Who won WWII?

[Kadagar_AV]

You are underestimating the importance of Great Britain's continued resistance to Soviet success. However marginal in total numbers when compared to the Eastern Front, the Med did draw resources, talent, and -- most importantly -- focus away from the East. Moreover, the resources expended on the War at Sea would have been re-channeled; Germany's parachutists could have been used as originally hoped to secure an airhead in some key locale during Barbarossa, etc.

To say the CCCP did the Lion's share is nothing more than fact, but don't go too far the other direction too quickly.

I try to make sense of the bolded part... Did you brain lapse? It's not an insult BTW, I do it all the time.. If not, please inform me what you meant :)

Might be my english, but I read it as GB resisted Soviet... Obviously not what you meant...

EDIT: Ah... Sorry, I am being stupid here... You meant that GB holding out lead to Soviet success, due to Hitler being occupied elsewhere...

So as response to THAT: Extremely little German attention was paid towards the west front in the important stage of the war, at the turn-over point. This was well before the US was even a factor. Germany knew GB was in no position for offensive warfare, so it really had little to do with the turning point of the war. IMHO.

You can claim all you want, but the fact is that the Germans were still capable of fighting Russia until after Kursk. Even Stalingrad was not the deth-knell. It was Kursk. In 1943. Where's Panzerjaeger at? He's got all these numbers memorized, he'll set you straight. In the mean-time, meditate on the fact that if Sweden hadn't supplied Germany with all that top-notch iron, a lot less Ruskies would have been killed.

I would also like to hear PJ's view on this. He's probably the only one I would rate above me in WW2 knowledge around here. I have 120 university points on history, mind you.

I stand by US involvement sped up the process. I don't think it changed the end outcome though.