Be a Supporter!

Who won the ww2?

  • 6,284 Views
  • 155 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
K-RadPie
K-RadPie
  • Member since: Jan. 5, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 08:46 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 08:39 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: =P The Battle of Stalingrad lasted for a year and a half, and the Seige of Leningrad lasted more than twice as long, bitch.

Like I said, sheer numbers.

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 08:51 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 04:53 PM, K-RadPie wrote: 1. Abnormally cold winter, and Russians are used to cold.

rules for fighting Russia:
#1; never, under any circumstances, enter a conflict against Russia.
#2; never attack Russia during the winter.
#3; never attack Russia if there is the possibility you will be fighting until winter comes.
#4; never, under any circumstances, enter a conflict against Russia.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 08:52 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 08:46 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Like I said, sheer numbers.

I freely admit that the tried and true Russian tactic of throwing huge numbers at your enemy was used in a way never before seen in all of human history. But that doesn't change the fact that Russia did, in fact, do most of the fighting.

LordJaric
LordJaric
  • Member since: Apr. 11, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 09:10 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 08:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote: rules for fighting Russia:
#1; never, under any circumstances, enter a conflict against Russia.
#2; never attack Russia during the winter.
#3; never attack Russia if there is the possibility you will be fighting until winter comes.
#4; never, under any circumstances, enter a conflict against Russia.

So basically don't fuck with Russia.


Common sense isn't so common anymore
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Fanfiction Page

cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 09:15 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 04:29 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:
At 9/25/07 10:26 AM, 2wiceBorn wrote:
At 9/24/07 10:39 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:
That's because Russia's troops were poorly trained, ill equipped and had every decision they made watched over by a Communist party member who had no knowledge of military matters.
And yet they managed to kick the highly trained, battle-hardened, and technologically advanced German Blitzkreig all the way back to Berlin.

And they managed to do it with ENORMOUS amounts of aide from the US, and managed to do it with millions upon millions of illiterate Russian peasants used as human waves.

Just because more people died, doesn't mean it was more significant than the Western front.
Yeah, it pretty much does.

No it doesn't, it's mostly a testament to the fact that the Russians and Germans tended to kill more civilians, and the Russians tended to kill more of their own soldiers.

It doesn't mean that the Eastern Front, or for that matter the European theatre, was more significant in terms of strategic importance to the war.

Casualties =/= success, especially when the military operations of Russia were dependent on foreign aide (from the US) in the first place.

Hitler could have easily taken Russia if the U.S hadn't given it loads of gear.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with Stalin's rapid industrailization of the Soviet Union...

America helped most of it's wartime Allies, but we hardly did shit for the USSR for the sole reason that we hated them just as much as; if not even moreso than; the Nazis.

You mean America provided ENORMOUS amounts of aide to the USSR, and didn't require them to pay us back? In fact, the only ally the US provided more aide for was the British.

The Soviets couldn't have done much without all of that aide, they certainly wouldn't have been able to maintain offensive operations against the Germans, and they probably wouldn't have been able to hold off the Germans defensively for long either.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 09:59 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 09:15 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: And they managed to do it with ENORMOUS amounts of aide from the US, and managed to do it with millions upon millions of illiterate Russian peasants used as human waves.

:especially when the military operations of Russia were dependent on foreign aide (from the US) in the first place.

You mean America provided ENORMOUS amounts of aide to the USSR, and didn't require them to pay us back? In fact, the only ally the US provided more aide for was the British.

The Soviets couldn't have done much without all of that aide, they certainly wouldn't have been able to maintain offensive operations against the Germans, and they probably wouldn't have been able to hold off the Germans defensively for long either.

It's such a funny coincidence that that very part of the article was just added on this very evening. Sure is lucky for you, isn't it?

You might have gotten away with it if Wikipedia wasn't such a shitty source for arguments.

cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 10:22 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 09:59 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:
The Soviets couldn't have done much without all of that aide, they certainly wouldn't have been able to maintain offensive operations against the Germans, and they probably wouldn't have been able to hold off the Germans defensively for long either.
It's such a funny coincidence that that very part of the article was just added on this very evening. Sure is lucky for you, isn't it?

AHAHAH you're THAT determined to lie to yourself? Check the whole history, it's been added to and modified several times for years.

You might have gotten away with it if Wikipedia wasn't such a shitty source for arguments.

You might have gotten away with it if the non-sourced, uneducated whims of imagination of people like yourself wasn't such a shitty source for arguments.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
Imperator
Imperator
  • Member since: Oct. 10, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 10:27 PM Reply

Sigh...
Another thread, right after I though we had established no more WWII arguments.....

Alright, let's settle it once and for all by answering that age-old question of "who did more".

If you wanna measure something, you need a unit to measure it by. So, let's start there.
How do we measure who did more to win the war? Casualties inflicted? Time involved? Supplies used? Area taken? Battles participated in?

What?

Before any of you start re-talking about who did more, maybe you should justify on what grounds you can make that argument. Explain what measurement you are using.


Writing Forum Reviewer.
PM me
for preferential Writing Forum review treatment.
See my NG page for a regularly updated list of works I will review.

altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 10:40 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 10:22 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Check the whole history, it's been added to and modified several times for years.

Okay, I admit that mistake; misread it. But it doesn't change the fact the Wikipedia is crap.

You might have gotten away with it if the non-sourced, uneducated whims of imagination of people like yourself wasn't such a shitty source for arguments.

Oh come on, now! You can't even think up your own witty rhetoric!

At 9/25/07 10:27 PM, Imperator wrote: Casualties inflicted?

Russia

Time involved?

Japan

Supplies used?

America or Germany

Area taken?

Russia

Battles participated in?

Germany or Japan

As to what is most important? Probably a combination of all those and more. Notice that only Germany, Japan and Russia are mentioned twice, and since two of those surrendered in the end and can't be considered 'winners'....

cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 11:05 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 10:40 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:
At 9/25/07 10:22 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Check the whole history, it's been added to and modified several times for years.
Okay, I admit that mistake; misread it. But it doesn't change the fact the Wikipedia is crap.

Not when it's simply repeating documented facts. There are other sources, most notable of which is this database.

There have been several books written about it, most notably this, this, and this book that I personally read.

US aide to the Soviet Union was incredibly important. If the US didn't didn't provide such a ridiculously large amount of aide, it's almost a certainty the Soviets would have been fucked, for lack of a better term. The Soviets always played it off for propaganda purposes, trying to downplay the significance of the aide, that's led to some of the misconceptions people have about Lend-Lease. People either say the Soviets payed the US back so that it doesn't matter or that the aide was meaningless.. both of which are false.

You might have gotten away with it if the non-sourced, uneducated whims of imagination of people like yourself wasn't such a shitty source for arguments.
Oh come on, now! You can't even think up your own witty rhetoric!

I was just pointing out that it's odd that you'd base your argument purely on your own claims and then deny established fact and pretend it's not credible. So I reversed your rhetoric and applied it to you instead, just for fun.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
LordJaric
LordJaric
  • Member since: Apr. 11, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 11:31 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 10:40 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:
At 9/25/07 10:27 PM, Imperator wrote: Casualties inflicted?
Russia

America, Britain, French, Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, Germany, Italy the list goes on

Time involved?
Japan

Last time I check Russia did very little in the Pacific.

Supplies used?
America or Germany

America considering they were suppling Russia.

Area taken?
Russia

Well duh, it's their country.

Battles participated in?
Germany or Japan

Germany yes, Japan very little


Common sense isn't so common anymore
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Fanfiction Page

Imperator
Imperator
  • Member since: Oct. 10, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 25th, 2007 @ 11:40 PM Reply

As to what is most important? Probably a combination of all those and more. Notice that only Germany, Japan and Russia are mentioned twice, and since two of those surrendered in the end and can't be considered 'winners'....

And we're still at square 1. Define a measurement, then we can start actually measuring which country did "more" to win the war.

The fact that two mentioned were Axis powers just points out the fact that there is no objective means of deciding who did the most, ergo it's not even an issue that should be discussed.

It's like a pissing contest where we're trying to measure how pretty the stream looks....


Writing Forum Reviewer.
PM me
for preferential Writing Forum review treatment.
See my NG page for a regularly updated list of works I will review.

yeahha
yeahha
  • Member since: Sep. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 54
Movie Buff
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 07:43 AM Reply

i belive that it was russia who did most of the war in eu and usa was mostly on japan but it was allso with help of england and france in eu + kina support with usa against japan

Sajberhippien
Sajberhippien
  • Member since: Jul. 11, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 08:00 AM Reply

The winners of ww2 were only a few owners of weapons factories.

Really, no-one won that war. Everybody lost, as with all military wars.


You shouldn't believe that you have the right of free thinking, it's a threat to our democracy.

Med all respekt för alla rika svin jag känner - ni blir aldrig mina vänner.

WhipperSnapper
WhipperSnapper
  • Member since: Sep. 12, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 12:30 PM Reply

I think no country contributed more than any other. I believe D-Day's BEACH landings were mainly successful due to the Americans, but they wouldn't have worked without the BRITISH clearing bridges so the vehicles could get from beach to beach. Also, the Allies couldn't have taken all necessary beaches without the CANADIANS. Once they got into France, then FRENCh had an underground army that helped greatly in the march towards Paris. The RUSSIANS reduced the forces of the Nazi army greatly, making the American's and British jobs a LOT easier.


BBS Signature
altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 08:30 PM Reply

At 9/25/07 11:31 PM, LordJaric wrote: America, Britain, French, Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, Germany, Italy the list goes on

You're saying they all inflicted even close to the same number of casualties on their enemies?

Last time I check Russia did very little in the Pacific.

I never said they did....
Japan was conquering Asia and the Pacific before Hitler or Stalin even rose to power.

America considering they were suppling Russia.

Germany had a shitload of supplies, you know.

Well duh, it's their country.

Area TAKEN. Russia was one of the only countries to have actually gained territory by the war's end.

Germany yes, Japan very little

There was a war in the Pacific and East Asia, you know, and I'm not just talking about the American 'Island Hopping' strategy either.

altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 08:33 PM Reply

At 9/26/07 08:00 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: The winners of ww2 were only a few owners of weapons factories.

Really, no-one won that war. Everybody lost, as with all military wars.

Yeah yeah, war is bad blah blah blah everyone's a loser whine. Get over yourself. You know, that attitude of avoiding war at all cost was what allowed Hitler to rebuild the German war machine, what with the policy of appeasment.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 08:42 PM Reply

Saying that the russians helped contribute to the war greatly is NOT the same as saying russia single handedly won WW2; otherwise it wouldn't be ww2 to begin with. I sympathize with the fact that some may undermind the fact that the russia faught.

The allies Won WW2, it was a joint effort, period.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 09:14 PM Reply

At 9/26/07 08:30 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:
At 9/25/07 11:31 PM, LordJaric wrote: America, Britain, French, Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, Germany, Italy the list goes on
You're saying they all inflicted even close to the same number of casualties on their enemies?

Casualties inflicted isn't necessarily a large basis of argument because it doesn't take into account the whole spectrum of the war. Killing and getting killed =/= victory. The strategic and tactical depth of the entire war has to be considered, and when it is, Russia's role was isolated to one single area of one single theater of a world War... and they were dependent on aide from the US.

Japan was conquering Asia and the Pacific before Hitler or Stalin even rose to power.

Mhhm.. and the US managed to roll all of those conquests back virtually single-handedly, all while fighting simultaneously on the other side of the world and supplying the rest of the allies.

America considering they were suppling Russia.
Germany had a shitload of supplies, you know.

US production during WWII was higher than the entire Axis combined. And I remember reading it amounted to 60% of the entire allied industrial output, I'm looking through my internet history right now because I read it yesterday.

Well duh, it's their country.
Area TAKEN. Russia was one of the only countries to have actually gained territory by the war's end.

Haha, that's because Russia was the only ally that had the goal of increasing its territory and subjugating the countries that they supposedly "liberated". The Soviets exploited the weakness of Eastern Europe, both former enemy and ally, to expand Soviet power. This was while the US allowed both ally and previous enemy alike to pursue their own political goals, all while the US rebuilt them free of charge.

If the US wanted to expand its territory, or even annex countries after the US emerged from WWII as the most powerful economic and military power, the US could have done it far more so than the Soviets did.

Basing the war on how much territory was gained is ridiculous.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 10:32 PM Reply

At 9/26/07 08:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The allies Won WW2, it was a joint effort, period.

it should really be that simple.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
Buffalow
Buffalow
  • Member since: Jun. 5, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 10:41 PM Reply

The Greeks. Seriously, they did.


Well-a Everybody's Heard About the Word, Tha-Tha-Tha Word-Word-Word the Word is the.....

BBS Signature
Snicp
Snicp
  • Member since: Sep. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 26th, 2007 @ 11:08 PM Reply

At 9/26/07 10:41 PM, Gwarfan wrote: The Greeks. Seriously, they did.

lol

altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 27th, 2007 @ 06:53 AM Reply

At 9/26/07 09:14 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Casualties inflicted isn't necessarily a large basis of argument because it doesn't take into account the whole spectrum of the war. Killing and getting killed =/= victory.

So you honestly believe that killing a good chunk of the enemy forces even when you suffer more losses than all your allies combined means absolutly nothing? I'm sure if it were America who had done that you'd argue with everyone that it's the most important factor to consider.

one single area of one single theater of a world War

THE most brutal and bloody theater which took more lives than every single other theater combined and which held THE most costly battles in all of human history, par none.

... and they were dependent on aide from the US.

The only source you've provided is Wikipedia, and I'd hardly call that a source.

Mhhm.. and the US managed to roll all of those conquests back virtually single-handedly,

Right, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the British colonial defenders or the native resistance or the simple fact that Japan was using an ideology which called for more of their own dieing in attacks than their enemies and which said that using weapons from the turn of the century and katana would win the war.

all while fighting simultaneously on the other side of the world and supplying the rest of the allies.

You have to consider that the furthest the war ever reached into the Americas was when a few Alutian Islands were breifly held by the Japanese, so America was never bothered by limited production while it's territory was held by enemies.

US production during WWII was higher than the entire Axis combined. And I remember reading it amounted to 60% of the entire allied industrial output, I'm looking through my internet history right now because I read it yesterday.

omg u found it on teh intarwebz u must b rit lol i hop it iz wiki cuz it iz alwayz rit

Haha, that's because Russia was the only ally that had the goal of increasing its territory

The main goal was to simply crush the Nazis. But I suppose someone as right-winged as you have proven yourself to be would have that, now wouldn't you?

and subjugating the countries that they supposedly "liberated". The Soviets exploited the weakness of Eastern Europe, both former enemy and ally, to expand Soviet power.

Oh, and America didn't do that? No spheres of influence that were much better veiled than the Soviet ones?

This was while the US allowed both ally and previous enemy alike to pursue their own political goals, all while the US rebuilt them free of charge.

And also allowed the Japanese to pretty much go unpunished by comparison the the Nuremburg trials and heavy restrictions of what could be considered Nazi media, leading to even modern day tension between Japan and the rest of East Asia because the Japanese are still allowed to have a culture based on Japanese ethnic superiority.

If the US wanted to expand its territory, or even annex countries after the US emerged from WWII as the most powerful economic and military power, the US could have done it far more so than the Soviets did.

Yeah, I suppose the French would have been fine had America taken Brittany as payment for it's part in the war

Basing the war on how much territory was gained is ridiculous.

Territory gained is a significant factor to consider in any conventional war.

cellardoor6
cellardoor6
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 27th, 2007 @ 07:43 AM Reply

At 9/27/07 06:53 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:
At 9/26/07 09:14 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Casualties inflicted isn't necessarily a large basis of argument because it doesn't take into account the whole spectrum of the war. Killing and getting killed =/= victory.
So you honestly believe that killing a good chunk of the enemy forces even when you suffer more losses than all your allies combined means absolutly nothing?

I didn't say that, but do you honestly believe having more casualties and causing more casualties erases the fact that they were dependent on foreign aid and only fought in a single theater of whar?

I'm sure if it were America who had done that you'd argue with everyone that it's the most important factor to consider.

No I wouldn't, because I'm informed enough to know that amount of casualties you inflict or incur doesn't define a war, not least of which a world war.

one single area of one single theater of a world War
THE most brutal and bloody theater

Due to the brutality and disregard for life on both the Russian and German sides. Maybe you should look at the amount of civilians the Russians killed, including their own people? Are you going to tally those to their score as well?

which took more lives than every single other theater combined and which held THE most costly battles in all of human history, par none.

Costly in terms of lives, which was only due to aggressiveness and brutality of the Germans, the incompetence and brutality of the Russians. Just because the Russians sacrificed millions of their own men as if they were cattle doesn't mean that the amount of casualties they suffered can be used as some proof of their contribution to victory.

... and they were dependent on aide from the US.
The only source you've provided is Wikipedia, and I'd hardly call that a source.

HAHAH! Maybe you should learn to read? I provided other sources as well.

Mhhm.. and the US managed to roll all of those conquests back virtually single-handedly,
Right, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the British colonial defenders or the native resistance

Both of which provided little compared to the US. The US almost single-handedly defeated the Japanese. The US was responsible for having crippled the Japanese Navy and Army, preventing them from supplying their forces, communicating with their forces, and organizing their forces. The US did the vast majority, the only place any major contribution was made by others was in the Philippines, and even then it was relatively small.

or the simple fact that Japan was using an ideology which called for more of their own dieing in attacks than their enemies

Haha kind of like the Russians? You know... the people who would send 100 men armed with 20 rifles to attack a machine gun position, killing all of their men, only to do it again several times until the Germans ran out of ammo from slaughtering so many Russians?

all while fighting simultaneously on the other side of the world and supplying the rest of the allies.
You have to consider that the furthest the war ever reached into the Americas was when a few Alutian Islands were breifly held by the Japanese, so America was never bothered by limited production while it's territory was held by enemies.

You have to consider that while the US managed to attack other countries all around the world, they couldn't do the same to the US. And you're pretending as if that is a detriment to the FACT that the US managed to fight two simultaneous, large-scale operations, all while supplying the allies at the same time?

Pfft.

omg u found it on teh intarwebz u must b rit lol i hop it iz wiki cuz it iz alwayz rit

And where are you finding your information? Because this whole time all you've managed to do is parade your vast ignorance and laughable ideas... all based on the whims of your imagination.

And you think your opinions are more valid than the actual databases I linked to that displayed OFFICIAL documents about the war?

Haha, that's because Russia was the only ally that had the goal of increasing its territory
The main goal was to simply crush the Nazis.

Oh, so by oppressing people who weren't even German and taking over countries AFTER the Nazis already surrendered... that was meant to crush the Nazis? All the territory the Russians took from say... Poland... who weren't German, who fought against the Germans... that was to crush the Germans right?

Nice logic there.

Seriously, are you aware of how ridiculous your argument has become? You deny all the facts, and make the most absurd justifications for doing so.

Oh, and America didn't do that? No spheres of influence that were much better veiled than the Soviet ones?

The US didn't do that at all. In case you didn't know, EVERY SINGLE country the US remained in after WWII became prosperous. The US rebuilt both allied and former enemy alike, free of charge, and allowed them to have their own countries back, with their own governments.

The Soviets did the exact opposite, they crushed any form of democracy, took over the economies of countries that they supposedly liberated, and subjugated them to Soviet rule AGAINST their will.

And also allowed the Japanese to pretty much go unpunished

Um.. actually the funny thing about that is almost all of the Japanese officers that were responsible for atrocities either died in the war, or committed suicide to maintain their honor.

Plus, the Japanese didn't have such an organized, open, deliberate policy of committing atrocities like the Germans did with the Holocaust. It was easier to find those responsibile in Germany because their leadership planned it all as intentional policy. The atrocities by the Japanese were usually at lower levels among their military only.

by comparison the the Nuremburg trials and heavy restrictions of what could be considered Nazi media, leading to even modern day tension between Japan and the rest of East Asia because the Japanese are still allowed to have a culture based on Japanese ethnic superiority.

Wait... so you think the US should have deliberately destroyed Japanese culture? You think the US had the right to entirely whitewash Japan, just because the US was victorious?

Now I can see why you perform e-fellatio on the Soviet Union.

Yeah, I suppose the French would have been fine had America taken Brittany as payment for it's part in the war

See, that's where your logic fails, once again.if the US didn't have the mercy that it did, and instead acted like the Soviets... the US could have taken it regardless of what the French wanted. The US could have done this to all of western Europe, and most of Asia. In fact, the US emerged from WWII so powerful, and with the sole possessor of the nuclear bomb, the US could have done the same thing to the Soviets themselves if that was the goal.

But since the US wasn't like the Soviet Union, the US didn't use its power for conquest, but instead rebuilt the countries free of charge and allowed them to decide their destiny from that point forward. Look at France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan most notably... the most prosperous economies in the world... because the US rebuilt them, and instead of conquering them or collecting forced repayment, the US only officially asked for plots of land to bury dead American soldiers.

Territory gained is a significant factor to consider in any conventional war.

Not when the territory was taken from people who were basically defenseless, and weren't even an enemy. Not when Soviets couldn't have done it without aide they received, and all while the land being taken was located in a single front, of a single theatre... in midst of a war that stretched across the globe.


Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.

BBS Signature
Sajberhippien
Sajberhippien
  • Member since: Jul. 11, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 27th, 2007 @ 08:42 AM Reply

At 9/26/07 08:33 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:
At 9/26/07 08:00 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: The winners of ww2 were only a few owners of weapons factories.

Really, no-one won that war. Everybody lost, as with all military wars.
Yeah yeah, war is bad blah blah blah everyone's a loser whine. Get over yourself. You know, that attitude of avoiding war at all cost was what allowed Hitler to rebuild the German war machine, what with the policy of appeasment.

There are other ways to stop terrible things than by doing terrible things.


You shouldn't believe that you have the right of free thinking, it's a threat to our democracy.

Med all respekt för alla rika svin jag känner - ni blir aldrig mina vänner.

Kenzu
Kenzu
  • Member since: Feb. 3, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 27th, 2007 @ 12:20 PM Reply

Soviet Union won WWII. USA and allied powers won as well, because they were the allie of USSR.

If usa didnt open a second front, all European countries would join Warsaw pact.

Ledgey
Ledgey
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 27th, 2007 @ 04:48 PM Reply

At 9/27/07 12:20 PM, Kenzu wrote: Soviet Union won WWII. USA and allied powers won as well, because they were the allie of USSR.

If usa didnt open a second front, all European countries would join Warsaw pact.

If the Allies didn't open a second front, there might not have even been a Warsaw pact.


GT - LedgeyNG, Steam - Ledgey91, PSN - LedgeyNG

BBS Signature
LordJaric
LordJaric
  • Member since: Apr. 11, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 27th, 2007 @ 05:25 PM Reply

At 9/27/07 02:46 PM, Gul-Dukat-DS9 wrote:
At 9/27/07 12:20 PM, Kenzu wrote: If usa didnt open a second front, all European countries would join Warsaw pact.
In Soviet Russia, you don't join the Warsaw Pact. Warsaw Pact joins you.

God these jokes are so fucken stupid they are not even funny.


Common sense isn't so common anymore
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Fanfiction Page

Imperator
Imperator
  • Member since: Oct. 10, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 27th, 2007 @ 08:51 PM Reply

At 9/26/07 10:32 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
At 9/26/07 08:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The allies Won WW2, it was a joint effort, period.
it should really be that simple.

It really should....

(why is this shit still up top on the front page damnit?)


Writing Forum Reviewer.
PM me
for preferential Writing Forum review treatment.
See my NG page for a regularly updated list of works I will review.

LordJaric
LordJaric
  • Member since: Apr. 11, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Who won the ww2? Sep. 27th, 2007 @ 09:52 PM Reply

At 9/27/07 09:48 PM, Grammer wrote:
At 9/24/07 10:33 PM, LordJaric wrote: Dude the russians were not the only fucken country fighting in the war.
They took more casualties and turned the tide of the eastern front of the war.

What about the countries who were fighting on the western front, you can't tell me they did not take heavy casualties an change the tide on that front.


Common sense isn't so common anymore
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Fanfiction Page