It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 02:32 AM
The war between Russia and Germany, well that was total war. Once the French were defeated and British sent packing, the war was won for Germany as long as the Molotov Rippentropp agreement held. Once that was broken then the real battle of opposing ideologies began, there could be no long term relationship between Nazism and Communism. Total war involving massive ethnic cleansing committed by both sides and a loss of life that went off the scale in comparison with previous conflicts. These two ideologies were willing to make horrendous sacrifices in a way others were not, so I guess Russia did win the war against Germany at least. When push came to shove, France was not willing to sacrifice millions again and I think the same would have been found if the Nazis had invaded Britain. I just don't see the British turning London or Birmingham into a Stalingrad or Leningrad. The Russians certainly did the hard work, did they lose something like 25,000,000 people to the war and the Brits and Americans something like 250,000? That would be a rationof 100/1 in terms of deaths in war, so where this ends is just guesswork but the Russians certainly did their bit to defeat the Nazis.

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 09:45 AM
Apparently when the SS was disbanded, American Clandestine Services felt that this sophisticated network was too "valuable" to allow it to simply disappear; so some SS agents were given rite-of-passage, enabling them, to walk into open arms of the U.S government, to form the CIA.
So who won the war????

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by insider15

It is not really a matter of who won the war but more a matter of who didn’t loss it.

The war in Europe was all but lost in the summer of 1940 long before the American people even considered entering the war. FDR knew the war had to be fought in 1938 long before the beginning of hostilities in Europe after his meeting with Albert Einstein in that year. So the idea of there being a 7 point plan to ensure that Japan attacked some part of the US is by no means unlikely. As for FDR to change the minds of the US people someone had to do something, to me 911 looks very similar. Anyway the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did the trick very nicely.

Going back to October 1940 and the near conclusion of the Battle of Britain which the British didn’t win but managed to doge was the result of FOG when a solitary German boomer that was lost and decided to drop its munitions in order to lighten its load. Unfortunately for them this just happened to be over the east end of London at the time. Because of this the British Boomer command decided to boom Berlin the very next day. Thankfully sending Hitler into a rage, he then ordered the total destruction of London thus spearing the airfields that had been under attack all that summer. Yes Radar played a big part in the success of the RAF but by October we were so short of trained pilots it would not have held off the invasion for very much longer.

Without this change of plan by the Germans, England would have surly been lost. Therefore there would have been no D day as it would have been totally impossible to cross the Atlantic with that sort of power at that time. Fighting in North Africa would have ceased and the Germans would have been able to secure the oil that they desperately needed. The attack on the USSR could have come latter at that point most likely after Germany had produced their own A bomb.

So with the loss of England Europe would have been at peace and Hitler have had the time to develop his wonder weapons, the A bomb, an improved V2 not only to hit the USSR but also the USA. Japan would have controlled the whole of Asia and most of us would be learning German or Japanese.

Thankfully this is not how it worked out and as far as which nation won the war you would have to say the USSR, but the RAF plus Radar and the resilience of the people of the East End of London has to be taken into account for not loosing it long before that time. Jugging by the films you would have to believe that the Americans won but in fact it was the RAF plus Radar and the resilience of the people of the East End of London who saved them form Nuclear Inhalation.

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 09:48 PM

Originally posted by lunarminer
By the way, a country with huge oil exports is never bankrupt.

I take it you never did business or economics at school.

I have to call BS on that 400,000 number. The Germans lost about 4.5 million army troops from both fronts and while the Russians like to claim that they killed every one of them, the truth is something else. The Russians had a high death toll because they used human wave tactics against the Germans.

PLease read something about the war. I've already proven your numbers far from correct and as for human wave attacks by 1943 the Soviets were starting to master manouver warfare.

The Germans on the other hand were smart enough not to do that. The Germans lost between 4 and 8 thousand troops on D-day alone. They would have lost many times that in the weeks that followed. Taking into account that the war lasted about 10 months after that, the German troop losses on the Western front would have to be in the millions.

ONce again complete nbacked BS, where are your sources, you are just making things up now.

So, I fail to see how the 150% casualty number could be true.

Read Glantz who is acknoledged as an expert by the US Army in these matters.

Did you mean Stalingrad? There was a battle for Moscow, fought by factory workers. :lol The main German forces never got to Moscow because of Stalingrad.

Once again you show a complete lack of knowledge of history. Lets see now over 2.5 million men were enaged with the Germans losing 500,000 and the Soviets 650,000 to 1,000,000 men. SO in other words the Germans lost more men in that battle in 1941-42 than fighting America. Please do some reading. It's all there.

Yet you haven't provided a link to that study so that the rest of us may verify that fact.

I've provided links, which is why you seem to have run off with your tail between your legs. I guess that was too be expected.

And anyone with any knowledge of WWII will also quickly point out that without the US and its involvement in WWII, Great Britain would have been lost.

In actual fcat the Germans didn't invade because of the Battle of Britain which had nothing to do with America at all

If that had happened then the Russians would not have been able to withstand the German military. They would have been equally screwed.

Once again not entirely correct, it wasn't America building the war winning weapons such as the T-34's, Yak-3's, PPSH-42's or IL-2 fighter bomber. To name but a few. The Germans could never have completely defeated Russia, it was simply too big. America provided some supplies but they didn't do the fighitng.

Also, without the huge arms shipments that the US delivered (using military power by the way) neither the USSR nor the UK could have made it. So, I would say that it a huge contribution even without military involvement.

That was the biggest contribution, far more than your military contribution. America was simply a massive factory safe from enemy attack.

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:01 PM
[q]and British sent packing[/q]

Sent packing? What, they went off home for tea? Game of cricket?

If someone, say, breaks into your house, and start climbing out the window with your TV/jewelry and you manage to get a good punch in and he drops the stuff. Did you "win"?

There was no one nation/force that could have "won" WWII as there were far too many variables based on the actions of other nations.

Resources were stratched thin in every theatre of the war due to fighting on many fronts. The Germans were engaged in North Africa as well as in Western Europe. This didn't help the numbers available for the Russian campaigns.
The Japanese were busy in Burma, Malaysia etc. with the British, the Anzacs and other Empire troops. A full force wasn't available to throw at the US. Many similar instances occur throughout the war. Winner? Nobody 'won.'
The best you could hope for was "stopped someone else from winning."

Let's all be cautious about waving individual flags. No one action was more important than another.

WWII was more to do with who made the most mistakes than with who had the most victories. Statistics will only get you so far. The real victors in any war are those who are treated to never experiencing another.

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by rogue1

"Once again not entirely correct, it wasn't America building the war winning weapons such as the T-34's, Yak-3's, PPSH-42's or IL-2 fighter bomber. To name but a few. The Germans could never have completely defeated Russia, it was simply too big. America provided some supplies but they didn't do the fighitng."

The Russians would not have been able to build so many weapons without the supplies the Western Allies sent them. Packard trucks, Tomahawk fighters, etc.

Among other things, the US made over 250,000,000 buttons for the other allies. And 8 salt and pepper shakers for the Free French. (Did they leave France THAT fast?)

These figures are online if anybody wants to review them.

Lend-Lease Shipments, World War II, Vol. I (War Dept., 31 December 1946)
(Chemical, Engineers, Ordnance, & Quartermaster)

Lend-Lease Shipments, World War II, Vol. II (War Dept., 31 December 1946)
(Signal, Transportation, Army Air Forces)

new topics

top topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in