Did anyone actually win world war 2?

IMO, noone won: each country lost so much of its resources and manpower that it took years to build up again: Even America was not ready for another major conflict until 1950, and though there was an economic boom during the war, after the war the economic advantage gained by having a mass of cheaper labour was lost as the soldiers came home to replace those jobs. The soviet union didnt win either: 90% of all russian men born form 1921 to 23 were killed and the major grain supply of ukraine had been plundered by the germans, leaving the country in famine; nor did the UK: it lost its major asset- the empire fell under nationaist movements in india etc. I wont even bother with the axis countries...

what do you think? did anyone win world war 2?

You already answered the question yourself.
Key word in the title "World War", no one ever "wins" a world war.

nvm

well if you think about it, we defeated Hitler's forces, there was a winner and a loser. Same with the Japanese, it just came at an extremely great cost.

well you can see it different ways i'd say the allies won and the axis lost or only that the axis lost if we dont want a winner. but if we se it like tasks: the germans faild their task to rule the world and kill all jews and the allais sucsesed in their task to stop hitler from doing his task. but as said no country won but there will allways be loosers

The Allies definitely won, but because there was no defined Country1 Vs Country2 conflict, no one country could be named the sole victor of the War... same applied to World War 1 too. To have a sole victor of a World War would mean all other combatants we're mercilessly crushed by a superior force... which could have happened in WW2 if the Ruskies decided that Berlin wasn't good enough for them (if it wasn't for the advent of Nuclear Weapons).
Its kinda like football; no sole person wins a game, the Team does... but the best player usually gets Man of the Match... Man of the Match for WW2 was definitely Russia. :P

switzerland won world war 2 with all the nazi gold it got

Well, the world power balance changed, the empries of Britian and France played second fiddle to the USA and USSR. So you could say they won in that respect. The US also went on to profit from the debt that Britian and other Allies accumulated. I would say that for the US and USSR the Second World War was a victory, even if it was a slightly phyricc one.

The Russians bled for the victory and nearly lost in the process, circa 20 million dead is unimaginable as a number of casualties, now consider it was the level that 'one' country suffered. It is mind boggling that it was the approximate death toll on the Russian population. The British and French lost more military in ww1 than in ww2. The Americans were the real winners, because they bankrolled the rest of the winners who are still paying it off. The British and Russians may not have survived without this form of support, so I am certain it was incredibly welcome and a prayer answered. So, the Russians fa

Consider this, the marshall plan was great in concept, I heard it said that USA bank-rolled the French to almost the same amount the French spent on losing the war in indo-china - convenient eh! Of course, this was a great lesson to the Americans, right? wrong!

There are definetively some winners in World War II..

The USA and the Soviet Union both "won" something, they expanded their territory and influence
and became Superpowers. Looking at the price they had to pay, the US with some 600.000 casualties
and the Soviets with 20 Millions dead and their homeland tortured. So the USA is our clear winner.

Next to the "loosers" like Germany,Japan, Hungary and Italia there were
two others, who thought who won it: Great Britain and France. Both lost much of their influence,
a few years later they lost their oversea colonies, and they shrunk from global player to "some
european country"

Looking at the question who lost the war, you should say Germany and japan. But did they ?
10 years later both ( at least western germany ) were becoming important economies.

The real loosers of the war were the eastern european countries... first overrun or opressed
by germany, then annexed or made puppets of the Soviet union. They were occuoied for about 40 years

Losing life period is not victory... It is sad that anybody had to die over a war that should of never happened... It just is more showing of the fact that humans are animals.

esactly how do you mean? i'm pretty good at history and i'm very sure that there have been no animal wars, the ellefants didnt start killing all girrafs and then came the ferrets trying to take whole central europe. the only war act u can blame in animals was when the rats spread the plauge.

Ugh. You know what I mean. What I'm trying to get at is that we shouldn't HAVE to settle differences by killing each other.

well if there never was a ww2 then non of the awsome computer games would have existed!

Yeah... I guess you do have a point... Everything does happen for one reason or another :/

Like world war 2 in the red alert series?

Damn that's a good plotline....

Red Alert had WWII in it? Never knew that...

Since it's world war 3 but ww2 never happenned in that universe, it's ww2

Would Red Alert be a good game to look in to?

Ra3 is awsum

Buy it buy it buy it buy it buy it

Coop multiplayer rts......

I'll just get it off of Torrentz :P It's free and all.

The Allies won the war. We achieved our war objectives (removing the threat of Nazi Germany). I could talk consequences all day and probably even find a reason to why Germany won the war if I wanted to, but the facts are plain and simple.

USSR and Germany are both lost! Of course we finished our way in berlin, but we planned since 1924 to capture a whole World! Hitler just scared about it and strikes in 1941....... We were prepared to advance at the Europe and nobody knows that Hitler was so stupid to strike by his unnumbered forces! But he did.... He lost war at 1941, as we do! WW2 is a Stalins project, to capture a whole Europe! At his design the WW3 must be started to Capture USA and rest of free world.That's why i think that USSR lost WW2.

There were only two 'true winners' in WW2 and that was the US...(and the chineese). They managed to surpass(in most ways) and grab hold of Europe without having suffered any domestic disasters(no bombings on infa structure). Weapons trade boomed  to unimaginable levels boasting the economy to unbelievable levels. They 'got' most of the world's leading scientiststo work for them. World wide influence with the most powerful nations at the time grew to an unbelievable level.

USSR was always trailing behind overstretching...allying with what can be considered the weakest of WW2 survivors technologically and financially.A loosing race...

Middle east became the next battlefield which clearly showed that US backed up 'states' would always win...

Chineese on the other hand have only ever increased their power since WW2 and being more 'adaptable' than the USSR have mostly replaced them as a counter balance to the US

To be fair if Hitler wasn't(thank fook) stupid enough to finish the war in Africa before assaulting the USSR...we'd have all been speaking german now

I suppose "winning" is a bit of a vague term.
In military terms the allies won, as they defeated the German Army and captured or killed most of the leaders of the Nazi regime.
The cost of winning is something different though, and in that case the USSR was the one who really "lost".
24 million people really is a mind boggling number of casualties  :(

Aye, thats like half the United Kingdom perishing over 5 years.

The USSR didn't lose. This war was hardening of steel. Before the Second World War, the Soviet Union lost wars, for example, against Poland, even the Winter War wasn't a full victory. After the Second World the USSR was respected. What does not kill us, makes us stronger.
Stalin never wanted to rule the world. He got a large country with big and numerous internal problems. Only Lenin believed in the World Revolution. The Stalin's thesis was: you can build communism in one country.
And the USSR was smaller than Russian Empire. So all Soviet expansions can be seen as an restoration of territory.

Last edited May 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM by UeArtemis

QuoteThis war was hardening of steel. Before the Second World War, the Soviet Union lost wars, for example, against Poland, even the Winter War wasn't a full victory. After the Second World the USSR was respected. What does not kill us, makes us stronger.

The only real damage caused by the Soviets since WW2 was the way they ripped apart Afghanistan, before spitting it back out and retreating. Repecussions are still felt not only by the Allied soldiers currently stationed there, but the innocent children who become maimed while playing football because they trod on a mine.

If the enemy put the mines - is war lost? Or are you pacifist?
Mines was used by all.
Afghanistan... USA has such war too... Vietnam. And so? Several decades after the war - it is long time. After Khrushchev the USSR isn't so might (I think so). I love times of Khrushchev and Stalin. It is interesting time in history.

Last edited May 25, 2009 at 7:22 PM by UeArtemis

I am not a pacifist. The USSR-Afghan war was lost for other reasons. My point is, if WW2 was a 'hardening of steel' and before then, 'the Soviet Union lost wars', you are implying that the USSR had become some amazing battle machine which won war after war after war. Please enlighten me of any major conflict the Soviets actually won following the Second World War.

Oh, do you really think that the "war machine" can work forever? WW2 was time of reborn of the Red/Soviet Army. The war itself configure this machine of war. Practice is the best way to become better. In this war there was no chance to surrender without a capitulation. Everything was at stake. But time changes everything, destroys everything. Destruction of Soviet power was slowly.
Reasons of losing in Afghanistan and Vietnam are same. Wars were against guerrillas, not regular armies, on foreign territories, not supported by own people, enemies were receiving help from powerful allies, etc.

The Soviet army is not an American imperialistic army :) the USSR was a peaceful country before Afghanistan and didn't wage wars :) But the Caribbean Crisis was won by the USSR (
Missiles in Turkey disappeared ;) ), Russian aircraft with Russian pilots fought against Americans in the skies of many wars, for example, in Korea.

My point of view: the USSR didn't lose the war, but the United States received the greatest benefit from this war.
Do you ask who win? the USA.

Last edited May 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM by UeArtemis

'The Soviet army is not an American imperialistic army :) the USSR was a peaceful country before Afghanistan and didn't wage wars :)'

Cough cough!!!
Remind me again who invaded Finland pre WW2 and won just about enough ground to bury their dead?
Remind me again the Russian-Japanese conflict before and after WW2?
The Crimean war?
No...there is no such thing as 'peaceful country'. War is the continuation of state policy..by other means. It was just that by the end of WW2 soviet unit had created a military might it didn't have before and hence had the ability to increase it's influence via military might...same as the US. US were just clever enough to pose as the 'defenders of the 'free' world' while the soviets claimed to be the protectors of the 'weak'

As for Afganistan...the US/British trained them...financed them and used them to damage the Soviet union. It was in a big mess before the soviets invaded.
US/Britain are now paying the price for arrogantly thinking they could succeed where the soviets failed.The role/life of the Mujahedeen never changed...only their opponents nationality changed.

Back to the original question, it's all about gain vs cost to see who won...

the USSR was a peaceful country before Afghanistan, but after the WW2. I think it is clear from context.
And Finland WAS a part of Russian Empire.

QuoteSo all Soviet expansions can be seen as an restoration of territory.

the Russian-Japanese conflicts was a part of the WW2. And Japan was an aggressor, as you remember.
The Crimean war was on teritory of Russian Empire but we fought against Brits... so who is an aggressor here? And it wasn't the USSR.
and etc.

Last edited May 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM by UeArtemis

ok im not sure how to get you all to understand this question but in 007 golden eye i remember James Bonds partner (from the beginning) saying something about how England betrayed (or something) others during the U.K vs Russia thing,

Now i know this was a movie and one that i don't have or else i would bee looking it up my self but can anyone fill me in to what they where talking about and weather it was true.

1 word, youtube

of course the allies won. its all about completing your mission. Japan surrendered so of course they lost

and hitler killed himself because defeat was imminent.


doesn't matter what happened after the was over, allies won.

vengeful,what you say in your first post is like two teams at a football match, someone won, but when the winning team got back to their district they found their money had all been spent on buying more equipment for the team. doesn't mean they lost. they won.

UeArtemis wrote:
the USSR was a peaceful country before Afghanistan, but after the WW2. I think it is clear from context.
And Finland WAS a part of Russian Empire.

QuoteSo all Soviet expansions can be seen as an restoration of territory.

the Russian-Japanese conflicts was a part of the WW2. And Japan was an aggressor, as you remember.
The Crimean war was on teritory of Russian Empire but we fought against Brits... so who is an aggressor here? And it wasn't the USSR.
and etc.

well i think when large nations are fighting each other both of them are agressors, aggressors against their own people no matter they are USSR,germany,brits or americans.talking about WW2 no doubt the allies won ,but they especialy USSR payed ultimate price for it- more than 20 milions dead ,advanced western part of USSR destroyed....and bout finns and other small nations who are bordering them.i cant understand what do russians need from them, and long time before the russian empire, there was living finnish tribes and thats why i think russians or other large nations have no rights to finnish, baltic and other small nation lands.what i want to say is that every nation should live where they are living for thousands of years free and independent. ;)

Now here's a question: why did tge Germans invade Norway? It had little in the way of resources and had a small population spread out over a huge area, thus easily allowing resistance and infiltration. Where is the motive?

Im no expert but I'd imagine a main reason would be the coastline and naval bases. Used to launch u-boats into the north atlantic and whatnot.

Anyone else?

Cheers

The real winners were all the countries that did not fight in world war two because they didn't lose any lives, or temporarily wreck their economy. If you look at it from that point of course.

In my opinion the country that made the allies win was My Motherland The CCCP (AKA USSR).

Think about it.

You are in an automatch 2v2. and have an ally named USA playing as the USA. The mod already came out, and you are the Soviets. USA kinda fought the enemy "Japan". but was afk for half the time. You on the other hand kept battling the level 20 (Germany) and kept losing ground lots, of manpower, and lives. Your ally who's airbourne by the way drops in some paratroopers to help you, and sends a sherman or two. After many, many battles you manage to raise the satchel charge (the flag) over the enemy HQ. Your ally finally wakes up and uses his 500 accumulated ammo to bombing run "Japan's" HQ after which action "Japan" Drops.

So there you go. that's from CoH's perspective.

-Nuke 8)

vengefulnoob wrote:
Now here's a question: why did tge Germans invade Norway? It had little in the way of resources and had a small population spread out over a huge area, thus easily allowing resistance and infiltration. Where is the motive?

Germans invaded normay because they had airbases and naval bases that could be used againest Britain. Norway was the Northern half of a Giant pincer movement. The drive through France have him the southern half. Once both had fallen, the RAF would be destroyed and Mainland UK would be cut off from vital conveys from all across the world by Submarines.

On who won world war 2? Hmmmm lets see here, Germany didn't won because they lost. USSR didn't win because they're Communists. Japan didn't win they got a nuke dropped on them. China didn't win they had a civil war. US didn't win they got Nixon and Bob Dylan. UK didn't win they came a close second. The French didn't win... well that one is pretty . Finland didn't win. Italy and Romania changed sides so they got a half a point. So who is left? Australia that's who! We won the war damnit.

Of the Major Powers that fought only USA and RUSSIA got off better than on begin; after the WW2 they emerged as the 2 World Dominant Super Powers, then started the Cold War and Nuclear Run...

PS - That is a cold analisis, YES i do care the people that died, but humans born again quicklly, to rebuild a hole country infrastructure; England, France, Japan and Germany was tottally devasteded, all major cities destroyed; that didnt happened to US and not with all Russia.

USA won.

Paciat wrote:
USA won.

yeah lol correct, and after what i said USA won, and without shoot 1 bullet :), but make no mistake, the Opus Dei also helped to bring down the Soviet Union  :o (Paranoic face)

Yeah the USA came out on top at the end of WWII. With its major imperialist competitor, Great Britain, lying in ruins and largely in debt they were free to do whatever they wanted for the next 50 years.

QuoteThe Soviet army is not an American imperialistic army :) the USSR was a peaceful country before Afghanistan and didn't wage wars

Czechoslovakia 1967 ;)

Last edited February 10, 2010 at 8:45 AM by spanishfly

spanishfly wrote:
The Soviet army is not an American imperialistic army :) the USSR was a peaceful country before Afghanistan and didn't wage wars

Czechoslovakia 1967 ;)

Uh, I assume you're responding to my post? I don't understand what you're getting at.

He means this... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia


and here are fotos and original radio communication when they attack from 3:23 you can hear gun shots and around 4:00 to
Occupation of Czechoslovakia 1968

Last edited February 10, 2010 at 1:57 AM by GamblerSK

GamblerSK wrote:
He means this... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia

Yeah.. I know what happened in '67..I just don't see how it is relevant to what I posted.

Last edited February 10, 2010 at 2:02 AM by thebomb

It was to UeArthemis ;p