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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Wow, things never change! It seems everyone starts wars, seize a bunch of land and treasure and hope to hold out for a negotiated peace, but they don't learn apparently. Because Americans love to fight, aren't giving anything and when they get bored of the whole thing they end it with fire and brimstone.




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


FDR, Congress, still the government of the USA. I'm not blaming anyone just saying how it was. The American government violated it's own laws to aid the Chinese and hinder the Japanese. To me, that's not neutral.

How would attacking Siberia have helped the Japanese?

True, the Soviets were also aiding the Chinese. However, as I am sure you know, Japan needed control of the Pacific in order to receive her raw materials. Russia had no Navy to speak of at the time, as most of it had been destroyed in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. That left Pearl Harbour as the only possible target.

I'd just like to elaborate a bit on the point of the Soviets giving military aid to China. At the time, China was in a civil war between the Communists and the KMT under Chiang Kai-shek. The Soviets were aiding the Communists against the KMT. When full scale war broke out against Japan, a tenuous alliance developed between the Communists and the KMT in order to drive out the Japanese. The Americans then began aiding Chiang primarily. Interestingly, Chiang also had the use of some 20 German trained divisions. Source

Once the Japanese were defeated, both sides fully intended to resume the civil war. This occurred with the Communists emerging victorious. The rest, they say, is history.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by TheComte]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Wow, things never change! It seems everyone starts wars, seize a bunch of land and treasure and hope to hold out for a negotiated peace, but they don't learn apparently. Because Americans love to fight, aren't giving anything and when they get bored of the whole thing they end it with fire and brimstone.





And Americans have been doing that since the beginning of history, true? The Americans of the Middle East invented organized warfare. The Americans of central Asia rode rough-shod over most of the continent and into Europe. The Americans of Europe marched on the Holy Lands to fight the American Muslims who were figthing a holy war to bring everyone to Allah, one way or the other. Those dastardly American are so mean.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 


OK
What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
that's right nothing.

This thread is about WWII not a flaming post on what the world is according to huckfinn.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by scordar
 

Skordar, I must admit, of all the sequences, of all the battles, of all the heroic and efficient efforts of WWII, the Finns certainly go down in my book as extremely combat effective.

I even mentioned the Finns twice in my book, to illustrate an anticipated line of expectation, and how effective one can be who takes advantage of those who are foolish enough to do that.

I mean the Finns handed the Russians their own heads!

I'm American, but I highly respect other fighting men, and the Finns were brilliant! In fact, so brilliant that Hitler too noticed, and (please let our military historians correct me if I'm wrong,) determined that if the Finns could chew up Russians so efficiently, then the Germans could certainly do no worse.

Thus, it was easier for Hitler to make the decision to attack Russia.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
seems to me if everybody hates the US so much, that they should quit puttin thier hands out for all the money, take thier un out of out country
and leave us the hell alone.

but everybody knows that will never happen



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Go to a social event, a company celebration, a high school reunion, any place where a group of people know, or know of others present.

Sit back in a corner, and just watch.

Those few who are a bit more affluent, wealthy, present themselves well, hold their heads with a suitable degree of pride, will be sniped at by a significant portion among those who are less opulent, more plain, and ordinary.

I don't pay much attention to those who dislike America, as you'll always have the little yapping dogs, shaking like a dog shi**ing a peach pit, barking at the larger dog.

It's those who lurk in the shadows that I concern myself over. They hold to themselves, they plot, and they wait.

The US may have helped many people decades ago, but water passed washes no feet.

Besides, if you want to thoroughly piss someone off, remind them of either a favor you did them, or money they owe you.

It's just a reminder that they aren't all what they may present themselves to be after all.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by dooper]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by insider15
 


Hmmn, i hold the belief that there are no real 'winners' of war, only benefactors. However, if i was to answer your orignal question, my answer would be the people who loaned the money to finance the war.


[edit on 18-4-2009 by MCoG1980]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


So with all your military involvement are you credentials as a Bona Fide Military Historian realistic, or is that the title you have posthumously given yourself after years of reading?
Did you gain said credentials whilst studying within the Navy? If you did, I'd hate to assume- but does that indicate you are an officer?
I respect all personnel whom have served with good intent. if your are this; you have my sincere and humbled apologies!!!!


He "posthumously" gave himself?

Look, if we have a ghost on this forum, maybe we should drop this thread and get onto what's important!!

Look, Kriskall. Your use of English is terrible, so even without your horrible attitude we are going to be paying little attention to what you have to say.

I really cannot see your problem.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by triplesod
 


I've been "jump started" more than once, so I guess I could qualify as a ghost.
However, I'm much more lively than some people would like.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Did I strike a cord? I don't recall flaming anyone...its simply an observation. People like to start wars and then begin complaining when the target doesn't respond according to the plan. Sort of like what's happening now in the world.
If you are refering to the statement I made saying that Americans like to fight...I wrote it because I am an American, not just a citizen of the United States like many people, and I love to fight.

I thought these types of discussions were about learning from history...which the world refuses to do...and that is why your world is in an induced coma and life support. That is why your immediate future offers only one guarantee...You will comes to terms with who you are, the things you have done and the things you plan to do.

But to keep this about WWII...Noone won the war...it never ended. It became Korea, then Vietnam, then a drug war and skirmishes, then Iraq, then a pause, then Afghanistan and Iraq again and so on. In the United States, the cities were overun with the filthiest of people from the ruined nations. Murderers, thieves and Liars. Pimps and whores and mindless animals looking for a quick dollar.

The war didn't end; how wars are fought just changed and the foreign armies simply immigrated to this land. They put garrisons in our cities, armed their children and got involved in politics. They moved in, learned the language, started calling themselves Americans and went straight to work to try and do here what they had done to their own homes. Can you not see that a car full of armed teenagers is mechanized infantry...probably supplied intially by the Soviet Union; I can't imagine who else flood America with AK47s.

Don't believe me...then what the #@$# is Rod Blagojevich? They came to get rich and nothing was going to stop them. Until now of course. I came for a light discussion...to have a little fun before my nieces birthday party, but if you'd like to get a smart mouth...I'd be more than happy to tell you exactly who you are.

First, you tell me what you think you are and then I'll tell you what you really are. How about that?

[edit on 18-4-2009 by huckfinn]

[edit on 18-4-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
seems to me if everybody hates the US so much, that they should quit puttin thier hands out for all the money, take thier un out of out country
and leave us the hell alone.

but everybody knows that will never happen


Hmm what money, the US has put its hand out so much that the US foreign debt a little over $11trillion is by far the largest in the world. How about you pay back all the money ?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by insider15
 


applying 1 country to 'the victor' of WWII is unjust and unfair. The war was composed of a team. Like in a sporting event, you win as a team, or loose as a team. The Allied 'team' won, which composed of the U.S., U.S.S.R., and the British Empire. also, the victor of a war is not decided upon the casualties of the opposing sides. Both teams suffered great casualties, and in the end, Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R emerged as super powers.
If not for the Russians, we ( allies ) would not have won the war, same goes for the U.S., if not for them, the war would've been lost, and without the British, guess what, no victory.
( no offense to those allied countries i didn't mention. w/out any of you, we would've lost )



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Military power is not measured by the size of your army or in the number of casualties you sustain. True miliary power is measured by the number of casualties that you inflict on the enemy.

Keeping that in mind, realize that in Gulf War I and II that the US inflicted casualties at a rate near 1000 to 1. No other military in history has done that. The US did it twice, three times if you count Afghanistan.

Also, if you would like to compare the US and USSR. The USSR was in Afghanistan for 9 years and lost about 13,000 troops and hundreds of thousands of sick, injured, and wounded. Many of the USSR losses were due to diseases and poor sanitation.The US has been there a little less than 8 years and has lost 606 total. No massive losses due to disease or poor sanitation.

Getting back to WWII, the US fought a war on two fronts against Germany and Japan. The USSR did not. In fact the USSR did not participate against Japan at all until the first atomic bomb was dropped, the war in the Pacific was basically over at that point. The US contribution to the victory against Germany was decisive, not just from troop involvement but also in arms shipments to Great Britain and the USSR. The US victory against Japan was almost singlehanded, except for the contributions of the Australians and the New Zealanders, and a few Royal Navy ships.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I think the real winners of WW2 were the bankers that financed both sides.

That being said, i don't think any nation won WW2 so much as Hitler lost it.

If Hitler sits back and lets his generals plan and execute their battle plan The Axis wins easily, hands down.

I would also make a case that Radar plays the biggest role in the Allies winning.

We had it and they didn't. Without radar the Battle of Britain isn't a battle, it's the slaughter of the RAF. The land Invasion of the Isle's to be complete a few months later. With the UK all but subjugated, the Axis goes on to conquer N Africa and the Middle East with the help of Italian and Vichy French troops who feel good about the way things are going and Morale remains high. Vichy England prepares for the invasion of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. With their western and southern fronts secure, Hitlers generals start planning Operation Barbarossa on steroids.

Meanwhile in the pacific...

Emboldened by Hitler's success's in Europe, Japans' risky plan for a sneak attack against the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor seems like a master stroke now. The U.S. is now in the war but with Europe lost all their resources go into the war in the Pacific and S.E. Asia. China is barely holding on. Only the mass amounts of war materials coming in from Russia and whats left of the Allies ( The US, Canada, Australia+ NZ, South Africa, and various Central and South American country's ) and China's massive amount of manpower are keeping them in the war. After Huge losses in N Africa and the Middle East, Aussie and NZ armies are low on men and material. The US cannot get there in time and Japan successfully invades NZ and Australia. While the U.S. does well in the battle for the Pacific. It takes time. Lots of time. By late 41' China is just about done and Japan seems stronger than ever. With the western front secure Hitler redeploys the bulk of his now vast ( remember he now has whats left of the British, French, Italian, and German navies ,w/ the shipbuilding capability of all of Europe adding new ships every week) naval forces to the Indian and Pacific oceans to support Japan.

In May of 41' Hitler launches Operation Barbarossa bolstered by added industrial capacities from conquered nations and millions of conscripts from all over Europe. This overwhelming force, bolstered by elite, battle-tested German divisions push the Russians back to the Urals by fall of 41' and Hitler receives the unconditional surrender of Russia in the fall of 44' after detonating an atomic bomb for the first time in anger. With Russia in the fight of its life and US supplies not able to get past the naval blockade of the Axis, China folds in early 42'. Japan is now a mainland empire.

By late 42' early 43' it has turned into N&S America vs Everybody else. With the new resources gained by Japan and supported by the Reich, the war in the Pacific turns into a stalemate. Both losses on both sides are incalculable.
Germany and the US both develop the bomb at about the same time but Hitler has more targets and no conscience and mercilessly uses A-bombs against any who continue to resist. It takes the destruction of 13 American cities before the US surrenders and is split between Germany and Japan in the east and west respectively. Hitler now see's Japan as a threat and turns on his one-time Allies. Hitler, now completely mad with power does the unthinkable. He rains Nuclear destruction down upon Japan wiping all life off the islands effectively ending the Japanese race. By 1947 Germany is the first truly Global Empire. Hitler now rules the world. And the bankers own Hitler. Shortly after Hitler nukes Japan he is finally assassinated and a new regime is installed to "fix" all the stuff Hitler did but they will give up none of there power and the plan of the NWO is complete. Game Over. Please Insert Quarter. One world Government, and a Fascist one at that.

So i submit to you that Radar saved the WORLD not just WW2.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicademus
If Hitler sits back and lets his generals plan and execute their battle plan The Axis wins easily, hands down.


I could not disagree more with this statement. It is way too simplistic. A full refutation would probably take several posts so I am not even going to begin. Suffice it to say that Soviet and American production would have eventually swamped Germany. Both the Soviets' and Americans' factories were far away from any harm while Germany's were being pulverized on a daily basis.

The rest of your post is pure speculation.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by TheComte]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BotulinumSoda
reply to post by insider15
 


applying 1 country to 'the victor' of WWII is unjust and unfair. The war was composed of a team. Like in a sporting event, you win as a team, or loose as a team. The Allied 'team' won, which composed of the U.S., U.S.S.R., and the British Empire. also, the victor of a war is not decided upon the casualties of the opposing sides. Both teams suffered great casualties, and in the end, Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R emerged as super powers.
If not for the Russians, we ( allies ) would not have won the war, same goes for the U.S., if not for them, the war would've been lost, and without the British, guess what, no victory.
( no offense to those allied countries i didn't mention. w/out any of you, we would've lost )


I agree with you about 90%.

I would like to point out that France gets credit for being an "Allied" nation when in fact they were a conquered nation. France played no significant role in the Allied victory, except that it offered a great place for our troops (US, UK, and Canadian) to land on. The Free French were nothing more than a token force.

When you get into the true history of WWII, you learn that there were whole battalions of French troops that fought for the Nazis. The Vicci government played an active role in the war on the side of the Nazis and I consider France to be an Axis Power after their defeat.

Many of the French were more enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis than the Italians were.

Similarly for other conquered areas like the Ukraine and the Balkans, both of these areas had entire battalions of VOLUNTEERS who fought for the Nazis. The people of Belerus were so closely aligned with the Nazis that their volunteer airforce was the only non-German unit to get the ME-262 jet.

I do agree with you with respect to other allies who were conquered, like Poland. The Poles continues to resist throughout the entire war and the Polish underground was many times the size of the French underground.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The official answer is the US and allied forces won.

The real answer is the ones who truly win EVERY WAR won this one too;

the banksters!


[edit on 18-4-2009 by mostlyspoons]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


My main point was that Radar enabled the RAF to win The Battle of Britain, when by all rights they should have lost it. Had Germany been able to gain air superiority a land invasion wouldn't have been far behind. If Hitler had stayed out of it they wouldn't have attacked Russia and therefore would have had more than enough resources to take England out of the war. With England out there is no North African landings, no invasion of Sicily or Italy. No D-day. No daily bombings of German infrastructure. The mass destruction of German industrial capacity did not happen till after these offensives. Offensives that would never have happened if Hitler had let his generals do there job. What, is America going to stage an invasion of Europe from New York harbor? Not likely. Like i said before, Germany did not lose her industrial capacity until late in the war, after the Allies had retaken a good portion of Europe and had airfields close enough to reach the heartland of Germany. If they had not attacked Russia (Hitlers plan, not his Generals) they could have consolidated their gains and brought more and more industrial capacity online. Then either goaded the Russians into attacking Germany, killing off there army in defense or invade Russia and be able to take there time and do it right.

If you think that is wrong, tell me why you think so. Not just "it will take to long" or whatever you said.

If Hitler would have listened to his generals Germany would have never been in a 2 front war. Being in a 2 front war is what killed em.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Nicademus
 


It's wrong because you're assuming they wouldn't have attacked Russia anyway or Russia wouldn't have attacked Germany. The Nazis were ideological enemies of the Communists, more so than of the West. He wanted to align with the West against Stalin.

So, if your whole argument rests on the "two front theory" then I have to counter with my assumption that had Barbarossa not gone ahead when it did, it would have just started later, or the Russians would have initiated the proceedings. Either way Stalin and Hitler are going to have at it at some point. It was inevitable.

And yes, if the UK was occupied then the USA would have found another way to land in Europe. Let's see here, Portugal and the Azores are one possibility. Even though Portugal was neutral they had strong ties to Britain and probably would have declared had Britain been occupied. That's just one possibility that didn't play out. Iceland is another possibility. And how about Gibraltar?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join