It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

who won the 2nd world war

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
hi people sorry for putting this topic here but i feel it has relevence.. do must peeople here feel that the us or or the usssr won the second world war??? as a western european i fee that the ussr won it as they sacfriced 70 - 80 divisiions of trops and millons of civilons and the allies had the normandy assaults...terrifying and horribly but what went on on the rusian side was unreal and if it wasnt for the russians tiening up about 40 divisions of german troops the normady assaulsts would have been a damp fart....so my point is who is the realsuper power??? are we now just not kidding are selves???? the real power is just re grouping?? and we r just sitting back and licking our wounds??.... they know whatr coming cos they had the first slap from the gray via tungasta(pardon my spelling) they are strong cos they know what to expect.....when we gonna wake up??? u want us to say tungsata and seatle in the same breath????




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I would dare say 'victory' wouldn't have been possible if either side didn't get involved. The US forces were of course split at the start between the Pacific and Germany, also northern Africa. Otherwise the USSR had a very important strategic advantage. The Taiga and Tundras. Luring the Nazis in while burning crops and starving them out.

It could be said the USSR won by using the environment similar to guerrilla fighters. They didn't win by might per se. Instead they won with brains and familiarity with environment. The battles the US was involved in were IMO much harsher because the US soldiers were invading and breaking strongholds, not being chased while laying traps.

I am in NO WAY belittling the USSR's involvement. I think they played their cards with the precision of a genius and contributed on a massive scale.

The operations of the two sides were drastically different and I dont think you can just pull out a ruler and measure the proverbial military manhood on this.

Otherwise I would also say: This was a WORLD war. No single nation 'won' it. Involvement from many nations tipped the scale.

(edit)
Just realised how centric that sounds even though I was trying to talk about Allies instead of 'the US'. My apologies.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
As far as defeating the armies of Germany, it would be simple to say that the Russians won half and the Western Allies won half. But it was Russia who gained the most territory and sphere of influence.


Originally posted by lordtyp0
It could be said the USSR won by using the environment similar to guerrilla fighters. They didn't win by might per se. Instead they won with brains and familiarity with environment.


I disagree. Not that the environment hurt the Germans more than Russia, but that Russia doesn't win by might. The Russians had vast reserves of manpower, which in itself is enough because by the end Germany couldn't find any pilots for her fighters. But also Russia was at or near the top in almost every category of military production, including tanks, artillery, and attack fighters.

en.wikipedia.org...

How is that not winning by might? The Germans had technically superior equipment, but were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers the Russians could throw at them.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by TheComte]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I've never seen a connection between Tunguska and victory in WWII before.


BTW, the Heer had 95 divisions trying to defend the Atlantic/Mediterranean coast of Europe. If we hadn't been in the war the Russians would have been behind the Urals, if they had survived at all.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


i am impressed by the tought of the responces...to be honest it annouys me when americans think they one the 2nd world war single handed!! they rem omaha but what aboy juno and swoard? by grand dad lost a leg at juno and he wasnt a yank. b4 we can defeat the currant enemy we did to join together and not just be "the yanks" its al people who want to live free not just steven spielberg people"



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by insider15
reply to post by TheComte
 


i am impressed by the tought of the responces...to be honest it annouys me when americans think they one the 2nd world war single handed!! they rem omaha but what aboy juno and swoard? by grand dad lost a leg at juno and he wasnt a yank. b4 we can defeat the currant enemy we did to join together and not just be "the yanks" its al people who want to live free not just steven spielberg people"



From memory, West to East, Utah, Omaha, Gold, Sword, Juno.

That's American, American, English, Canadian, English, in that order.

As John Wayne said in "The Longest Day", "We're relative newcomers to this war."



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Your memory eludes you

Canadians hit Juno beach

They had opposition 2nd to Omaha only,

A for effort though



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I was more referring to the 'letting the environment' deal with them first. Tear them down, destroying supplies etc.. Huge swaths of the German army was out of it from frostbite, starvation etc..

Otherwise, I don't agree that sheer numbers is might. It is strength, but how many Russians died in the large battles like.. was it Stalingrad? The whole 'if the man with the rifle falls, pick it up and keep fighting' thing.. It's desperation. In this case it panned out. But I can't agree that it is a showing of might.

(edit)
I hit reply to thecomte.. looks like it didn't site the link anymore? I don't like hitting quote because it makes walls of text.. might have to from here on.

(edit)
Er.. Stalingrad? wtf was I thinking?? meh, time for dinner.. back after awhile..

[edit on 17-4-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Your memory eludes you

Canadians hit Juno beach

They had opposition 2nd to Omaha only,

A for effort though

Damn my eyes!


I actually digitized Cross-Channel Attack for the Center for Military History, the US Army's official history site. I also have it for download in PDF if anybody wants it (along with 50+ other "Green Books".)



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by insider15
 


Russia broke the back of the German military and are in fact the victors of World War 2. You'll never get any American Patriot to admit that though. Normandy happend simply so that Europe would not become wholly taken over by Communism as Russia beat Germany. You will notice they didn't "liberate" any countries so much as kept them as satelite states wholly subservent to them.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
i am irish born n breed but seany did i say what gran dad was?? he was irish but he fought under another flag.. i just wanted to make a point... and i am seing the point coming together on this thread with out me having to say it.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by insider15
 


Russia broke the back of the German military and are in fact the victors of World War 2. You'll never get any American Patriot to admit that though. Normandy happend simply so that Europe would not become wholly taken over by Communism as Russia beat Germany. You will notice they didn't "liberate" any countries so much as kept them as satelite states wholly subservent to them.


I would also note that Normandy happened because Uncle Joe was screaming for a second front from 1941 on.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Territorially the Soviets won, economically, Britain lost and the US won. Germany didn't do too badly either though, considering, under a new regime of course, but the level of inward investment into Germany post world war was highly significant and insured a rapid economic turn around. Industrially and financially the second world war was of great benefit to both the US and Germany, but then investments were strongly linked between the two nations from the end of the first war and many of those investments were in the armaments industry.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
This is always funny

Everybody always states that the Russians won WWII because they punished the Germans the most, but they always seem to forget about Japan and how they swept into China and pushed their way through the Pacific.

It was a WORLD war with the Soviets and the Americans taking on the brunt of the fighting with massive contributions from the UK and her common wealth nations.

Germany took a massive beating at the hands of the Soviets on the Eastern front and a heavy pounding from the air of her cities & factories by the US and UK.

Neither Germany nor Japan could have really won either conflicts it just took a brutal campaign of attrition for final victory. A conflict that Germany nor Japan had enough manpower nor enough resources to win or fend off what they started.





[edit on 17-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
my question still realy stands..who won it??? we defeated naziis..we defeated(soz about the spelling) but what has happened???? nothing just bitter tribal sh?t has any body ever heard of divide and conqueur... now who would have an interetest in keeping all us human tribes like jews christians seeks muslims fighting agaisnt each other??????? think about it?????????



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



Which came in 1944 a year after the battle of Kursk which was really when the Wehrmacht's back was broken.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Which came in 1944 a year after the battle of Kursk which was really when the Wehrmacht's back was broken.


That wasn't at all obvious at the time. The Russians were pleased with the results of Operation Citadel, but they were still a long way from victory.

It was an "all in" effort and everybody should get some credit for the victory. As it can't be counted by square miles, number of losses or time in the war we'll can only say "good job, well done", and get ready for the next war.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
In the space of a year *I'd say less* it's going to become pretty apparent that your opponent's offensive capacity is nil.

And, to the person that said Germany was destined to lose I beg to differ, had Hitler not interfered and tried to micromanage the offensive the Germans would have most likely won. They knew exactly what they were doing he did not.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



Which came in 1944 a year after the battle of Kursk which was really when the Wehrmacht's back was broken.



And that victory was only made possible because the Soviets were receiving the precise German order of battle, in advance, via both the Cambridge Spy Ring, the Lucy Spy Ring and even, on occasion via the Party itself under Borman and Mueller's Funkspiel operation. The Soviets were nothing if not well informed.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join