Larcenist
REP: Respect, Envy, Prosperity?
- Reaction score
- 211
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.
2-It's a huge thread derailer.The question is, what single country do you think deserves the most credit to the defeat of the Axis Powers?
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.
In the end, a war doesn't know winners, only losers.
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.
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.
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.
Are we playing the Dead Quote Olympics now?In the end, a war doesn't know winners, only losers.
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.
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.
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?
Aye, though the Germans still had some steam left until Kursk.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. 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.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.
Invading any later than 1942 would have resulted in a modernized and organized Soviet armed forces.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.
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.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.
China bogged them down hardcore.We also were pretty much the only country fighting the Japanese.