"Who Won WWII?" Topic

As we approach the 75th anniversary of D-Day, looking at the world as it stands today, who REALLY won WWII. Not sure I'd say England and Russia did! Thoughts?

Germany for one – complete rebuild, good economic recovery.

The USA.

As for Britain and the USSR, well as Micheal Caine observed in 'The Lost Valley', "We won, but oh how we lost".

Depends on what you mean by "win."

Who did most of the fighting that it took to win? the USSR.

Who benefited most from the outcome? The U.S.A.

In terms of overall economy, military power, prestige before the war vs after the war, the US won by a country mile. Remember, that war ended with everyone owing the US money. Britain finished their repayment in 2005, I forget the dates for Russia, Germany, etc.

Yep, Germany and Japan, in the long run……

Oh boy… here we go again!

Obviously the USA won the war. It wasn't over till we went over.

(I do love this question! And thank you for asking!)

"So you're European? Are you one of the ones whose butts we kicked or, one of the ones whose butts we saved?"

Japan and Germany certainly did benefit IN PART by
losing – their industries were rebuilt to modern
(1960's) standards which enabled them to more than
compete with the aging industrial manufacturing base
in the US and to a lesser extent other Western
economies.

Losing a large portion of their populations did not
help – same with the Soviet Union. The USSR was hard
put to do anything economically immediately post-war
and only by the occupation and draining of ex-Axis
belligerents (a portion of Germany, Hungary, Rumania,
etc, etc)and confiscation of some of their economic
infrastructure did she manage to rebound from the
tremendous damage done to her own economic capacity.

Humanity.

The farmers won, the farmers always win.

Hollywood

They're still making movies about WW II.

70+ years of movies out of a six year war,that's pretty good.

Politically, the Russians.
Economically, the Americans.
Britain basically lost its Empire as a result.

Good question.

Winners:
-Japan and Germany could rebuild their economy without having to spend so much on the military
-US could expand its markets and economic hegemony
-Soviet Union could maintain its political regime and control over half of Europe.

Losers:
Britain and France lost their colonies
Half of the European countries who went under the control of the USSR

The nuclear fission.

CHINA

Japan is suffering from economic problems, Germany needs young people to keep the economy going, the British are having all kinds of issues as are the French etc.

Wargamers.

China's population problem: link

Wall Street won

Bretton Woods then Fiat Currency/Petro-Dollar and Deficit Spending financing wars while tweaking the rules to force everyone to put money into an artificially inflated stock market. Poor foreign economies force the foreigners to park their money in US real estate and stock market (check out capital fleeing China to Australia, US and other countries).

Of course there are more details but that's basically what has happened since 1945.

Wolfhag

The US because it supplanted GB and France as the top world power. And it still remains number one since 1945.

Germany and Japan were rebuilt, true, but I wouldn't call them "winners' because they are not better off than they would have been had they – God forbid – won WWII and by so doing realized their own global empires.

Who did most of the fighting that it took to win? the USSR.

This comment is very Euro-Centric and forgets the Pacific theater. Russia did not fight in the Pacific until AFTER the US dropped the atom bombs. Keep in mind the US and UK spent WW2 fighting on two fronts, while Russia fought on one.

At the same time Russia invaded the Baltic States, Moldova, AND Poland, in coordination with the Nazis, and then continued the occupation of those states after the war. Kinda' hard to feel sorry for the Russians under these circumstances.

And while the US and UK needed Russia, Russia needed the US and UK just as bad. It was the US and UK that kept Russia afloat during the early years with tanks and trucks, all while the US and UK were fighting on two fronts, not one.

I'd be hard pressed to agree that, given the totality of WW2 and not just a Euro-Centric perspective, Russia did most of the fighting.

As for who one, you'd have to look at who achieved their objectives. The Germans and Japanese did not. The Allies did. Unfortunately, the one UK/French objective that was only partially achieved was Poland's freedom, although they had only declared war on Germany over this issue. Keep in mind Russia attacked Poland in coordination with the Germans, and still occupied it at the end and for approximately 45 more years.

But when you look at the law of "unintended consequences," certainly the UK and France suffered from the results, with the loss of their empires. (But I'd argue that WW2 only sped up the independence of the colonies.)

At the same time, the economic success of Germany was in great part due to the Marshall Plan and not necessarily due to WW2's results. Japan's economic success was certainly helped by not having to have much of a military since WW2. This is probably a bit simplistic, but the point is there were more factors for their economic success after the war than the war's results.

I find myself agreeing with 28mm Fanatik.

I agree with much of what raylev3 has posted. E.g. look at both Germany and Japan economically today.

Surely it was every country who managed to stay out of it?

Depends on the point of view.

Only considering the side that surrendered and the side that did not, the allies won the war and the axis lost.

Anyone who lost relatives in the war, got hurt or mauled, lost properties, were raped or tortured, etc, "winning" the war would be a small comfort and I don't think they would consider they "won".

Some people and some countries would benefit in different ways from the war and profited from it.

But how do you quantify the human and material loss and suffering against the winnings, how do you define these winnings and which is the scope of time to consider all these factors?.

raylev3

How many divisions of enemy smashed the allies, and how many – Russians? On the Russian front-more than 600 divisions of the Nazis and their allies.

Russia in coordination with the Nazis? Can the 1938 Munich Agreement be considered "coordination with the Nazis" when the West allowed Hitler to occupy Czechoslovakia (Which, by the way, the USSR was ready to defend by armed force)? And if you look at the fact that if the USSR had not regained the lands that had been torn away from it during the Russian Civil War, they would be occupied by Germany. Do you think this option is preferable? And what do you say about the joint occupation of Iran by the British and the Russians? And the destruction of the French fleet by the British? Ah-ah … What are the bad … Russians))) This is a war. Big war. And it has its own rules. Russia understood that participation in a big war cannot be avoided and many actions were dictated by these considerations.

You greatly overestimate the help of the USA and Great Britain for Russia in the first years of the war. It is enough to look at the statistics of what the Allies put up before 1943 and what the Soviets made themselves (especially if we take into account the reserves of our own weapons already created by the USSR. In addition, the first shipments were fully paid for with real gold (remember the lost cruiser Emden).

The United States won the war (with the least loss – the best result). This is understandable – not a single bomb fell on their continental territory. But the greatest contribution to the victory made the USSR. If the USSR did not survive in 1941-42, the story could have gone very differently.

I am not going to belittle the role of the allies in the war, but still the main theater of the Second World War was the European Eastern Front.

Uncle Goblin

For Russia, this is a special war. Nazi plans for the majority of the peoples of the USSR (subhumans in Nazi terminology) are either complete destruction, or turning them into white slaves, or eviction to Siberia (not having the resources to survive such a number of people and, accordingly, mass extinction). For the USSR and Russia victory in this war – the question of the physical survival of people. This is definitely a great victory. In this case, its price does not matter.

My question was not who made the greatest contribution, nor who had the biggest body count. Many nations made major contributions and sacrifices. And just surviving the war doesnt qualify as a win. Poland survived, but I'm not sure anyone in their right mind would say they "won".

Looking at the condition of the French, British and Russian "empires" today it seems to me they all lost. Germany and Japan don't look like losers, they're doing pretty well in fact. So is China. And of course as most here seem to agree the US was the biggest winner.

And I disagree on allied aid to the Russians. It kept them in the war. Not the tanks which everyone seems to fixate on but the boots which their army marched in, the trucks they rode in and and the av gas that powered their air force. And let's not forget Russia's non existant contribution to the War against Japan.

Russia was a major player in the Land War in Eastern Europe but looking at the remnants of the USSR today I say they lost. Recall my question was looking at the world today … not in 1945! Cheers!

Not the tanks which everyone seems to fixate on but the boots which their army marched in

So 11 million LL Boots kept an army of over 10 million (on any date in WW2)shod for 4 years?

Re boots. Never said that. 11 million LL boots was 11 million they didnt need to make. One of the reasons they could churn out tens of thousands of tanks was because the allies supplied them with a lot of LL essentials. Plus they didnt have to build U-Boats, or Aircraft Carriers or a strategic bombing force. You can build a lot of tanks and field hundreds of infantry divisions if that's all you have to do and they can drive, or walk, from the factories/depots to the front! Cheers!

All right, but how would the Allies survive 10 million dead and maimed soldiers? Someone should simply destroy the mobilization potential of the Nazis in Europe.

To consider the destruction of the USSR as a result of the Second World War is, in my opinion, a great exaggeration. It is rather a consequence of the cold war and internal problems. But the collapse of the British Empire – an undoubted result. And for some reason I think this was a considerable interest of the United States)))

Well I will certainly say the USSR did destroy much of the Axis forces. Germany took about 70-75% of it's losses in the East. And many don't remember the Italian 8th Army in Russia was pretty much decimated and then some, as well.

Plus when the USSR turned East in'45. They defeated the IJFs in Manchuria, China, etc., in a matter of weeks, or so. Yes, the Japanese were not the military they were in '40/'41. None the less they could not stand up to a large "modern" mechanized military of the USSR.

Of course one of the problems of that, that still reverberates today is a divided Korea. I had 2 tours on the DMZ, '84-'85. I have no real love for the Norks or any of their leadership.

As well I stood in the Fulda Gap in then West Germany, @ '87 or '88. With East Germans troops taking our pictures for intel purposes I guess. Only a few yards or so away …

So yes I'll give Russia their due credit for their winning the war in the East. And taking some very large losses in doing so. But I also have to say it was an Allied effort.

But as we see today in Russia and places like North Korea, IMO the Cold War continues.

Russia in coordination with the Nazis? Can the 1938 Munich Agreement be considered "coordination with the Nazis"

Germany and Russian had a specific agreement on their respective invasions. The Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was a neutrality pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939. It included a secret protocol that defined the borders of Soviet and German "spheres of influence" in the event of possible rearrangement of the territories belonging to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland. Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Stalin ordered the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September. After the invasion, the new border between the two powers was confirmed by the supplementary protocol of the German–Soviet Frontier Treaty.

Their cooperation was such that at Brest-Litovsk on 22 September the Russians and Germans held a joint victory parade before German forces withdrew behind the new demarcation line.

Cuprum, your analysis of the war is still extremely Euro-Centric and ignores the Pacific theater. I agree that if you look only at the European theater, Russia was key (leaving aside they kinda' brought this on themselves with their multiple trade and military agreements with Germany), but the original question was about WW2.

Well, according to the people who determine the American college football champions, Germany won WW2.

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II… US Finishes Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark,Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work–including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule–our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories–Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests–they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

link

Well, according to the people who determine the American college football champions, Germany won WW2.

And as per usual British and Commonwealth forces fail to get a mention. I hope they do a better job with the college football results. Though surprised they do a football championship, would have thought American football is more popular in US colleges! :-)

"The lands torn away from Russia during the Russian Civil War." Lol Yes, I'm certain that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – independent countries – enjoyed their occupation by the Tzars and, later, the benevolence of the USSR.

Sorry – I was away and could not answer.

raylev3
Where can I find the original "secret protocols"? I know only about the existence of certain copies, and they do not look like real diplomatic documents with the appropriate design. Quite possibly, this is just a fake of the Cold War period.

At the time of the invasion of Soviet troops in Poland, the war was already lost by the Poles. Tell me, what was the reaction of the Allies to this action? Probably they declared war on the USSR, according to the treaty with Poland?

Based on what documents do you claim that there was a joint "victory parade" in Brest-Litovsk? As far as I know, it was the official ceremony of the exit of the captured city of German troops and the transfer of the city to the Soviet troops, since Brest-Litovsk was transferred to the Soviet zone.

62bravo
Tell me, in which particular periods of history did Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia exist as independent states? And please note that Lithuania in the 16th century is what is now called "Belarus", "Livonia" or "Livonian Order" – actually a colony of Germany, where people of local nationalities did not have any rights))) In addition, we say in the context of the Second World War, and you, I hope, understand that these states would not remain independent anyway. They would either be subordinate to Germany or the USSR. For the USSR, this meant the advance of Germany by several hundred kilometers without a fight to the Russian vital military and political centers. To Leningrad, to the base of the Soviet Baltic Fleet. Forget about emotions – this is a game of chess.

this is a game of chess.

It always has been and probably always will be. With the major players – USA, Russia and the PRC.

But all the players would rather play Chess, or GO … not Risk …

I personally think that humanity is now barely out of the cradle. It is still very stupid and unreasonable. Before him lies the whole universe, and it spends forces and resources to fight among themselves, divided into tribes …. Savages))) If humanity does not destroy itself as a result of its wacky games – it can have a very interesting and exciting future.

I wonder why you dropped the EU from the board? ;)

Cuprum….a couple of sources you may want to check:

1. Perestroika in Lithuanian Historiography: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by Alfred Erich Senn
The Russian Review
Vol. 49, No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 43-56

2. "The Devil's Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941" by Roger Moorehouse

After the Russian archives were opened many studies were done on the issue of German-Russian cooperation, even during the time when the UK and France were fighting Germany.

Your own comment of the "official ceremony" for the Germans to turn Brest-Litovsk over to the Soviets shows that you're already aware of their complicity in dividing up Poland and the Baltic states into each others' spheres of influence. Brest-Litovsk was part of Poland until the Russians and Germans invaded, and became part of the Soviet Union (now Belarus) during the period after WW2 when the Russians engaged in ethnic cleansing along the border areas.

I wonder why you dropped the EU from the board? ;)

Yes … what about the EU ?

Won the war? A joint effort. If you compare human losses, then you cannot regard China or Russia a winner. Britain retained territorial integrity so that is a plus.
The weak point for them was the amount of infrastructure loss.

An Economic deterministic would say the US pulled itself out of a depression, gained influence with world wide rebuilding loans. Unfortunately poor politics after the war lost some of that influence.

raylev3

Oh, don't worry. Russia has published a huge amount of research on this topic, including foreign ones. And the agreement between the USSR and Germany is not a secret at all. I just said that no one has yet discovered any genuine secret protocol – and this is a real fact. By the way, in the period of "perestroika" in the USSR, a lot of fakes were created to discredit the USSR (above all – in the eyes of its own citizens). And many of these fakes have already been exposed – so the documents published during this period must be approached critically, checking them for authenticity.
I do not understand the rush about the USSR deal with Germany. The USSR is the last country to go to any agreements with Hitler. I have already spoken about the Munich Agreement. The USSR was ready to fight against Hitler in Czechoslovakia – but Poland, with the consent of the allies, refused to let the Soviet troops pass (and then took a direct part in the division of this state). What is this if not a direct complicity in Nazi aggression? Was there a revision of the borders of sovereign states?)))

Regarding ethnic cleansing, did Poland not infringe upon the rights of citizens of local nationalities (Ukrainians and Belarusians) in these territories (captured by armed force 20 years before)? Perhaps what you call "ethnic cleansing" is the result of correcting this activity? When the Nazis came to these territories, a real massacre began between the Poles and the Ukrainians in these territories – perhaps the leadership of the USSR was trying to avoid it?

Cuprum,
Sorry, dude, but the bottom line is that the Russians colluded with the Germans in the invasion of Poland. The Russians did invade Poland two weeks after the Germans, based on their prior agreement. Not to mention the Russian invasions and/or occupation of Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Moldova. However, much of that history was ignored once Germany invaded Russia and the allies needed the Russians -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. No justification for any of this unless you believe Russian had a right to subjugate those peoples and ethnic groups.

On June 1, 1989, even Gorbachev authorized a commission to investigate the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which turned up much of the documentation. If you're going to write off the documents and research that demonstrates Russian's complicity, then this whole argument is irrelevant because you'll just state the documents were faked, in contradiction to research done by multiple, legitimate western and Russian historians.

Good talk :-)

Raylev3,

Their is some anachronism in calling the Soviets Russians in this context. Especially dealing with things like border alterations between the Soviet Republics of Ukraine and Belarus and what had been interwar Poland.

Though you can see that the Belarusians came out as winners from WW2 in many ways, Nazi defeat meant that only 25% of the population was killed and only half a million enslaved, whereas Nazi victory would have likely resulted in more than two thirds being killed and the rest enslaved.

Belarus was also larger, and benefited from a lot of industrial investment and development after the war, making it a more prosperous place. The Belarusian Soviet Republic played an important role in building a sense of Belarusian national identity and statehood, which you can see manifest today. The only problem would be the damage done to the national language, which is now bordering on being endangered.

Well I've won it a number of times … playing Axis & Allies …

Their is some anachronism in calling the Soviets Russians in this context.

I agree to a point, but it cannot be denied that Russia ran the Soviet Union. Most people don't realize that the Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats in the UN, and were signatories in 1945, but is there any doubt that Russian called the shots?

Did the Russians collude with the Germans during the invasion of Poland? As far as I am familiar with the "secret protocol" (provided that it is considered genuine), it was not the invasion that was stipulated, but the territories designated for which Germany pledged not to claim. This is a slightly different wording – you do not find? Poland has already ceased to exist as an independent state. German troops had already passed even to those territories which, according to the "pact", were within the sphere of interests of the USSR. What should the USSR do? Let the Nazis take over these territories? Is there another alternative?

I will ask you again: how do you feel about the joint occupation of Iran by Soviet and British troops? Is the UK an aggressor? I am very interested in your opinion)))

Why do you mention Moldova – I do not understand. This territory was occupied by Romanian troops during the Civil War in Russia, and Russia never recognized this occupation in any form. Probably you are satisfied with any revision of borders, if only it was not in favor of Russia?

I am not interested in the findings of the 1989 commission. This commission was headed by Mr. Yakovlev, who himself later openly admitted that he had carried out large-scale frauds. I am interested in documents. I am able to make up an opinion myself))) Can you give me links where I can see the original documents?

If you have such – we will be happy to discuss with you their authenticity :)

The statement that Russia ruled the Soviet Union was quite interesting))) And what advantages did Russia have in comparison with other republics?
I'm wondering which of the US states controls the entire US?)))

Oh, I know one answer to my question about the benefits. Every citizen of the USSR should know Russian. But it would be somehow strange if English would be chosen as the language of international communication within the USSR)))

Raylev3,

I agree to a point, but it cannot be denied that Russia ran the Soviet Union. Most people don't realize that the Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats in the UN, and were signatories in 1945, but is there any doubt that Russian called the shots?

I think that the Communist Party called all the shots during Soviet rule. People whose maternal language was Russian probably were dominant in the party, but it included (obviously, 'The Boss' himself was not Russian) a wide range of others.

I'm not sure that you can even say that the Russian Soviet Republic as a whole benefited disproportionately from the Soviet regime; parts of it definitely did (like Moscow, St. Petersburg regions) but there were other Soviet Republics that had areas that were more developed than much of the Russian one (Latvia, Estonia, parts of Belarus, Ukraine etc.) Lack of investment in large areas of the Russian Republic in Soviet times has been something that the successor governments have had to deal with.

One point you could maybe make is that repression in the Stalinist era hit some none-Russian Soviet peoples disproportionately, i.e. Ukrainians, Kazakhs, for example.