczek was forced to stay in Britain after the war, Poles were no allowed to even March in the great victory parade (no one wanted to anger Uncle Joe). In the end, the man who lead the Polish Armored Division and fought bravely, who closed the Falaisse Pocket, who took Wilhelmshaven, that man was forced to work as a bartender because no on in the UK thought to give him an officers pension. Even though he bravely and loyally served under British command. General Sosabowski of Market Garden also was forced to work in his late years. Their reward for 6 years of fighting was not even a pension, and exile.

        Yeah, that was a bit long. Sorry.

      • Yes that was a bit long so I will respond to each of your paragraphs in order.
        I think that for the first time, I agree with you; even if Stalin had not made such catastrophic mistakes he would still have been very tight on food production. After Hitler captured the Ukraine he gained a lot of food for his soldiers. Stalin lost a lot of valuable living space and factories. Also many people in the Ukraine betrayed Russia and sided with the Nazis in the hope that they would make them a free independent country. Anyway, Stalin lost a lot of valuable resources in the Ukraine and as a result he needed help from America (especially food). But even with this help, Russian soldiers went without food for days in 1941. But still I think that you are wrong; in terms of tanks, planes, guns, etc. Russia could have out produced Hitler and won with fewer losses had they been prepared and had proper leadership.
        In your second paragraph you say that Hitler also made many mistakes. This is true. His refusal to advance on Moscow, provide German soldiers with warm clothes, and allow retreats cost the Germans hundreds of thousands of deaths that they could have avoided. This is nothing compared to Stalins blunders. Even before Germany invaded, the Soviets had launched a catastrophic invasion of Finland which only succeeded on the second try and through sheet numbers. The Russians sent Tanks and other armored vehicles through the snow. As a result of Russia’s failures in Finland, Germany saw just how weak the Red Army was. Then when Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa Stalin did not even let his troops fire back for hours. The Axis surrounded 600,000 Red Army soldiers at Kiev because Stalin refused to allow them to retreat. Then Russia lost 1.9 million soldiers at the Battle of Moscow (much of this was due to Stalin’s decision to send Cadets to the front line. After Stalingrad where the Red Army lost over a million men, the Germans were finally on the Run. But how many men had died because one man refused to allow his Generals to command the army? Hitler made mistakes but his were nothing compared to Stalin’s which almost lost Russia the war. Russia had more men, tanks, and planes. It could also produce more than Germany and still almost lost the war all because of Stalin. This paragraph is also my response for your third paragraph.
        For your fourth paragraph these two paragraphs are also my responses.
        I completely agree with you that it was American supplies, British willpower, and Russian blood that won the war. Stalin himself said as much. But which was most important. Supplies don’t “kill” Axis troops. Also the reason America was able to produce so much was because it wasn’t being bombed and invaded. You also mentioned that the USSR was just as bad as Germany. This is not true. Yes in a lot of ways it was just as bad but you must remember that Hitler’s goals were to eliminate the Jews, Bolsheviks, and other people he considered inferior. To do this he set up large concentration camps in which the objective was to kill people. Hitler was a genocidal killer. Stalin was not. The purpose of the gulag was to make people work in horrible conditions and as a result of this many people died. Stalin never gassed people and burned them in the crematorium. Also, the USSR was never Germany’s ally. Sure they had common interests. Both wanted to take over the world or at least as much of it as they could. However the reason Stalin decided to invade Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland was because he needed a buffers in Europe. He then treated the people he occupied with extreme cruelty not because he wanted to make a superior race like Hitler did but because he was crazy and considered these people living on the outskirts of the Soviet empire a “threat”. This proves that Stalin’s USSR was not as bad as Hitler’s Germany.
        As for how much countries gained from ww2, I would agree that nobody gained much. The countries that lost the most were the USSR and China. The countries that gained the most were the US and Canada.
        You also say that Poland was important in winning the war. Now that I think about it, I realize that there is some truth to that. Poland was fighting Germany from day one while France and Britain sat back and took their time since they expected Poland could defend alone against the blitz. Poland was occupied by two countries and still staged a rebellion in Warsaw. It later helped Russia with troops. One can argue that Canada was more important but I still agree with you that after the big three, Poland comes in next in its contribution to the war.
        Pls respond. Thank you.

      • You are speculating again. Let’s stick to facts, not what could have been if so and so happened, that is pointless and endless. If we start on one thing then the possibilities will make my long posts seem like a one word answer.

        So facts: Paragraph by paragraph.

        The USSR DID outproduce Germany, in war material and heavy weapons especially. Not the point. The point was that their infrastructure was very poor and they needed American help in order to deliver all those tanks and guns on time. As I said, those great offensives would have been delayed and perhaps not as decisive, even later in the war. US help was vital, and quite welcome by the Soviets.

        And we keep going around in circles. You keep going on about Stalin and his mistakes and how so much would have been different without Stalin. And how Hitler’s leadership was less of a disaster. Well I hate to break this to you, but the German Army did not feel ready for a war in 1939, and it wasn’t, only Allied incompetence helped them gain those early victories. After Germany lost it’s best first wave troops in 1941 and 42 it also lost most of it’s heavy equipment, and that was never replaced. When Germany doubled the number of Panzer divisions it did so only by reducing the number of tanks per division. It went from two tank regiments per division to one. It basically halved their effectiveness. And after Barbarossa most Panzer Divisions were never properly reequipped. Hitler’s refusal to let Paulus break out of Stalingrad destroyed the 6th Army and the 4th Panzer Army, plus all those in support. Hitler then proceeded to delay Zitadelle time after time. The attack could have worked in May, but was doomed to failure by the time Hitler got around to it. That battle pretty much destroyed any hope that Germany had on the Eastern Front. It destroyed most of their mobile reserves. From then on Germany was never able to counter attack above tactical level. It lost all the initiative. Especially after Hitler transferred his best Waffen SS divisions to fight the Western Allies.

        Also, if we are speculating. You mentioned how the Ukrainians “betrayed” the Russians. Sorry the Ukrainians were never happy under the Soviets. They wanted independence, that is not betrayal, especially after the Great Hunger of the 1930’s when up to 15 million were starved to death in Ukraine. They had every right to rise up and fight for their freedom, even under the Nazis. Another huge blunder by Hitler was to tread the Soviet people as subhuman. If he wanted he could have had millions of willing soldiers who would gladly fight Stalin. Millions of Soviet citizens. But he turned out to be as bad, if not worse than, Stalin. That was a far bigger blunder than whatever Stalin did. Remember, Stalin could afford many mistakes because he had the bigger advantage. He could afford to lose millions of men, thousands of tanks and planes, he could even afford to lose the whole of Ukraine and the Western republics. Russia was huge and had a huge army. It had twice the planes that the Germans had, it had 4 times the tanks, and better tanks too in 1941. All this talk of Soviet mistakes is inconsequential. He could afford them, Hitler could not. Hence Hitler’s mistakes were more costly to his war effort than Stalin’s. While Stalin’s mistakes, as you say, could have cost the USSR the war, Hitler’s mistakes actually did cost them the war. That is the thing. A millionaire can afford to lose half his money and would still have half a million. But if you have only 100 thousand and lose only 50 thousand, compared to 500 thousand of the millionaire, you are still much poorer.

        But wait, you agree then that US help was vital. And then you start writing about how America was not bombed, as if that was some sort of qualification that somehow cheapened the American contribution. It wasn’t bombed, so what? Does that make their contribution less important? No. America, straight away went to a war economy, the whole country did. Private cars were strictly regulated, gasoline was strictly rationed, most industry went into a war mode, the likes of Ford and Chevy stopped producing civilian autos and made military vehicles instead. Food was rationed, metal collected for the war effort, everything changed. Just because they weren’t bombed it does not cheapen their efforts.

        America also made a choice to fight Germany first and foremost. Japan was left to the Navy and the Marine Corps. But most of the war effort was against the Nazis. Nazis who did not attack America, it was Japan. The US instead chose to help equip British and Commonwealth forces, plus help the USSR while at the same time it begun its own buildup. We have to remember just how small the US forces were before the war. We can’t ignore that fact. Unlike the USSR which had millions under arms, the US forces were very small. US wasn’t ready to actually fight the Germans on a large scale before 1944, so it instead gave material help to the Soviets.

        You go one about which was MORE IMPORTANT and how supplies don’t kill people. Well, if it wasn’t for the Brits and Yanks then the whole of German was effort wold be facing the Soviets. Instead of building AA guns the Germans could have built tanks. Just how much more could the Germans put against the Soviets? How much would have been enough to actually take Moscow or Stalingrad, or Leningrad, or win at Kursk? We don’t know. But we should always consider that, and not cheapen the efforts of the Western Allies against the Nazis.

        But I do take exception to you defending the Soviets. While Stalin did not choose his victims based on ethnicity he was no less murderous than Hitler. In fact Stalin killed many more people than Hitler did. And while he did not set up death camps, concentration camps were a Soviet invention. Millions perished in them. Not shot or gassed, but worked to death, or slowly starved. Just because no one counts them as war dead, or victims of the Soviet machine, they were actually. The Soviets classified them as criminals. They weren’t. Most were political prisoners. Or POWs, or Poles, or Ukrainians, or Cossacks, or Latvians, or whatever. But let’s not dishonor them by trying to explain Stalin’s motives. Germany industrialized murder, and it should be a warning to all of us. But while Stalin took time in killing his victims, he was not less bloodthirsty.

        And sorry, Poland, The Baltic Republics and Finland were not buffers, but were meant as launchpads for a future Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Hitler was only quicker than Stalin. The one thing that Hitler had on Stalin was that he at least told people he was their enemy. Stalin pretended to be everyone’s friend, and then he killed them. Let’s not make Stalin into something he was not. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were murderous regimes, some of the most evil and vile that this planet has seen. The myth of “Uncle Joe” was only a myth. I don’t want to minimize the evil that Hitler did, i come from a nation which lost 6 million people in WWII. Nazi Germany was a vile, evil, and murderous regime and that must never be forgotten. I just want everyone to remember that the USSR also invaded Poland the Baltic Republics with Hitler’s blessing and Germany’s cooperation. And while Germany was fighting France and Britain it was the USSR which was sending vital raw materials to Germany as per their pact. They sure behaved like allies. All anti German propaganda was stopped in the USSR from 1939 to the day of Barbarossa.

        But you misunderstood the conclusions. The USSR DID gain from WWII. So did the Chinese Communists. As the America. In fact the Soviets and the Americans were the great winners of WWII. They both became great superpowers, they had worldwide influence thanks to WWII. The Chinese became a regional power. Canada gained nothing really. The Brits lost an Empire, as did France,.

        Right that’s long enough.

      • You sound like a complete idiot. The allies lended so much support in terms of weaponry, lethals, and other tactics to the Russians and the reason for why they had such a feat was because of us. Don’t get so cocky and arrogant because Russia ended the war. Yes they played probably the most important role in Europe but America played the most important role in Japan as well, which may I remind you if we stayed out of it, Russia would have Japan crawling down its back too. You sound like you need to do some research first about lend-lease and other country feats, in the end though sir you are 100% wrong without a doubt

    • Ok, fair enough both the German and Soviet regimes were murderous regimes. But which was MORE murderous? The Nazis killed 12 million people during the holocaust. They killed another 2.5 million soviet POW’s. They also killed millions more soviet civilians/soldiers as well as thousands of people in other parts of Europe. Most of this killing took place during the years 1941-1945. Fine even if Hitler killed only 15 million people during this time and Stalin killed 20-30 million. The point is that Stalin was in power for 30 years and killed 20-30 million people. Hitler killed at least 15-20 million people in just four years. Had Hitler had more time, he would have found more people to kill. This alone proves that Stalin was not as bad.

      You also mention that Poland, The Baltic Republics, and Finland were not buffers but launch pads for a future invasion. Sure Stalin was planning to eventually invade the rest of Europe (which historians today are not sure about). But the main reason that he wanted these lands was because he needed a buffer to protect himself from Nazi Germany. Stalin didn’t like the idea of Hitler getting all the land and he wanted to take some of it. For example, before the USSR invaded Finland, Stalin sent them an ultimatum that included the Fins trading land in the north for land in the south near the city of Leningrad. Had the Fins agreed, the USSR would never have had to attack. You say that Finland was going to be a base for a future invasion of the Nazi Empire but think about it. Is a few miles around the city of Leningrad going to be a good place for the Soviets to launch an attack from? Also, seeing Hitler’s success in Poland, Denmark, Norway, and France, Stalin wanted to try the same thing. As for the Baltic States and Poland, Stalin took them because he wanted to share the spoils and thus extend his empire which meant that he would get Buffers throughout Europe. I know you only deal in facts but I would like to point out that had Russia not taken half of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and left them for the axis then Germany might have won the war in the east. If you think about it, he would not have had to go as far to reach Leningrad and Moscow.

      “But wait, you agree then that US help was vital…(Rlisu)” Ok hold on a minute; just because I said that Russia needed food from America that doesn’t mean that I no longer stand by what I said. Russia could have won ww2 without the assistance of Britain and America had Stalin not been the one in charge. Remember that millions of people starved during the time he was in charge but what about after he died? Then the USSR could feed its people. To be honest I think that even if Stalin had been the one in charge the USSR still could have won the war without help. Sure millions more people would have starved and died on the battlefield and it would have taken longer for the country to recover but the Germans also had to properly supply their troops which they could only do in 1941 and early in 1942 (during Stalingrad the Germans lacked food).

      Finally, your conclusions. Yes the USSR did gain from ww2 and so did China. The USSR gained a few incompetent countries that only caused trouble throughout the cold war. It became a superpower (the reason for that was because Germany, Japan, and Britain were destroyed) and now had to deal with the US in the cold war, a war that Stalin did NOT want to happen. The cold war ended in the breakup of something that millions of people died for. And what did China gain? It gained communists. Great eh. Then millions of people died under Mao Zedong just like they had under the Japanese. And it became a regional power? Ok it did after millions died and even then this so called “regional power” did not manage to win the Korean War when it had more men. So sure I’ll admit China and Russia gained something but they lost MUCH more than they gained which proves that they were not the real winners of the war. America was. Sure it lost Myanmar and a few other pacific islands that it did not need but what did it gain? Well it lost more than it gained but not by much. The war brought America out of the Great Depression. America lost less than 300,000 men. Its factories and cities were untouched. What did Russia lose? 27 million people. Many of its cities were completely destroyed. It gained an empire that the soviets did not benefit from. Obviously the only real victor which did something in the war was the USA.

      Thats all I have to say. Your turn.

      • Sorry but that is nonsense. Communism, just like Nazism was expansionist by nature, actually more than Nazism, like an evangelical religion, they can’t help spreading. To say that Stalin only wanted a buffer is to change history. Hitler and Nazism were only an excuse. Stalin always wanted a confrontation with Europe. Hell, his founding Prophet tried marching West before until they were stopped at Warsaw’s gates.
        And really? He “ad to attack” Finland? The Finns wanted to stay neutral, they would not have allowed German troops on their soil without Soviet invasion. They were very careful when it came to mad men and their troops on their land, be they Nazi or Commie. There was no “had.” He invaded because he wanted to, just like Poland, because they saw an opportunity to expand, or the Baltic Republics. You can’t excuse any of that. This was part of their global revolution. And this was before any German success in the West or Scandinavia, it was in the Fall-Winter or 39-40. He wasn’t emulating anyone, they were just greedy, continuing centuries long Russian expansion policy and carrying on their fucking glorious revolution.

        As for ultimatums, a joke. Hitler only wanted a part of Czechoslovakia, and only the Danzig Corridor from Poland and also sent ultimatums. That is not excuse. Bush sent ultimatums to Hussein about all those WMDs… And look what happened, they all still invaded. Go figure. If someone wants to go to war with you they will find a reason, or make one up. Either way, you will be fighting.

        Did you not think that Hitler might not have invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 had it not been for the pact with Stalin? That was more likely than them actually winning WWII.

        AGAIN. STALIN WAS IN CHARGE. NO AMOUNT OF SPECULATING, SECOND GUESSING WILL CHANGE THAT! There is nothing you can write to change history. He was in charge. He is the one who signed that pact with Hitler. He is the one who also presided over the Soviet Victory parade. But it would not have happened without Western help.

        Just think how hard it would be at Stalingrad without all those supplies, with transports not arriving on time, and with less troops who would have less equipment because no only would they not arrive on time, so much would not have been made at all because other things would have needed to be made.

        And think about how stronger the Germans would be at the same time. All those fighters held back because of the allies. All of those anti air divisions that could have been infantry divisions. All those AA guns not made and instead tanks built. There is no scenario which makes the Soviets stronger. They almost lost. I am not sure who would have won, as I think speculation is fruitless and pointless, but I would not be placing bets on either side. Without a war in the West, however marginal it seemed, it is likely that Hitler would be able to recruit even more Europeans against the Soviets. And without a war in the West we could have seen Japan invade Russia and not UK and US interests. Just how well Stalin would do in a two front war? See where speculation gets us? Now we have Stalin in a two front war, no rescue of Moscow by the Siberian divisions. What happens afterwards? I can’t say with any certainty. Not sure how you can.

        As to your last point, sorry but that is not how the ones in power saw it. Stalin nor Mao didn’t care about the loss of life or ruined cities. They cared about power. The USSR was a pariah, not a player on the world at all before the war. After WWII it became a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a power with world wide influence. If that is not gain I don’t know what is. They directly controlled half of Europe and had influence across the globe. A power second only to the US. Surely you must see that. No one on the Politburo gave a shit about lives lost. Their revolution could finally go ahead.

        China went from a marginal state with no stability to another major power. It helped spread communism all over Asia. You have to learn to look at things from a geopolitical point of view. And geopolitically, after the US, the USSR and China were major winners. Lives may matter to you or me, but not to those in power. In fact all that destruction helped them rule, because they brought on those images to control people for decades. It was also great propaganda. Sorry, all life is precious to me (well most is) but we can’t see things like that when discussing global politics, especially when we are discussing maniacs like Hitler, Stalin or Mao, or even the likes of Roosevelt or Churchill.

        Sorry this took a while, but was busy.

    • Well I don’t think that Stalin only invaded countries because he wanted buffers in Europe but I still believe that he needed those territories. He wanted to share the spoils and expand his empire by taking lands that had been part of the former Russian Empire. Then he wanted Hitler to go kill himself fighting France and Britain which shows that they were in no way allies. Most European countries at that time also dreamed of becoming empires which means that what Russia did was normal. Let’s take Poland for example. Between 1918 and 1924 Poland invaded all of its neighbors except for Germany. It invaded the Ukraine twice. Then Poland invaded Belarus and took from it and Ukraine the western provinces that were then reoccupied by the Soviet Union after Poland’s fell in 1939. Poland also invaded Lithuania capturing and holding Tallinn. It invaded Czechoslovakia but was beaten back. Finally it invaded and captured several key villages around Danzig which were in neutral League of Nations enclaves. During the wars in Ukraine, the Poles massacred somewhere between 500,000 and 1.5 million Russian POWs that they had taken. Poland further ran concentration camps for Orthodox Christians, while it burned them out of its Ukrainian and Belarus provinces, since they refused to convert to Catholicism. You make Poland look like an innocent victim but in reality its goals were not that much different from those of Stalin and Hitler.
      And yes Germany sent an ultimatum demanding the Danzig corridor and saying that Germany wouldn’t have invaded Poland a couple years later had Poland given in is also speculating. The British and French appeased Hitler too much. Each time Hitler took some land he said that it would be his last takeover. So I’m sure he would have invaded Poland anyway. After all, did he not want Lebensraum in the east? First of all, the “east” included Poland. Also, how was he to accomplish his dream of taking over the Soviet Union and destroying a country that he considered to be fun by Jews if Poland was in the way?
      As for Russia winning World War Two in Europe singlehandedly; I still believe the USSR could have done this had it not been for Stalin’s stupidity. The Ukraine would not have been lost and millions of Soviets such including the Ukrainians would never have had a chance to betray Russia. Yes it is betrayal. Let’s face it: just days before Ukraine had been part of the USSR. Now that the Germans had arrived they decided to help the country that wanted to destroy Russia. I agree, they had every right to go against Stalin but my point is that what Ukraine did was still betrayal. Ok enough about Ukraine. How about food? Sure the Soviet Union would have been tight on food but they had more tanks, planes, and men. Without supplies from the US and Britain, millions more Soviets would have starved to death. But you said yourself; Russia could afford this. It had a huge population and army. 25 million red army soldiers were mobilized to fight in the war and despite heavy losses, 6 million red army soldiers were advancing from the east on Berlin in 1945 and many more were help in reserve while the German army was reduced to old men and young boys. Now if we want to speculate, let’s stick to something reasonable. Things that might likely have happened World War Two. Japan invading Russia? I don’t think so. First of all, hundreds of thousands of Japanese forces were stuck fighting China. Over a third was busy fighting the Dutch, British, and Australians in South-East Asia and throughout other islands. And ok, what if the Japanese decided to invade Russia instead of attack the USA. First of all, the two countries had signed a neutrality pact. Second, what would Japan gain by invading Siberia? Snow and frostbite. A wasteland. Maybe some gulag camps. Nothing usefull. Who knows: maybe 100,000 Siberian troops might have held of Japan and the rest could go rescue Moscow. After all, Moscow was more important. Also if we want to speculate, for all we know, Japan might have done as well against those 100,000 Siberian troops as Finland had done against the entire red army in 1939. A major reason that the axis lost the war is because Germany, Italy, and Japan were working towards their own selfish goals. Japan was more worried about their empire than what happened on the other side of the world. This is why they bombed Pearl Harbor.
      You can’t compare the USSR under Stalin and Nazi Germany under Hitler. These two dictators had completely different goals. Hitler’s two main goals were to destroy the Jews and the USSR. Stalin wanted to build an empire/make the USSR the most powerful country on earth and get rid of anybody who he considered posed a “threat” to him in the process. Also, Communism and Nazism the ideas of Communism and Nazism were completely different. In Communism, all people are considered equal and have equal rights. Nazism is a form of extreme Nationalism where all inferior people have to go to the gas chamber or however they were to be killed.
      But I still can’t figure out why you keep arguing that Russia gained a lot from the war. It’s difficult to gain from a war that killed 27 million people and set the Soviet Union back to where it had started some years before. Also many major cities were destroyed. And the USSR emerged as a world superpower. Great and what do they gain now? Another war, as if the first one had not been enough. A cold war that the USSR did NOT want and went to great lengths to put in policies that had been in place before the world war. But in the west, there was a much more positive engagement. The western countries were unhappy that the USSR had taken over so much land…but Russia DID deserve something for all the suffering that was inflicted on the country.
      Maybe you could bring up a new topic concerning the war. We seem to be arguing about the same fruitless things. Right, I’m done. Answer when you can.

  5. i meant won sorry. just a thereotical question, please answer!

    • I have always maintained that WWII was won with British willpower, American industry and Soviet blood. And that without any of those 3 components the Axis powers might have won the Second World War.

      The USSR contributed most in blood and sacrifice on the fields of battle, but those contributions might have been in vain if there was no British Empire to fight, and it’s quite likely that the US might have not gotten involved if the UK lost, or made a peace deal with the Nazis. One can not underestimate the contribution that the UK made into the conflict. While their land forces were of marginal concern compared to the USSR or even the US, the UK RAF and Royal Navy made big contributions against Germany. Britain itself was a huge aircraft carrier and a forward operating base in the war against Germany. Germany diverted so much of its manpower and matériels into fighting the RAF and later the USAAF, and their respective Navies, as well as their armies later in the conflict. While it’s easy to say that the Western Allies have only faced less than 20% of German Armies. It’s not so easy to refute that with the extra manpower and matériels, the Germans might have actually won the great war in the East. The great battles that the USSR had won were quite close. And any tiny variation might have resulted in a different outcome. Take the 1941 Battle For Moscow, the USSR was able to transfer around 60 divisions from the East once it found out that the Empire of Japan will attack the US and British holdings in Asia and Pacific. Those extra troops helped save the Soviet Union. At Stalingrad the Soviets came very close to losing. With extra reserves, more air power and matériels, Germany could have won the battle. It was the same with the Battle of Kursk. Operation Zitadelle was stopped.as soon as Hitler found out that the Allies landed in Sicily and several divisions were transfered to the West.

      Now of course it’s pointless and silly to speculate that Germany might have actually won the war if such and such happened or did not happen. However, it’s easy to see that despite the USSR’s enormous contribution to Allied victory, it could have lost the war despite it without the help of the US and the UK. At best the war would have lasted much longer and would have been even more bloody. But frankly, one of the biggest contributors to the Allied victory in WWII was Hitler himself. His idiotic decisions had helped the Allies immeasurably.

      So in short, no. I do not believe that the USSR could have won the war alone. Today we see the outcome as inevitable, but it wasn’t, not then. And without the help of the Western Allies the USSR might have lost the war in one way or another.

      • Soviet Union won the war and that is fact.. And they would still win it without help from US.

    • I agree with you Noor. lol I been arguing with Rlisu for a long time about whether the USSR could have won on its own.


    • Yes the allies won WW2, but I don’t understand what your trying to say. Are you asking which allied country played the most important role in defeating the axis? I believe it was the USSR. But you need to make your comment clearer, otherwise people won’t be able to decode it.


  8. The Americans lost 300,000 in WWII. We British lost 600,000. The Russians lost 20-25 million. I don’t have any doubt who made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazism.

  9. Yes but death count alone doesn’t show who made a bigger contribution.

  10. The Soviets won because they got most of what they wanted despite starting the war. Stalin knew that the west would declare war on Hitler when he divided up poland, then he could let Adolf run havoc and stab him in the back later. Stalin’s armies at that point would be greeted as liberators.

  11. In response to ***Anonymous***: The US gained more from WWII than the Soviet Union did. They emerged from WWII as the leading economic power with bases all over the world. The Soviet Union did gain a large portion of Europe but lets remember the sacrifices they had to make. Over 25 million Soviets (civilians and soldiers) were killed and millions more were injured. Besides this, the majority of the major Soviet cities were completely destroyed. Some examples of this would be Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Kiev. The United States lost nothing compared to the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the USA gained much more than the Soviet Union from WWII.

  12. ccording to this chronicle, USA srosili bombs, killing many innocent civilians and thus won the war, the main forces of the Germans too sparilis.Tak write: U.S. defeated Japan, the USSR win Nazi Germaniyu.I yes, he could win the whole war without the help of allies, which was not more than 15%

  13. Its like a history book of the world war

  14. I believe one of the winners is Germany. We got rid of a dictatorship we could not get rid of ourself. And compared to the real victim of WW2 Poland we had 60 wonderful years afterwards.

    • Well half of you did. Because the DDR was no better off than Poland. And this came at the price of almost 10 million dead and both countries under occupation and in ruins.
      It was only the Cold War which gave the superpowers the excuse for rebuilding both states and welcoming them back into the international community.

      I agree, West Germany and later united Germany came out well overall historically. The re-education campaign has worked and now Germany is a sound democratic state, in no danger of reverting back under authoritarian rule. But all that is a happy accident of history, rather than a direct result of Allied victory over the Nazis.

      Thanks for reading and your comment

  15. In the end no one in Europe won very much.The Germans didn’t regain Danzig/Gdansk,the corridor (Pomerania+Pomerelia) and the half of Upper Silesia they lost after WW1.n addition,they lost west+east Prussia and ALL of Silesia.and had about 10 million of their nationals
    expelled by Poland and another 3 million from Czechoslovakia.Plus their country was divided for 40 years.Not much of a victory there.
    Poland was invaded by both its rapacious neighbours and had its citizens massacred by both (1939-41),then by the Germans (1941-44)
    and also by Ukrainians (1943-44)Its capital was obliterated in 1943+44
    in the 2 failed uprisings.Poles surviving in western Belarus , Ukraine
    and Lithuania were expelled (1944-47) to Poland proper.And the rump state-smaller than the pre-war Republic-allowed was a Soviet satellite
    run by and for the benefit of the (former) Soviet Union.Not much of a victory there either.(Somewhere between 5.5 and 6 million people died
    as a result of the war-time massacres.)
    Now,the Soviet Union/Russia.That country did originally gain an enormous amount of territory-up to the Elbe.So that looks like a clear victory-but in the end that empire went to pieces (1989-91) and Russia was back to where it was at the time of Peter the Great.(territorially).And,of course,the (former) Soviet Union lost somewhere between 20 and 27 million people from 1941-45..(No one really knows the exact number.)So,in the end not much of a victory there either.
    (It would have been a clear victory if the Russians had been able to retain Stalins conquests)
    And the 2 major western powers both lost their empires and became weaker states as a result.Holland and Belgium too.So not much of a victory there.
    In the end,the only real victory was that of mankind in general which put an end to the monster state that was Nazi Germany and the monster who led it.

    • “In the end”?

      The end of WWII was September 2, 1945 not 1989 after the Wall came down. The Cold War came as a direct result of WWII, but was not part of it. So you can’t look at the world today and claim that the situation is the direct result of WWII. Yes, every thing is connected, everything carries long term consequences, but. The USSR did retain its conquests, for over 4 decades. The fall of the Berlin War and the fall of the Warsaw Pact, as well as the break up of the USSR came because of post war Soviet policy and the failure of the communist system. Not as a result of WWII.

      The Soviets made out like bandits from WWII. A great empire, world wide influence, all this for helping start the war.

      • But,in the end,the Soviet Union died-together with its underlying vicious and insane ideology-and retained NONE of its conquests.Matter of fact,the Soviets/Russians couldn’t even keep what they had on August 31,1939.So to say that they “won” the war
        because they expanded temporarily is wrong.Between 1989-91,they lost EVERYTHING that first Lenin (in the Civil War) and then Stalin (in WW2) gained.Their so-called “victory” was ephemeral-and purchased at an astronomical cost..So…I can not agree with you that the ( former) Soviet Union was the clear victor (together with the USA) of WW2 .That would be true if it still existed.It doesn’t.(Btw ,nice exchanging ideas with you-even if we don’t agree.)

  16. Is anyone of you able to clarify for me when exactly Soviet Union invaded Finland in WW2?

  17. Nov 30 1939… http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ussr-attacks-finland

  18. Thanks for everythijg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: