Who won WWII?

[Pannonian]

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.

The North African theatre was materially useful to the Allies mainly because Rommel caused it to be so. Had he kept to OKW's instructions instead of trying to build his own little empire, the Axis could have made the Allied morale booster that that theatre was in practice, far more cost ineffective for the Allies than they were in the OTL (and even the OTL Allies wasted a lot of resources there).

[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.

The North African theatre was materially useful to the Allies mainly because Rommel caused it to be so. Had he kept to OKW's instructions instead of trying to build his own little empire, the Axis could have made the Allied morale booster that that theatre was in practice, far more cost ineffective for the Allies than they were in the OTL (and even the OTL Allies wasted a lot of resources there).

OTL? OKW?

Remember this is an international board... I have absolutely no idea what you actually mean

[Kadagar_AV]

Deifne outcome. Did it change whether or not Germany lost the war? Probably (almost certainly) not. Did it change HOW Germany lost the war? Did it shape Europe? Did it shape the world for 60 years afterwards? These are all things directly connected to US involvement, and the nature of US involvement, and all of it for the better compared to how it would have been. Whether you like it or not.

All your "120 points" convinces me of is that a free educational system must have downsides in quality after all.

The bolded part is my point. As it leads directly to "Who won the war", as is the topic.

I never argued US involvement didn't change the outcome of the outcome so to say... But my 120 points say Russia was the real war winner, again, as in the question made in this thread, as topic.

Of course US involvement very much directed the shape of Europe, I never argued against that.

That has, however, nothing to do with OP, "who won WW2 (for the allies)"?

[Kadagar_AV]

I (and the frenchmen living through that war, as OP states) am saying the turning point of the war happened before the US joined.

I think my uni points are still legit unless you can reasonably argue that bit of information wrong.

So... Game On

[Kadagar_AV]

What you're saying is true. Its also laughably incomplete in any academic analysis of Germany's defeat. Your uni points don't even matter except that you keep bringing them up, since calling your argument academic might make even your old professors weep.

I only brought my history points up once, because I was attacked as a "know nothing"... You made a point of it, and I replied.

So you are saying I am right, and then go on saying I am wrong.

Well done you.

You just might want to explain how what I write is "laughably incomplete".

[Kadagar_AV]

Ugh, this is it. I'll try one more time, then I'm not trying any more.

Germany lost the war in 1939, when it invaded Poland after the allies had made a treaty they actually intended on backing. Everything after that was a matter of "How" and "Why." Your OP served only to show that people, when asked on the street, can make a false decision about who contributed more in a war that had more moving parts than any one person can comprehend--certainly at the time, as in 1945! Germany defeated Germany, Russia lost the most men, and the US was by far the most effective force. Any one of those sentences I just typed has more merit than your OP.

Let's agree to disagree, and let others have a weigh in?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Stalingrad was the turning point. It happened in the summer of 1942. The U.S. began direct military assistance to the Allies in the spring of that year.
It followed years of German expansion into the economic and agricultural core of Russia and it's sphere of influence. You take it as a given that Russia would have turned the Germans around and kept pushing forward. I believe that Hitler would have been able to more heavily fortify the East if he didn't have to worry about an impending massive invasion on the Western Front from the U.S. Most likely the Russians would have turned the Germans back into Poland/Belarus/Ukraine/Romania while the Germans re-grouped and began their renewed push, with their greater numerical and technological advantage, plus the fact that their infrastructure had not sustained a massive bombing campaign as the Soviets had.

People call the Battle of Gettysburg the turning point of the American Civil War. It happened after years of successful Southern defense in response to Northern incursion. When the South first made an incursion into the North, they were crushed and routed for the remainder of the war.

Germany was still a spring chicken in 1942, still on the offence and with the logistical boost from a claimed North Africa would have re-grouped and reorganized their expansion. (absent the involvement of the US.)

My money, absent either Soviet OR American opposition is a win for the Axis.

[Sarmatian]

[QUOTE=Gelatinous Cube;2053600353 Germany defeated Germany, Russia lost the most men, and the US was by far the most effective force[/QUOTE]

Oh, boy. Where to start, where to start...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-%28what-if%29

[Greyblades]

The Soviets broke the Germans, the Americans broke the Japanese and the British kept fighting the good fight while the other two were debating whether or not they should let the nazis win. Anything beyond that is just nitpicking IMO.

[Sarmatian]

Kill ratio is what I meant. More broadly I meant (and continue to mean) the total effect that the US had on creating an outcome. The Soviets lost all those people, only to find themselves on the shorter end of the deal--because we were more effective.

There were geopolitical factors to consider as well.

If we're talking about effort compared to gain, USA's the winner by a mile.

If we're talking about just effort, USSR comes ahead on all counts.