Did anyone actually win world war 2?

What?

Well it ended the whole era of "world powers" which were similiarly capable nations or empires that could, by virtue of alliances, keep each other in check, and brought in the superpower era. The Americans longed seeked something that would boom their economy, and it did, so much so that we see it een today. Looking at Japan and Germany today, its hard to tell they had lost the most crushing defeats in human history, only 65 years ago.

The "winners" are those who lost the least. Russia lost the most, but history views them among the victors.

In war, there is no victor.

No body really won, but some came out on top of others, truly in War, there really is no victors, as Shadow said.

The United States, France, Britain and the rest of the "allied" countries kinda lost in my eyes because they created another war right after wards. (Cold War)

War is a never ending cycle of loses.

Yet all we can do is stand by and let the nature of the world run its course, The world is always fighting...your lungs fight for air, a wolf fights for survival, even the very essence of nature fights against time.....all we can do is accept the fact that fighting is natural.

Shadowmetroid wrote:
War is a never ending cycle of loses.

Wrong in all wars fought, all of them have come to an end in one form or another.

Shadowmetroid wrote:
The "winners" are those who lost the least. Russia lost the most, but history views them among the victors.

In war, there is no victor.

Yet another fallacy of yours,

In the words of Clausewitz ""War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means," He sees war as a social act and as an extension of policy.

If what you say were in fact true then do you really think that the process would continue? When you actually go down the line and study all aspects of all past conflicts you can clearly see that in each and every one there is in fact a beneficiary every single time. Doesn't matter if its just one group or more.

Last edited May 24, 2010 at 5:50 AM by Sovereign

UK lost it's main influence and france too ... they lost their colonial power so nearly after
US and russia had the power (the suez affair prooved it) but the burdain of being number one, including worldwide military control, exausted them (poisonned apple)

The Losers :
Germany
Russia
UK
France
The Winers:
Italy (they got independence and a government)
USA (they got loads of $$ and became a Superpower )
those were the main ones atleast

Akalonor wrote:
The Losers :
Germany
Russia
UK
France
The Winers:
Italy (they got independence and a government)
USA (they got loads of $$ and became a Superpower )
those were the main ones atleast

Italy had a government and was independent before WW2 (since 18something if memory serves me right).
I'd say that WW2 itself did not have any winners. The rebuilding efforts afterwards is what somehow created winners though and even then, both sides lost to some extend.

Cheers

The winners:
-Germany
-Russia

both countries lost their dictators and are now democratically.

Walki, Russia didn't become democratic at the end of WW2 but rather at the end of the Cold War, so your conclusion isn't completely valid I think.

Cheers

I'm under the belief, that in a way, everybody won. Hopefully the world now realizes that human technology has become too destructive to risk another free-for-all. Losing entire generations of our people is now the least of our worries. Just food for thought...

you now.... reading TN 's post reminded me of his avatar .....and world affairs......and everyones Nuclear warhead storage......and how N.K. is getting pushed by the US ........ now I remember that WWI was only 20 years before WWII..... hmmm did we learn anything??

I predict that ww3 will be in 2030 or 40

And I predict we all die from Nukes , than the world turns into the Fallout games .

Nukes? nah. By then we will have come up with an even more creative and powerful weapon to kill ourselves with. And so goes the arms race.

Russia gunna do some stuiped and blow of its nukes, or some other terrorist country. I cant see america doing it.

Then you're terrible misinformed. Guess who came up with the M.A.D. policy? Lol

Seeme wrote:
Russia gunna do some stuiped and blow of its nukes, or some other terrorist country. I cant see america doing it.

Any country that has people smart enough to build a nuke is smart enough to not use it.
...
Conventional death to all religious fanatics.

I didnt tyry to offend anyone.

Seeme wrote:
I didnt tyry to offend anyone.

Didnt think that you tried.
But I understand youre thinking.

Russian army training is much more brutal than in any western country.
Spetsnaz dosnt care about civilians as much as lets say UKs SAS.
Russian cheap AK-47 isnt build to be accurate at long distances like M-16 or FN FAL is but its more realieble instead.
Russian tanks are quite cheap and most unconfortable of them all.

Russians seem to be the barbarian hordes of 21st century. 21st century becouse theyre high tech. "Terrorist countries" are 19th century barbarian hordes.

I don't see Russia going on any raids though , so they are the berserkers of the 21st century not the barbarians .
I wonder what the MWD is going to be in 2040 , maybe a superlaser .....
imagine what the rifles will be , the US and other countries (I think Germany is one) are working on a 20mm rifle nowadays ,so that sets a high bar.

Last edited June 29, 2010 at 4:02 PM by Akalonor

I hope Russia will now focus on more constructive work now, and will develop good relationship with others slavic people (polish and ukrainians), since the cold war is end.It would be normal. But some countrys/people still think that cold war isnt finished yet !  ::)

Now thats the truth

I hope that the people here in the US will suck it up and stop whining about everything President Obama does.

Paciat wrote:
AK-47

Russians use AK-74 ;) It isn't Africa. ;D

Akalonor wrote:
I hope that the people here in the US will suck it up and stop whining about everything President Obama does.

Dont know what that had to do with anything, but I agree.

I voted for him ;D

You? Vote? Now theres a scary thought...  :o

Paciat wrote:

Seeme wrote:
Russia gunna do some stuiped and blow of its nukes, or some other terrorist country. I cant see america doing it.

Any country that has people smart enough to build a nuke is smart enough to not use it.
...
Conventional death to all religious fanatics.

This is so terribly wrong. Countries build nukes as a deterrent to other countries with nukes because they WILL use them if they are attacked first. All it takes is one nuclear detonation anywhere within a country with nukes and warheads start flying all over the world. Scary to think about it. Other countries, such as North Korea, feel like it demonstrates the power of the nation to build and use a nuke. If the potential gains for the war are greater than the international backlash then they'll probably use it.

On a hypothetical note, if war were to break out between the US and Russia for example, I don't think nukes will be used immediately but as the situation grows more desperate on one side they may use a tactical weapon as a last resort and open the floodgates for strategic weapon use.

Hopefully war between developed countries is a thing of the past. Countries are less nationalistic than they were in other times and wars are not socially acceptable. The advanced media these days lets us see the reality of war which never occurred before. The world is controlled by corporations and businesses now, rather than dictators, and war is bad for the global economy.

PS. The first part of my post was responding to paciat but I just reread Seeme's post and it is so unbelievably stereotypical of an American. Russia is implied as being a "terrorist country" and he says America would never use a nuke. Because the only country to ever use a nuke in warfare wasn't the US... ::)

As far as I know, the USSR always prepared to counter-attack, but the U.S. was preparing for a preventive attack. Decide who is more aggressive, who wanted a nuclear war.

GodlikeDennis is right, war is bad for economy. Then, capitalism is good for our life!  ;D ;D

Actually, war isn't always bad for the economy, it depends on where the war is fought, and your position (aggressor, defender, or neutral).
Cheer

GodlikeDennis wrote:

Paciat wrote:

Seeme wrote:
Russia gunna do some stuiped and blow of its nukes, or some other terrorist country. I cant see america doing it.

Any country that has people smart enough to build a nuke is smart enough to not use it.
...
Conventional death to all religious fanatics.

This is so terribly wrong. Countries build nukes as a deterrent to other countries with nukes because they WILL use them if they are attacked first. All it takes is one nuclear detonation anywhere within a country with nukes and warheads start flying all over the world. Scary to think about it. Other countries, such as North Korea, feel like it demonstrates the power of the nation to build and use a nuke. If the potential gains for the war are greater than the international backlash then they'll probably use it.

On a hypothetical note, if war were to break out between the US and Russia for example, I don't think nukes will be used immediately but as the situation grows more desperate on one side they may use a tactical weapon as a last resort and open the floodgates for strategic weapon use.

Hopefully war between developed countries is a thing of the past. Countries are less nationalistic than they were in other times and wars are not socially acceptable. The advanced media these days lets us see the reality of war which never occurred before. The world is controlled by corporations and businesses now, rather than dictators, and war is bad for the global economy.

PS. The first part of my post was responding to paciat but I just reread Seeme's post and it is so unbelievably stereotypical of an American. Russia is implied as being a "terrorist country" and he says America would never use a nuke. Because the only country to ever use a nuke in warfare wasn't the US... ::)

Aghhhh

The USSR is the one who started the cold war, by not moveing out of the places it took during ww2.
But America I guess over reacted, but still.

Tico_1990 wrote:
Actually, war isn't always bad for the economy, it depends on where the war is fought, and your position (aggressor, defender, or neutral).
Cheer

This is also correct, the American economy is fueled by war and has been for the last 100 years. I actually stated it is bad for the global economy and trading.

Seeme, from the Soviet point of view the Americans started the cold war by taking half of Berlin even though the Soviets got there first. The British also started it from their PoV because Churchill was terrified of the USSR. Your view is not the only one.

America is one of the most antagonistic nations in the world because they like to stick their noses in everything and throw around their weight. They just like to retain their peace loving facade to appeal to the voters (because of the social stigma of war these days) but their economy still runs on it.

Remember... in America war is more important than schools. Good for the economy? It Is our economy.

Reminds me of rise of nations where the Americans get resource income from their troops.

I am an American and I didnt know this. Wow.

What dose antagonistic mean?

What you don't know would fill several libraries. 

Antagonistic- in a nut shell, starting fights

That was mean :(

Ask a stupid question...

I'll bite, Why exactly are we no longer talking about the actual subject matter of the topic and instead veering off to one irrelevant thing after another?

Last I saw it said "Did anyone actually win world war 2?" and not pie in the sky notions of WW3 and or other such irrelevant things?

In short: from an analytic point of view, the winners were the ones who flourished and endured after the war.

I guess it turned out to be a conversation on whether we learned anything from WW2. So then came the prediction of WW3 and now I guess we're talking about the social context of war in a modern society. I think the US won WW2, as did Germany because they got rid of Hitler, even if the price was monolithic.

thats the question , did we really learn anything , yes , we learned many things , like how to destroy an entire city in one strike , on how to eliminate thousands and call it rightous, we learned a lot of things , but not our lesson :\

We also learned the Nazis are bad.

not true , the Nazi party was actually the German Workers party which equaled good until hitler came , now Nazi means something entirely different nowadays , but it is still popular even in the US.

Akalonor wrote:
thats the question , did we really learn anything , yes , we learned many things , like how to destroy an entire city in one strike , on how to eliminate thousands and call it rightous, we learned a lot of things , but not our lesson :\

And I'm presuming this proposed "lesson" that I keep hearing is the supposed pipe dream of world peace and utopia where lions lay down with sheep..

Despite what some severly deluded left extermist or new age hippy may tell you its not going to happen in a world that is based in competitiion and survival, war is part of the equation of life

This is just something people need to understand and come to terms with and is not a new discovery only the dead have seen the end of wars as Plato once said..

Even though I disagree with allot he taught but he was ahead of his time in regards to this.

Akalonor wrote:
not true , the Nazi party was actually the German Workers party which equaled good until hitler came , now Nazi means something entirely different nowadays , but it is still popular even in the US.

Hitler come in the nazi party almost immediatly after its creation,  so it remain bad ^^"

I really just did that post to see how you would all react. :)

@Soverein , just because I said we din't learn the lesson doesn't mean it was supposed to be your scenario , I realise War is natural , it is almost needed , what I meant is we didn't learn our lesson of starting wars over pointless things. there are stories about an entire battalion of soldiers in Iraq who all gave different answers as to why they are there.

The world lost a whole generation because of the WW's, I'm not saying that waging war on Hitler was wrong , it was why Hitler rose to power in the first place that was wrong.