Who won the war?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The fact is the war happened in the way it happened. People are free to interpretate it in the way they want. National pride and other things will always come in front, and every country has it's own perspective. I just considerate my view interesting because I considerate all efforts together.
 



The war happened as it happened and I don't want to speculate, but I'm afraid that without USSR (no matter if defeated by Germany or allied with Germany) there would be no landing in Western Europe or Allied bombing campaign because there would be no free Great Britain. But that's not important it's just speculation. And I don't want to talk about it.



What I want to say is that I don't agree with modern Russian propaganda about the world war 2 which in fact they call the "Great Patriotic War" and I agree that they claim that they won the war alone and that is bs, but that is very far from my point of view.

And Jenisch if you think that I'm an ex-soviet man you are very wrong and you still need to learn a lot.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Agreed. This is a topic though that is debated over and over and over. National pride will ensure that there is no end to it.
Click to expand...

True enough Chris,

Now, I have another point to bring into the mix.
The 'economic war' was waged from the cessation of hostilities. I see that Germany in 2012 is poised to bale out the EZ members that have made a balls of their economies.
So, The Allies won WW2. The USA Marshal aid programme put Germany back on its feet and then Germany when on the win the 'Economic war' and become a model for less attentive countries.
John
 

And with no Western Allies, maybe no USSR.


Sorry, I quoted you and talked some things about the subject, but were not directed to you. I also express my solidarity for what you Poles suffered in their hands.

And Jenisch if you think that I'm an ex-soviet man you are very wrong and you still need to learn a lot.
Click to expand...

Same as above.
 
Last edited:
".... I see that Germany in 2012 is poised to bale out the EZ members that have made a balls of their economies."

And impose "hard" rule on the defaulters ...

And many of us are SYMPATHETIC to hard working tax-paying Germans ..... . Now if Germany could only have overcome its inner demons in 1918 .... despite the loaded dice and handicaps .... (pulled off a Finland "lemons to lemonade") .... think where Europe would be today.

MM
 


One can but wonder Michael.

John
 
That being said, consider what the death toll of the Soviets would have been without lend-lease equipment and much needed supplies from the Western Allies.

Based on the circumstances such as technology, environmentals and geography, a single nation simply could not win a war on that scale by itself.
 

Other thing to considerate is that if the Nazis remained more time in the occupied territories, they would certainly kill millions more. Since the Soviets drafted many men from retaked territories, perhaps there would not be much around. The war could become inviable because this.

I hold my opinion that it was the joint Allied efort that won the war, and the Soviets should not have a highlight. Wars are not won only by casualities, but usually by several factors. The defeat of Nazi Germany and it's allies was no exception.
 
Last edited:
Wars are won by casualties all the time. By the casualties you inflict on the enemy, until they either can see that further conflict will gain them nothing or they don't have enough fighting personnel left to carry on a war.

The Soviets didn't make it into Berlin on brilliant strategy, they battered their way in, and there was not enough of the Heer left to stop them, because the Heer was buried in Russia along with a lot of their opponents.
It's as if you own a hardware store, a guy uses your tools and materail to build a house, you transport the material, maybe even help a little. Is that your house?


It may not be politically correct, but war is killing. The Soviets did the majority of the killing, for that they desearve credit.
 
The Soviets definately battered thier way into Germany, to that end, there is no doubt.

The Germans made the Soviets pay dearly for every inch of ground the Red Army gained. Now suppose for a moment, that the U.S. and thier heavy bombers weren't there by day and the RAF by night along with all the Allied fighters that roamed the western front's skies. And suppose that the western Allied armies weren't hammering away from the south and the west, drawing away large amounts of German men, equipment and supplies that would have been otherwise pouring into the Ost front.

And finally, suppose that the Soviets didn't have the benefit of the afore-mentioned goods and materials from the western Allies to help bolster thier war efforts against the Axis.

The bottom line is, the Russians could not have held thier own single-handedly no matter how much revisionists and Red Army fans want to believe...saying they did would be like saying that the U.S. single-handedly beat Japan in the Pacific and the contributions of other nations didn't matter and had no impact at all...
 
I hope that I haven't given the impression that I think the Russians could have won without western involvement, because they couldn't. About 15% of their aircraft were from the Allies, well over half of their wheeled transport was thanks to the Allies, food, grain, oil, gas, though they didn't put the tanks sent to much use. Among other things where did they get a large % of their explosives?
But also I don't think the western allies had much chance of defeating the Axis without the USSR's involvement.
 
syscom3 said:
After Summer 1943, it was essentially an American show in the Pacific.
Click to expand...
not to knock the effort but it was more of a side show after summer 43 then the main event in Europe, there is not one item of kit that was better in Japanese inventory then what US had, the same could not be said in Europe
 

Exactly my point. That's why I said that casualities were not everything.

If the Western Allies could not defeat the Germans as well, what is the problem with this? It hurts say the victory was a joint effort?

I don't want polemic here, just present what I belive it's an impartial view of the war.
 
As I already said that agree above, there's no doubt the Soviets that drew more blood from the German Army (Army specifically, because the air force is just as important, a strong LW could have avoided the massive casualities in Stalingrad for example).

My perception is that today we are just saying that Stalingrad, not D-Day, was the decisive momment of WWII, and that the Soviets practically single-handed won the war. This is just trade one misconception for other.

I proposed in the Eastern Front Wikipedia (my posts in italic, answers in bold):

I'd like to express my view about this information of the Eastern Front importance provided in the article:

"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."

In fact the Eastern Front was the theater that drained most blood from the Germans, but most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least.

I think the article appears to give the the idea that the Soviets would won anyway, which as I already said above, is at least questionable by most. Information about the substancial Lend Lease aid is provided (something of constant debate), but fells in contradiction with the other information I quoted.

My suggestion would be change it to or something like: "The Eastern Front was the most important direct theater of operations for the defeat of Germany".

What are your opinions about this?

Are we addressing the wrong problem here? If most historians agree that the USSR would most likely not have won alone, then we should simply make sure to say so clearly (suitably referenced), not tweak the wording of the lead to alter what ideas the reader might or might not take away from the article as a whole. And in fact, maybe we already do say so, later in the article?
I have a suspicion that the half-sentence that concerns you is likely to have been discussed here in considerable detail in the past, so I don't know if some of those discussions should be taken into account too.
Either way, if the change you suggest is implemented, I would say it definitely doesn't need the word "direct", since that implies something that doesn't seem to be the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, I didn't thought when created this topic. This is an encyclopedia after all. We need to provide te people with information about the facts, not tweak their views about alternative history, right?

The statement "But most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least." is not correct. For instance, such a reputable scholar as David Glantz believes that the victory was possible, although it would be more costly. The reason for that was simple: the USSR won the most decisive battles, the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, virtually alone, because no considerable military of economic aid from the West had been provided by that moment. After Stalingrad, it was impossible for Germany to win (just to make separate peace with the USSR)

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stoped the discussion with those guys, because they simply didn't accepted it. Those are the same kind of people that like to criticize those who call the Soviets "Russians", but are hypocrite enough to desconsiderate the participation from the Western Allies in WWII.

Claim that WWII was won by the Soviets today is the "politically correct" in history. Of course that inside the history circle we can talk that the Soviets did most of the hard work, as we know that hard work alone is not everything. The problem is that information for the general public must not be presented in other form. Otherwise, as is already fact, we are having students learning simplistic things like: "the Soviets killed 8 of each 10 Germans, they won the war, it was all Cold War BS!". The mention about the Soviets being more responsible "directly" for the German defeat is a good way in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
As I already said that agree above, there's no doubt the Soviets that drew more blood from the German Army (Army specifically, because the air force is just as important, as a strong LW could have avoided the massive casualities in Stalingrad for example).

My perception is that today, we are just saying that Stalingrad, not D-Day, was the decisive momment of WWII, and that the Soviets practically single-handed won the war. This is just trade one misconception for other.

I proposed in the Eastern Front Wikipedia, here were the answers (my posts in italic, answers in bold):

I'd like to express my view about this information of the Eastern Front importance provided in the article:

"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."

In fact the Eastern Front was the theater that drained most blood from the Germans, but most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least.

I think the article appears to give the the idea that the Soviets would won anyway, which as I already said above, is at least questionable by most. Information about the substancial Lend Lease aid is provided (something of constant debate), but fells in contradiction with the other information I quoted.

My suggestion would be change it to or something like: "The Eastern Front was the most important direct theater of operations for the defeat of Germany".

What are your opinions about this?

Are we addressing the wrong problem here? If most historians agree that the USSR would most likely not have won alone, then we should simply make sure to say so clearly (suitably referenced), not tweak the wording of the lead to alter what ideas the reader might or might not take away from the article as a whole. And in fact, maybe we already do say so, later in the article?
I have a suspicion that the half-sentence that concerns you is likely to have been discussed here in considerable detail in the past, so I don't know if some of those discussions should be taken into account too.
Either way, if the change you suggest is implemented, I would say it definitely doesn't need the word "direct", since that implies something that doesn't seem to be the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, I didn't thought when created this topic. This is an encyclopedia after all. We need to provide te people with information about the facts, not tweak their views about alternative history, right?

The statement "But most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least." is not correct. For instance, such a reputable scholar as David Glantz believes that the victory was possible, although it would be more costly. The reason for that was simple: the USSR won the most decisive battles, the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, virtually alone, because no considerable military of economic aid from the West had been provided by that moment. After Stalingrad, it was impossible for Germany to win (just to make separate peace with the USSR)

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stoped the discussion in that article. because they simply didn't accepted it. Those were the same kind of PhD people that like to criticize those who call the Soviets "Russians", but are hypocrite enough to desconsiderate the participation from the Western Allies.

Claim that WWII was won by the Soviets today, is the "politically correct" in history. Of course that inside the history circle we can talk that the Soviets did most of the hard work. The problem is that information for the general public must be presented in other form. The mention about the Soviets being more responsible "directly" for the German defeat is a good way in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
As I already said that agree above, there's no doubt the Soviets that drew more blood from the German Army (Army specifically, because the air force is just as important, a strong LW could have avoided the massive casualities in Stalingrad for example).

My perception is that today, we are just saying that Stalingrad, not D-Day, was the decisive momment of WWII, and that the Soviets practically single-handed won the war. This is trade one misconception for other.

I proposed in the Eastern Front Wikipedia, here were the answers:

I'd like to express my view about this information of the Eastern Front importance provided in the article:

"The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat."

In fact the Eastern Front was the theater that drained most blood from the Germans, but most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least.

I think the article appears to give the the idea that the Soviets would won anyway, which as I already said above, is at least questionable by most. Information about the substancial Lend Lease aid is provided (something of constant debate), but fells in contradiction with the other information I quoted.

My suggestion would be change it to or something like: "The Eastern Front was the most important direct theater of operations for the defeat of Germany".

What are your opinions about this?

Are we addressing the wrong problem here? If most historians agree that the USSR would most likely not have won alone, then we should simply make sure to say so clearly (suitably referenced), not tweak the wording of the lead to alter what ideas the reader might or might not take away from the article as a whole. And in fact, maybe we already do say so, later in the article?
I have a suspicion that the half-sentence that concerns you is likely to have been discussed here in considerable detail in the past, so I don't know if some of those discussions should be taken into account too.
Either way, if the change you suggest is implemented, I would say it definitely doesn't need the word "direct", since that implies something that doesn't seem to be the case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, I didn't thought when created this topic. This is an encyclopedia after all. We need to provide te people with information about the facts, not tweak their views about alternative history, right?

The statement "But most historians agreed that if it had fought alone, the USSR victory would be questionable at least." is not correct. For instance, such a reputable scholar as David Glantz believes that the victory was possible, although it would be more costly. The reason for that was simple: the USSR won the most decisive battles, the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, virtually alone, because no considerable military of economic aid from the West had been provided by that moment. After Stalingrad, it was impossible for Germany to win (just to make separate peace with the USSR)

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stoped the discussion in that article, because they simply didn't accepted it. Those are the same kind of people that like to criticize those who call the Soviets "Russians", but are hypocrite enough to desconsiderate the participation from the Western Allies in WWII.

Claim that WWII was won by the Soviets today, is the "politically correct" in history. Of course that inside the history circle we can talk that the Soviets did most of the hard work, the problem is that information for the general public must be presented in other form. The mention about the Soviets being more responsible "directly" for the German defeat is a good way in my opinion. Or, more simple, the many teachers with Marxist tendencies must moderate their views to the students. Unfornately, the damage is already happening, because more and more people with a simplistic view like "the Soviets killed 8 from each 10 Germans soldiers, they won the war, the D-Day stuff was all Cold War BS!".
 
Last edited:
@ tyrodtom:

".... At 8.8 to 10.7 million Soviet military deaths, more than ALL the other allies combined, it's hard to belittle the USSR's contribution.

Matter of fact if you take the higher figure of 10.7 million, it comes close to more deaths than all other combatants combined, axis and allied."

Just for perspective .... on Soviet body counts:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIhixcUEq50!

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Season’s Greetings from Air War Publications.
Replies
0
Views
202
Snautzer01
85 years ago today, Sept 1 1939, the second world war began.
Replies
1
Views
467
MIflyer
M
From WW2 Bachem's Ba 349 Natter (Viper), to the cold war
Replies
1
Views
531
Gnomey
The Rise and Fall of the Nazi War Machine
Replies
5
Views
1K
pbehn
P
A
Long term viability of the USA's warship museum ships?
Replies
13
Views
1K
GreenKnight121
Menu
Log in
Register