Who won WWII?

[Larcenist]

Not to be neglected is the Polish army's effort in the beginning of the war. Other than that no one won. You do not win a war, the mere declaration of a war is a loss.

 

[NoxMortus]

The US won, in terms of money atleast, their main role in the war was arms-dealer and debt-collector.

 

[BANANAMAN]

i say the philipines. Without them japan would've recklessly expanded through out the eastern hemisphere. But the Philippine forces and Americans there delayed them for 3 months.

 

[uberfoop]

I love how only 1 person has voted for the nation responsible for 80% of axis losses and the only one successful in stopping blitzkrieg tactics before the state was overrun despite taking a blow from what was by far the largest assembled German force. The nation that fought on the front where casualties weren't counted in tens of thousands but in hundreds of thousands, and millions.

Let's be realistic, people. The Soviets put far more into that war than any other allied state. Yea, they got industrial help from America and Great Britain, whatever. Their own industry wasn't exactly to be laughed at either (t-34 tanks, people. t-34 tanks.). They took vast losses but also inflicted the vast majority of the Axis losses.



BTW, can we please keep the 'neutral countries win' argument down because:
1-It's technically off-topic to put that forth. Here's the OP's prompt:

The question is, what single country do you think deserves the most credit to the defeat of the Axis Powers?

2-It's a huge thread derailer.

 

[Blackveiled]

i say the philipines. Without them japan would've recklessly expanded through out the eastern hemisphere. But the Philippine forces and Americans there delayed them for 3 months.

Japan was attacking the Philippines, and the U.S. went to defend them, but Japan pulled a fast one and bombed pearl harbor.

End of the debate: Nobody won. You cannot win a war you we're not a part of. You cannot win a war when nobody had a government taken over.

Why is it the end of the debate? Because. There is no logical proof of the winner. We could say the United States won the war, mostly because of the large economy boost that occured right after the war, and the U.S. also aided countries in Europe. Oh, and I wouldn't say WW2 wasn't the end of the war. Because the Soviet Union, and United States went on with their own war, even though there was almost no combat in that war. Only nuclear threats.

 

[Bronxernijn]

In the end, a war doesn't know winners, only losers.

 

[UndeadDragon]

In the end, a war doesn't know winners, only losers.

I think you summed it up there.

 

[Cornface]

Imo, if everyone would have been neutral, today it would be a nazi world... with millions of dead jews etc...
Neutral countries hoped for other countries to solve the situation.

Of course it would be impossible if all the countries would stay neutral, for them the Axis would have been free to do whatever they like. But fortunely, there werre some countries that stood up. The point is that, like many other said, that there is no winners, especially the countries that lost thousands, hundreds of thousands people to the war.

 

[Kelv]

I find it odd that in a community with a large majority of RTS players, you guys find that there can't be a winner in war. The fact is the Allies caused Germany and Japan to accept an unconditional surrenders. You can't group the Allies and the Axis together as both loosing the war.

As far as the most important country in causing the Axis defeat, it's hard to say between the U.S. and Britain. Britain sure had it harder and they were able to hold out, however since the U.S. and Britain (Plus Soviet Union) defeated Germany, and the U.S. took care of Japan, the United States had more influence on finishing the job.

 

[duyen]

This debate is doomed to fail.

I find it odd that in a community with a large majority of RTS players, you guys find that there can't be a winner in war.

I would hope people don't think that games are real life.

 

[Viikuna]

Finland lost war against Soviet Union, but it fought so hard that it was never occupied like many countries in eastern europe. I guess you can call it a victory of some sort. Of course it would have been best if Finland could have stayed out of war, like Sweden.

Just remeber that story allways has a storyteller; history is allways writen by someone.

 

[Larcenist]

I'm not proud of Sweden's efforts in WWII and I doubt many Swedish people really are. Sure we stayed out of war, but at what cost?

And to whoever drew a parallel between computer games and a real war, I surely hope you were sarcastic.

 

[Viikuna]

Ye, in real war people dont type 'GG' when they loose..

 

[ArmedCitizen]

Sure, I'd say the Soviet Union was the reason the Allies won, but I don't consider them the victors. Their success had too high of price. I'm not exactly sure who I would consider the victor though. I'd need to do more research before I could decide on one country.

Oh, and I wouldn't say WW2 wasn't the end of the war. Because the Soviet Union, and United States went on with their own war, even though there was almost no combat in that war. Only nuclear threats.

Sure, Americans had some 'bad taste' in their mouth after WW2 towards the Soviet Union but to say that is a continuation of World War 2 is bullshit. That was provoked more by John F. Kennedy's actions more than a war we ended up allies in.

 

[Wiseman_2]

In the end, a war doesn't know winners, only losers.

Are we playing the Dead Quote Olympics now?
I'm sure I've heard it somewhere before...

Personally, I believe there is no single country responsible for the defeat of the Axis powers, because on their own the allied countries would not have had much of a chance.

Also, whoever it was that said France was neutral is barking up the wrong tree. France *attempted* to defend its borders against Germany, but it failed miserably, to say the least.

 

[UndeadDragon]

Also, whoever it was that said France was neutral is barking up the wrong tree. France *attempted* to defend its borders against Germany, but it failed miserably, to say the least.

But I believe that France *attempted* to be neutral in the first place. But then they got attacked, so what else were they going to do?

 

[Nigerianrulz]

i would say germany and japan itself.

We are learning about WWII in Civics atm and one very interesting fact about WWII and some of the reason why Axis lost is because as Germany and Japan stretch themselves out, the farther they are to their main supply the less powerful it became. So ultimately due to the lack of supply, they are forced to retreat and eventually the Allies take its chance and seals its win with a nuclear bomb or atomic w/e.

 

[New_U.S.]

The Soviet Union definatly did the most to defeat Nazi Germany. With 3/4 of German troops in the Eastern Front, its no suprise the "turning point" for the war as a whole was after Stalingrad.

Yet we shouldn't overlook the U.S. and Britian. Britian won the Battle of Britian which was a major strategic victory (made it possible for the invansion of Normandy) . The U.S. was the leader in the war on the Western Front. We also were pretty much the only country fighting the Japanese. U.S. General Patton also lead early campaigns through Sicily and North Africa.

Really, if you were to make say someone was the "winner", you would have to go with the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

WWII ended the Depression in America, set up the U.S. as a global superpower, and eventually created a Western alliance (NATO) which was the anti-Communism defence force. The U.S. also gained a strong hold over Japan to use as a base during the Cold War until we decided to give it back (we should have kept it ).

The Soviets set themselves up as a global superpower. They gained A LOT of land extending from east Germany to the Pacific. Their form of government spred very quickly. However this was all done with very high casualties. (I'm sorry if this list is small for the Soviets, I only know some of the highlights of Russian history )

In the end, WWII led into the Cold War, which the United States eventually won (yay capitalism!). I guess if you wanted to look in the REALLY long term, the U.S. gained the most after WWII (but thats looking at it in a 50 year period).


EDIT:

i would say germany and japan itself.

We are learning about WWII in Civics atm and one very interesting fact about WWII and some of the reason why Axis lost is because as Germany and Japan stretch themselves out, the farther they are to their main supply the less powerful it became. So ultimately due to the lack of supply, they are forced to retreat and eventually the Allies take its chance and seals its win with a nuclear bomb or atomic w/e.

Germany lost for a few reasons. Operation Barbarosa into Russia was stupid and greedy. Maybe the Nazis could have beat the Soviets, but the planning and carryout of that Front by the Germans was stupid. I cant understand why they did what they did strategicly. Yet I can't say that wasn't unforseeable because Hitler and Stalin hated each other. That was Germany's main problem. The secondary problem was Japan. Germany and Italy told Japan not to attack the U.S. It was said that would awake the 'Sleeping Giant' that was the U.S. Japan attacked anyway, so Germany had to join its ally. This added to Germany's disaster in the East by being raped in the West.

Japan lost because, well, they never really had a chance. I dont know if they thought they would get some help, or if somehow the U.S. would just surrender. I don't know. By themselves, if Japan had beaten the U.S., how would they occupy it. The U.S. is big, Japan isn't. But that problem doesn't come into play. The United States pretty well owned Japan.

But I believe that France *attempted* to be neutral in the first place. But then they got attacked, so what else were they going to do?

The French wasted their WWI winnings on the Magonal line, which was basicly a big trench on the France-Germany border. Germany attacked France through the Netherlands/Belgium in WWI, so leave it too the French to not think that would happen in WWII. Up until the war, the French tried appiesment, which failed terribly. Right after the invasion of Poland came winter. French and British troops hid behind the Magonal line waiting for the attack. It didn't come. Newspapers began to call it the 'Phony War'. Along comes spring and the German Blitzenkrieg (I think that might be how its spelled) steam rolls France. The French were not neutral in WWII, just stupid. Big suprise right?

 

[uberfoop]

The Soviet Union definatly did the most to defeat Nazi Germany. With 3/4 of German troops in the Eastern Front, its no suprise the "turning point" for the war as a whole was after Stalingrad.

Aye, though the Germans still had some steam left until Kursk.

Yet we shouldn't overlook the U.S. and Britian. Britian won the Battle of Britian which was a major strategic victory (made it possible for the invansion of Normandy) . The U.S. was the leader in the war on the Western Front.

Aye. IMO, Hitler shouldn't have reallocated so many aircraft to the East until defeating GB. They could have, too, especially once the RAF was down enough for an amphibious assault. That would still have left enough time to get the Soviets before they were down, and would have weakened the Soviets themselves a little due to the lack of supply chains.

Germany lost for a few reasons. Operation Barbarosa into Russia was stupid and greedy. Maybe the Nazis could have beat the Soviets, but the planning and carryout of that Front by the Germans was stupid. I cant understand why they did what they did strategicly.

Invading any later than 1942 would have resulted in a modernized and organized Soviet armed forces.
Of course, Hitler was also like the only person that Stalin ever trusted, so, while it goes against Nazi doctrine, arguably they could have just let the USSR be until they developed nukes.

Japan lost because, well, they never really had a chance. I dont know if they thought they would get some help, or if somehow the U.S. would just surrender. I don't know. By themselves, if Japan had beaten the U.S., how would they occupy it. The U.S. is big, Japan isn't. But that problem doesn't come into play. The United States pretty well owned Japan.

Aye. Their industry was too weak and their land forces, while having tough troops, were horribly poor in the armour category, and couldn't fight modern land battles very well.

We also were pretty much the only country fighting the Japanese.

China bogged them down hardcore.

 

[Battlemapsta]

China was suffering like crazy with the massacres and brutal killings of its innocent citizens. The Japanese did have some good navy at the time but inevitably, the US was the major turning point to winning the Pacific Battlefront.

I'm still though confused as to Japan's stupidity when it came to the Potsdam Document. They ignored it and then came out the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents. It would've been much better if they surrendered earlier. Weather it was their zeal for victory or their incompatence for defeat, it doesn't really matter when the US would still nuke them.

At least the bombings did earn some reputation as to why we shouldn't use nuclear weapons. Without those two bombing incidents, the Cold War could have proven catastrophic.

As for the true victors in WW2, I'd say Russia as well. Without their support, the Axis would've won and if they allied themselves with the Axis, than America and every other country would have possibly been claimed.