Who won the WWII ( in Europe )?

[mistyronin 1181]

After reading this piece of news in Reuters Who won the war? Russians take a different view on D-Day

I've been reading for more than 20 years historic literature about the war, and I have a quite clear picture of who "won", but I was curious about what people from different countries think about who won the WW2 in Europe.

So:

In your opinion who won the WW2 in Europe? What were the decisive moments and why you think that ( please link your sources ).

[Tonci87 163]

So much BS in one interview. The Soviets would have never won the war without the D-Day landings. Their casualties were just too high to keep up with the Germans. The Allied bombing campaign in Germany also played a mayor role since it brought the war industry to it´s knees.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Well i suppose the question itself is questionable. Nobody could have won alone.

[Tonci87 163]

Well i suppose the question itself is questionable. Nobody could have won alone.

Exactly

Some Russians don´t seem to understand that though....

[slatts 1978]

The allies won. End of.

[mistyronin 1181]

I will share my opinion and I'll keep it brief.

Obviously as ProfTournesol said all the parts contributed in the effort, and due to the massive massacre of people and war crimes committed by all sides, it's clear that it would not be a total victory but more close to a Pyrrhic Victory.

Said that, to me it seems pretty clear that the "real" war in Europe was Axis and their allies ( Third Reich Germany, Romania, Hungray, Bulgary, Slovakia, Spain's Blue Division and Finland ) vs USSR; you only have to check the data: number of soldier strengh and casualties that were clearly superior that the ones in other fronts ( like the Western Front ).

It's also clear which countries paid a huge toll in Europe ( mainly Germany and the Soviet Union, followed by China and Poland ).

IMHO, which is based in the opinion of most of the WW2 experts, is basically that in 1943 after the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk together with the Allied Disembark in Italy, the Axis had lost most of their army and practically the war.

Then it started a secondary conflict that was the contest of who gets to Berlin first, the Allies vs the Soviet Union, in order to decide the New World Order ( which was seen in the Cold War ). Besides that who get to Berlin first will gain the booty of most of the Third Reich investigation documents and technology ( altogether with the German Uranium ).

As at the beginning of the 1944 the Red Army was advancing at a really fast pace to Berlin, with the Soviet HQ forcing their units to the maximum, and sacrificing thousands of their own troops lives in order to get a faster victory ( all the Soviet War crimes against population and against heir own troops are now well documented due that after the fall of the Berlin's wall everyone had access to the WW2 Soviet Archives ).

To prevent that, the Allied powers launched Operation Overlord and later the Market Garden, in order to get to Berlin before the Soviets and to keep Western Europe free of Soviet hands.

So yeah, IMHO the main front was the Eastern Front, and the D-Day was the opening of a sub-front more against the Soviets than against the Axis.

In this video that shows the evolution of the war in the map can be seen clearly how both Allies and Soviets raced to arrive to Berlin ( and is also pretty obvious that the D-Day was not necessary in order to defeat the Germans, which would have been defeated by the Soviet Union ).

Edited June 5, 2014 by MistyRonin

[ProfTournesol 956]

Well, i do agree with most of this, but if i suppose that the war would have lasted much much longer without Allies landings. Moreover, the threat of USSR being able to invade more than eastern Europe countries may have led to a cease fire between German army and western countries, in order to continue the fight against USSR.

[katipo66 94]

I really don't see the point of this thread, or looking at it maybe I do, some people just have agendas.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Of course the Axis won, haven't you heard about Nazi UFOs and Neuschwabenland?

;)

[mistyronin 1181]

Well, i do agree with most of this, but if i suppose that the war would have lasted much much longer without Allies landings. Moreover, the threat of USSR being able to invade more than eastern Europe countries may have led to a cease fire between German army and western countries, in order to continue the fight against USSR.

Yup, that are also true options that could perfectly had happen.

I really don't see the point of this thread, or looking at it maybe I do, some people just have agendas.

The point of this thread is just to know the opinion of different people of different countries about a certain fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

Would you be so kind to point out what agenda you see here?

[vilas 474]

Nazis could won if war was not so fast, their technical advantage would make them win if there was no industry bombed by western allies and USA,

but because ALL fought with Nazis, than military ALL won (USSR after 1941 cause till 1941 USSR was Hitler ally, guerillas-underground armies, Western Europe+America)

end of WW2 was effort of all armies including guerilla warfare too (blowing up railway lines as example)

but it is about military part

when it comes to economy and freedom... for sure Eastern Block not won, but those who won: West, USA, and Axis too, more US help was pumped into Germany than into my country which ... "rejected" US help (i use " " cause it were commies from USA that rejected help to Poland in the name of Poland)

countries who lost freedom, economy and land... Poland lost 80 000 km2, during WW2 every fifth men dead and cities burned to the ground cause heaviest fights were in Poland and many times there was no building that left in some areas so whole country was to rebuild (in every family someone lost someone, while in western countries losses were like 1 person per 100 , so there were families that hadn't lost anyone or even hadn't know anyone who lost someone, in my nation in every family you had losses, losses in Poland afaik were like 1/4.5 of citizens including Jews who had biggest losses) and after war terror of Stalin,

so we not won as Poland,

biggest winner of WW2 is USA, especially in economy that gave USA big boom , after crisis in 30s, they soon became the most rich country (in 50s, 60s, 70s till oil crisis and till EU economny growth which made later Norway, Swiss, Scandinavia the most rich)

counting percent of human losses -

Poland is on first place

22%

USSR 12%

rest of countries are like 1-2 % of human loss

so for Poland WW2 was most cruel, most bloody, most horrible

noone lost every four-fith /22%/men like Poland, USSR lost every eith men

USA lost 3 man per thousand

France lost 8 like UK men per 1000

plus in Poland you must add losses due to NKVD (Stalin SS) actions and deportations 1939-1941

it is hard to find family in Poland where noone died in WW2

in case of my city Warsaw - this city was so much bombed in 1944 that we had to rebuild city from scratch cause it was one flat field

Edited June 5, 2014 by vilas

[Tonci87 163]

I really don´t think that the Soviets could have won the war on their own. After D-Day Germany had to deploy a lot of reserves to the West front, and even some troops who were until then fighting against the Soviets. Due to the D-Day the Allies were also able to bomb a much larger part of the German industry. Without D-Day the war would have lasted much longer and Germany would have gained the upper hand by grinding down the Soviet Army and through advancements in Weapons technology. The Germans invented a lot of really advanced stuff in the last two years of the war but thank God didn´t have the time to actually mass produce it. And the Germans were working on their own Atom Bomb....

[katipo66 94]

More flame on different angle, carry on.

[Tonci87 163]

What exactly are you trying to say?

[mistyronin 1181]

More flame on different angle, carry on.

Yeah, at least you got me lost. What flame you see in people giving their elaborated opinions about a historic fact.

As you can see there is variety of opinions. I think it is interesting to know what people from other countries and opinions think.

[katipo66 94]

I got it wrong and thought this was a "Russians are Nazi" thread, I apologize.

I would say historic and fact is a hard one because the fact depends on what system you were doctrinated in and not necessarily based on any actual facts, eg over time genocides may change to heroic conquests.

Both great wars were very murky, of course now we understand the nice clean versions.

I'm a tinfoil hat wearer, I distrust everything :)

Edited June 5, 2014 by Katipo66

[mistyronin 1181]

I got it wrong and thought this was a "Russians are Nazi" thread, I apologize.

Nope. It's about who "won" the war. In fact as you can read in the post were I give my opinion, I think it was "won" by the Soviet Union ( I stress the word won, because I don't think anyone won in the usual sense of the word )

I would say historic and fact is a hard one because the fact depends on what system you were doctrinated in and not necessarily based on any actual facts, eg over time genocides may change to heroic conquests.

That's why I asked to give the arguments of why people think in that way and links to the sources. The interpretations can be different, but the sources don't "lie".

[katipo66 94]

Yes I got it completely wrong, I blame iPad under pillow..

In fact I am very interested in that whole era and interpretations of scenarios from different sides, not exclusive to europe as different campaigns had influence on how the war in Europe played out.

[Tonci87 163]

Why am I not surprised, a Russian who thinks that everyone wants to belittle his nations doings?

Russia did awesome things, everyone knows that.

[mr burns 131]

Africa & Stalingrad. Radar & (deciphering of) Enigma too.

Other than that, dunno. 1940's seem to have been crazy enough for anything to happen.

Have a nice liberation/invasion of Europe Day everybody :)

[cozza 24]

Hitler won WW2 for the Allies.

He did a good enough job ruining Nazi Germany more than the allies ever could.

:p :p :p

[lesscubes 1]

I think it was "won" by the Soviet Union ( I stress the word won, because I don't think anyone won in the usual sense of the word )

1950's America begs to differ.

Outside of the war casualties, the United States itself was untouched, had booming industry and economy, and power both political and military only matched by the USSR. (Well, in terms of the Strategic/Nuclear. Conventional forces were disbanded or neglected until the Korean debacle shook things up.)

Of course, that all didn't turn out so great... Topic for another thread.

The Western Allies relied on the USSR to destroy the best German armies with sheer volume. The USSR relied on the Western Allies for supplies and armaments. Sherman tanks supplemented the mighty T-34. Spitfires, Hurricanes, Cobra's, Warhawks and Havoc's put teeth in the VVS along with the Yak's, "Peshka's" and Sturmoviks.

[maturin 12]

So much BS in one interview. The Soviets would have never won the war without the D-Day landings. Their casualties were just too high to keep up with the Germans.

I find that extremely doubtful.

Germany would have run out of men first.

By 1944 the Eastern Front was already lost to Hitler. Remember that 90% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front. 90% of the Luftwaffe fought there as well.

It could be argued that Moscow would have fallen without LendLease, and that Germany could have held onto their gains if not for Allied strategic bombing. But at the moment of D-Day, the Soviets were fully able to roll all the way to Paris.

The USSR relied on the Western Allies for supplies and armaments.

A very small proportion of Soviet tanks and planes were received through LendLease, and most materials went to England rather than the USSR. Probably the most important LendLease item was simply trucks.

I do think, however, that the non-Soviet allies could have defeated Germany alone. The industrial capacity of the US was essentially unlimited, its population massive. The question is whether the political will would have existed, whether the US would have accepted the necessary casualties. If you remove either the US or the USSR from the equation, the war probably has a negotiated conclusion with Hitler still in power. At least until he would be deposed in a coup as some of his followers tried to rescue the disastrously-run basket case known as the Third Reich.

Edit: And even if the Soviet Union came close to defeat outside Moscow, saved only by German blunders, remember that that very campaign was the result of Stalin's blunder. He refused to believe that an invasion was imminent, and was forced to abandon vast amounts of men, materiel, industry and above all a massive defensive line in the far west.

Edited June 6, 2014 by maturin

[Tonci87 163]

Hitler won WW2 for the Allies.

He did a good enough job ruining Nazi Germany more than the allies ever could.

:p :p :p

True enough, I think we can conclude the thread with this.

Hitler thought of himself as a military genius, but almost every time when he intervened in military operations it turned out to be a really bad idea....

[mistyronin 1181]

True enough, I think we can conclude the thread with this.

Hitler thought of himself as a military genius, but almost every time when he intervened in military operations it turned out to be a really bad idea....

After all Hitler was just a corporal.

He never studied in a military academy. He was just really lucky to have some of the best generals in the world at his command at the beginning of the war. But as the war went on, ignored, banish and killed most of them. He only kept the "Golden Retriever" lapdogs type at the OKW.

He was just too in love with himself, among other things.