Who won WWII?

[Kadagar_AV]

Who won WW2?

No silly, it's not about weather the Axis or Allies won... It's about what nation won the war FOR the Allies...

This is what French people thought 1945:
Soviet Union: 57%
United States: 20%
Great Britain: 12%

This is what French people thought 2004:
Soviet Union: 20%
United States: 58%
Great Britain: 16%

US propaganda seem to work, no?

[Kadagar_AV]

Well from an economic and geopolitical standpoint, the USA won. That's pretty much concrete. The USSR sent more young men to die, and was in a much more intense theatre of the war, but in terms of coming out with an advantage? Eh, not really. Not compared to us.

IMHO, Soviet Union would have won the war even without the US...

The US only got in on the action when the war was already decided, and it was about who got what piece...

[Kadagar_AV]

That's a load of uneducated garbage. The US got in on the action when Pearl Harbor got bombed. Had Hitler not declared war, there's a possibility we actually never would have invaded Europe. Once we did get in, why shouldn't we have looked out for our own interests? Soviet Russia was only a little better than Nazi germany, and letting them bleed each other was probably the right idea.

That said, I don't think you understand the economic and logistical support that the US gave. Or you simply discount it. Without US Aid and British intelligence, there never would have been a Soviet counter-attack in 1942 (the same year we were turning the tide in the pacific, mind you! We fought two wars at once, but Europeans always like to discount the Japanese in a backhanded sort of modern racist way). There certainly wouldn't later have been a decisive Battle of Kursk in conditions the Soviets were 100% prepared for.

*When talking about who "Won" ww2, in terms of who fought the hardest, any answer that doesn't mention how much more the USSR bled than everybody else is quite wrong. But any answer that doesn't include the Arsenal of Democracy is also wrong.

Well... Before the US got engaged:

1. Italy surrendered in Africa...
2. Germany had launched it's attack on Moscow, got repelled, and Soviet Union had started to push back...

I think Germany war more or less spent by the time USA got in on the action, logistics aside.

As to US logistics helping Britain, sure thing!! But is it worth more than Soviet Union being the force who stopped, repelled, and pushed back against the German war machine? Debatable, to say the least.

Also, I think people in 1945 had a better grasp, wouldnt you say? Eventhough it was British, Canadian and US troops who did D-day and liberated them, they still opted for Soviet Union as the war winner... Must be a reason for it, no?

[Pannonian]

Well from an economic and geopolitical standpoint, the USA won. That's pretty much concrete. The USSR sent more young men to die, and was in a much more intense theatre of the war, but in terms of coming out with an advantage? Eh, not really. Not compared to us.

The Russians got their buffer, which they rightly considered essential given recent history (4 invasions in just over 20 years). The US won in every conceivable way. The Brits were the big losers in portioning out the spoils. The Russians lost out in WW1 due to not being there at the end, but I don't think any other major victor has lost more despite remaining standing at the end of a war. Maybe the Chinese Nationalists in WW2, but they were kicked out by their own people a few years later, and in any case, the worth of their contribution was highly dubious (eg. the US eventually decided supporting the Chinese effort was a waste of resources which would be better used by themselves).

[Sarmatian]

That's a load of uneducated garbage. The US got in on the action when Pearl Harbor got bombed. Had Hitler not declared war, there's a possibility we actually never would have invaded Europe. Once we did get in, why shouldn't we have looked out for our own interests? Soviet Russia was only a little better than Nazi germany, and letting them bleed each other was probably the right idea.

That said, I don't think you understand the economic and logistical support that the US gave. Or you simply discount it. Without US Aid and British intelligence, there never would have been a Soviet counter-attack in 1942 (the same year we were turning the tide in the pacific, mind you! We fought two wars at once, but Europeans always like to discount the Japanese in a backhanded sort of modern racist way). There certainly wouldn't later have been a decisive Battle of Kursk in conditions the Soviets were 100% prepared for.

*When talking about who "Won" ww2, in terms of who fought the hardest, any answer that doesn't mention how much more the USSR bled than everybody else is quite wrong. But any answer that doesn't include the Arsenal of Democracy is also wrong.

In reality, Japan was never a threat to United States. The war only lasted as long as it did because USA wasn't prepared as it could have been and, more importantly, because USA adopted a "Europe first" strategy. Japan was a speed bump, their military capabilities vastly exaggerated in popular culture.

On the whole, though, it was USSR, not even a contest.

[Montmorency]

If this is about who contributed the most of Nazi Germany's defeat:

The US allowed the USSR to win the war. Without the US support, there would have been stalemate (and then wary ceasefire) in Eurasia into the 1950s.

If this is about who got off best in the war:

Very obviously the US - no contest. Russia has likely been permanently crippled by that war, while the US has won a good century of prosperity and global pre-eminence from it.

[Sarmatian]

Ah, you know better than this dude. You really, really do know better than this. You're being revisionist out of your never-ending supply of anti-American sentiment. In 1945 almost every newspaper in every European country was censored by the government. They didn't know better than anybody. I already acknowledged the USSR's loss of life, and their crushing offensives that were vital to ending Germany--but they never would have happened had the British not told the Russians exactly what Germany was doing from early 1942-onward.

I'd like to read more about that. Allies shared intelligence, but I never heard about Soviets being dependent on intelligence from UK or USA.

Kursk was a manufactured engagement that broke what was left of the Nazi's ability to strike offensively into the USSR, and it was manufactured by British intelligence, Soviet troops, and US Lend-lease (although admittedly the Russians needed our lend-lease less than the British, they still used massive, massive quantities). In Africa, the Italians might have been beaten before 1942, but the Germans were there in force until crushed in Operation Torch--an invasion that never would have happened without the US.

Entire lend-lease amounted to no more than 4% of the Soviet war production. Most of that got after 1943, and a good portion was unusable equipment (Stuarts and Lees)

Uh, what? The largest battles between the largest forces in Naval history were a speed bump? A nation that had to be nuked to avoid a campaign as bloody as the eastern front was a speed bump? This is what I mean when I say Europeans are a little racist. They assume anything outside Europe is a speed bump. Look at what the Japanese did to the British, on land and at sea. They were no speed bump.

Largest battles because they saw entire Japanese navy (the part that wasn't totally obsolete by then) concentrated in one place.

You're seriously not trying to tell my Japan could threaten USA. Their navy was overextended before Pearl Harbor. As soon as it was clear that Pearl Harbor wasn't a Tsuhima 2.0, it was all over. The difference between military capabilities of USA and Japan was immense.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's a load of uneducated garbage. The US got in on the action when Pearl Harbor got bombed. Had Hitler not declared war, there's a possibility we actually never would have invaded Europe. Once we did get in, why shouldn't we have looked out for our own interests? Soviet Russia was only a little better than Nazi germany, and letting them bleed each other was probably the right idea.

That said, I don't think you understand the economic and logistical support that the US gave. Or you simply discount it. Without US Aid and British intelligence, there never would have been a Soviet counter-attack in 1942 (the same year we were turning the tide in the pacific, mind you! We fought two wars at once, but Europeans always like to discount the Japanese in a backhanded sort of modern racist way). There certainly wouldn't later have been a decisive Battle of Kursk in conditions the Soviets were 100% prepared for.

*When talking about who "Won" ww2, in terms of who fought the hardest, any answer that doesn't mention how much more the USSR bled than everybody else is quite wrong. But any answer that doesn't include the Arsenal of Democracy is also wrong.

More facts, and less "uneducated garbage" or "Kad hates the US" please...

[Montmorency]

Entire lend-lease amounted to no more than 4% of the Soviet war production.

Off by an order of magnitude.

[Husar]

Germany won that war.
The only reason the US and allies managed to land in Normandy and advance further than France was that we had 80-90% of our troops on the Eastern Front trying to slow down the USSR. Had we seriously tried to keep the Americans out and let the Soviets in instead, the situation after the war would have looked quite different. By letting both parties take a chunk we also managed to get guns, tanks and loads of investments after the war for serving as a speed bump to whoever would attack first. Knowing of course that neithe rparty wanted to attack, we played the fools and got our late revenge.

And regarding the lend-lease debate: http://www.strategic-culture.org/new...verstated.html

It has to be taken into account that quantities never reflect the whole picture. For example, timing is also a significant parameter, and, notably, the volumes of the US, British, and Canadian aid peaked in the summer of 1943 – the fall of 1945, that is, after it became clear that the Soviet Union was prevailing. This should explain why, watching the footage dating back to the pivotal Battle of Stalingrad or the battle over the coal-rich Donbass, you will not spot the Studebaker trucks, the Dodge and Willys army jeeps, the General Grant and Valentine tanks, the Airacobra and Spitfire aircrafts, etc.

So basically the lend-lease was just piling up stuff after it became clear that the USSR was going to win anyway.

Lend-Lease was surely of serious help, but currently, in connection with the 70th anniversary of the opening of the program, its contribution to the victory over Nazis is being routinely overstated. In my view, Lend-Lease deserves a monument, but of modest proportions compared to the monument to the Soviet soldiers who brought liberation from fascism to the world.

[Sp4]

The US. It's also a good thing they were around after it was over.

[Husar]

Added some lend-lease stuff to post #13 in case any of you want to read up on why you are wrong.

As for the ships I agree though, in fact I would say Japanese and US ships were superior to pretty much anything seen in the European theatre. The tonnage, gun calibers and other stuff were simply not being used by European powers IIRC.

[Kadagar_AV]

They were never that outdated, we just out-produced them. Japan's Battleships were on par with the best British ships of the time, and their Army was more than capable by western standards. Remember, by 1941 the Japanese had been at war in China for years, and seen a lot of success. Now, the fact that we could outproduce them did mean they were never really a threat to America, but neither was Nazi Germany for that matter. Germany never even stood a real chance of invading the UK. From 1941-1945 the japanese put up a better fight against us than most nations have ever put up against anyone, in all their history. In terms of aircraft and carriers, the Japanese had an edge on us at the beginning of the war. It was only pilot attrition and manufacturing disparities that led to our eventually neutralizing them--they weren't obsolete, or incapable.

The Japaneese force was a "hit or miss" thing... They had capacity for exactly one "drive by" if you so want, then they were exhausted.

It's like having two boxers, and saying they are on par because they are equally strong with their first punch, when one side only have that first punch... It was about winning on K.O. punch one, or lose. Basically.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This gets argued in the monastery with some regularity.

Absent the USA, but with the UK and Lend Lease via the UK -- CCCP win.

Absent the USA, but with the UK, but with limited or no lend lease -- CCCP win, but after 1-3 years more bloodshed.

Absent the USA and with Britain taking terms in 1940 -- likely Nazi win.

The CCCP was, without a doubt, the biggest part of the victory in Europe. Very few scenarios depict a German victory -- and absent atomics NO such scenarios exist after 1943 -- because Stalin's will to win was greater then the Nazis. Had victory required the deaths of 5 in 8 Soviets instead of the 1 in 8 lost, Stalin would have paid the cost -- and stayed ahead of the counter coups trying to supplant him. The Nazis were evil, but not quite that tenacious.

With no western allies, one-on-one, German tactical doctrine and combat leadership might, but only might, have beaten the USSR in the first couple of years.

[Kadagar_AV]

Those are all facts, in fact most of it is common knowledge. I'm not responsible for your ignorance, but I'm happy to point it out.

I know you are more than capable to rise above such argumentation, though. So why don't you?

[Sarmatian]

The enigma machine? I know you've heard of this, even if it was in passing. The British cracked it and thanks to their intel-sharing the Russians were able to prepare the largest and most effective defensive entrenchments in the history of warfare, and blunt the Nazis' attack in the largest battle of in the history of warfare--Kursk.

I've never heard that British and/or American intelligence info was the crucial factor in any of those instances, sorry. I'd like to read more about it, if you have some links.

This was in mid-1943, and by this point the USSR was using more US equipment than the rest of the allies combined. 4% of the USSR's equipment usage is a hell of a lot. The most effective thing we gave them were helmets and trucks, which we gave in oodles and bunches. Not to mention nuts, bolts, and machined parts. Thanks to lend-lease, the USSR's logistical train was more motorized than Germany's by 1943.

Soviet Unions produced more trucks in 1941 than 1943 (1941>1942>1943...). The reason they did was because they were getting them from the Americans, and, unlike some other equipment (tanks, planes), they worked perfectly and they could be used immediately.

Unfortunately, the industrial capacity that was freed couldn't be used effectively. Medium and heavy tanks couldn't be produced in factories producing trucks, so they were mostly producing light tanks, that were by that time obsolete even for scouting and were mostly used by the Soviets and the Germans for towing artillery.

They were never that outdated, we just out-produced them. Japan's Battleships were on par with the best British ships of the time, and their Army was more than capable by western standards. Remember, by 1941 the Japanese had been at war in China for years, and seen a lot of success. Now, the fact that we could outproduce them did mean they were never really a threat to America, but neither was Nazi Germany for that matter. Germany never even stood a real chance of invading the UK.

They were trounced by the Soviets several times during the period. The only place where Japanese army excelled was fighting British and Dutch colonial troops.

In truth, they could have had 120 Pearl Harbors and still they couldn't have won.

From 1941-1945 the japanese put up a better fight against us than most nations have ever put up against anyone, in all their history. In terms of aircraft and carriers, the Japanese had an edge on us at the beginning of the war. It was only pilot attrition and manufacturing disparities that led to our eventually neutralizing them--they weren't obsolete, or incapable.

Navy was certainly in better shape than the army, but the simple fact remains that even if Japan sunk every single American ship, they still wouldn't have had the means to threaten mainland USA in any way, shape or form.

It's like having two boxers, and saying they are on par because they are equally strong with their first punch, when one side only have that first punch... It was about winning on K.O. punch one, or lose. Basically.

Even that is not a valid comparison. It's like two boxers, where one has a chance for a first punch, but he can't deliver K.O. by any stretch of the imagination and must hope that the other will retire because he doesn't like bruises.

[Kadagar_AV]

Like i said, lend-lease was less important than Russian blood in settling the eastern front, but it did help. Also, just because US Aid came later in the war doesn't invalidate it. If we look to the years immediately following the war, it becomes immensely clear just how much the USA won. The Marshall plan and all. That said, I'll be the first to admit that nothing in the history of land-warfare comes close to the soviet contributions against Nazi germany. Not remotely.

The Pacific War, IMO, is under-studied even in America. The Japanese were no push-overs.

As to the bolded part.. No, the late help doesn't invalidate it... It does however play in when it comes to discussing if the war was won by it or not.

I claim the war shifted when Soviet Union had already repelled the German assault, and was now pushing back towards Berlin. This was before the US joined. British intelligence contributed, sure. Help with materiel as well (although less so).


US biggest contribution was keeping Great Britain floating, it had little to do with the east front.

Bomb attacks vs Germany of course helped, but again, they were primarily a big factor when the war had already shifted.

Soviet Union, IMHO, thus "won" the war for the allies.

[Sarmatian]

snip

Even though I don't agree fully, I admire your ability and patience to approach each topic in an impartial and logical way.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...US biggest contribution was keeping Great Britain floating, it had little to do with the east front....

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Sarmatian

Thank you sir, I do try.

[Sarmatian]

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 actually fits the very definition of what Kad claim America did in Ww2. It was a massive offensive with fresh, well-equipped troops into a secondary theater at the very end of the war, right before the nukes were dropped and well after the Japanese command structure had written off Manchuria except as a way to bide time.

Pretty much, yes. Khalkin Gol and Lake Khasan weren't though, even though they were much smaller in scope.

Without Europe, USA could have finished off Japan much sooner.

Here's some information on British code-breaking and Kursk, Sarmation. Link

The thing is, it's really hard to believe it. Kursk was a no-brainer, being a salient and obvious point of attack. Everyone knew what's going to happen and everyone knew everyone knew.

Germans had no illusions that they will achieve a surprise. They hoped new Panthers and Tigers would provide necessary firepower to break through Soviet defences.

I'm willing to put more money that a journalists with little overall understanding found some data that show that British supplied some info to Soviets about German plans before battle, and presented it as "crucial" info.

In truth, before the Operation Citadel was even given the go ahead, the Soviets anticipated a probable attack in that area and very building defences. In May in Munich, Von Manstein and some other senior German officers were advising against attacking Kursk precisely because of the aerial photographs that showed elaborate defensive layers prepared by the Soviets. Even in March and April, Soviet defences were already 8 layers deep in the anticipated directions of German attack, and the decision to attack wasn't made by the Germans until May.

So, unless British intelligence knew German plans before the Germans, that article is full of hogwash.

[Sarmatian]

Did you read the Article? Its a brief one, but its summarizing hundreds of actual academic papers written on the subject. Its quite beyond reproach, actually, the notion that "Ultra" intel was essential to the war effort for all sides. The US cracked Japanese codes in a similar fashion in 1942, and that's also one of the main reasons the war was so one-sided from then on. Whether you find it hard to believe or not doesn't factor into it.

To the war effort as whole? Yes, probably.

To Kursk specifically? Not really, no.

Intelligence shared among the allies helped the war effort. That's so common sense it shouldn't even be said. I challenged the part where you said the intelligence provided by the British was crucial in Soviets winning the Battle of Kursk.

[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.

[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

[ICantSpellDawg]

IMHO, Soviet Union would have won the war even without the US...

The US only got in on the action when the war was already decided, and it was about who got what piece...

I doubt this. The U.S. government became involved in 1942 - the war didn't end until 1945. I wouldn't say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942. If the US had stayed out entirely, The Germans would have likely held North Africa and continued moving East in Europe with stronger staying power (as a result of its logistical boost). Additionally, as Japan would not have been involved in a Pacific War, it would have likely started pushing into Siberia as it had taken all of the Islands that it believed it could; the Soviet Union would have been further weakened in their West and forced to use some measure to fight Japan. My money would be on German and Japanese hegemony in Europe and Asia.

The Soviet union would have had a population of 180 million or so. The Axis powers had a population of 280 million and were consistently more technologically advanced and efficient.

[Kadagar_AV]

I doubt this. The U.S. government became involved in 1942 - the war didn't end until 1945.

The point is that the war had its turning points before the US joined. Again, I don't say the US had nothing to do with winning the war, I am saying they only sped up a process that was bound to happen regardless.

Compare these 2:

A) Soviet Union didn't join the war.
B) United States didn't join the war.

What do you think would have the most impact? Again, the allies could have done it without the US, without Soviet and Germany focusing 100% on Britain the war would have been lost no matter how many ship convoys the US sent.

I wouldn't say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942. If the US had stayed out entirely, The Germans would have likely held North Africa and continued to East in Europe with stronger staying power (as a result of its logistical boost.

I would say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942, heck, that is my sole argument here.

By then the german forces fought a retreating war on the major and important front. As I have said, Russia hadn't just repelled the attack by then, they were pushing back.

Additionally, as Japan would not have been involved in a Pacific War, it would have likely started pushing into Siberia as it had taken all of the Islands that it believed it could and The Soviet Union would have been further weakened in their West.

Japan didn't have the logistics to seriously threaten Russia. Russia had already absolutely SMASHED Japan in a land war. On top of that, handling logistics between Japan and Moscow on soviet home turf.... It's mind boggling, to say the least.

Specially knowing the allies would reinforce and fight back.

My money would be on German and Japanese hegemony in Europe and Asia.

The US had interests in Asia... and we all know how it ends up when people attack US interests... Japan knew this. Logistically a ground war was off the map. Only thing Japan could do was build up a navy and airforce to directly attack the west, in a "one hit wonder" way.

Failing that, they were ******.

[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)"?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The point is that the war had its turning points before the US joined. Again, I don't say the US had nothing to do with winning the war, I am saying they only sped up a process that was bound to happen regardless.

Compare these 2:

A) Soviet Union didn't join the war.
B) United States didn't join the war.

What do you think would have the most impact? Again, the allies could have done it without the US, without Soviet and Germany focusing 100% on Britain the war would have been lost no matter how many ship convoys the US sent.




I would say that Germany was "on the cusp of losing" in 1942, heck, that is my sole argument here.

By then the german forces fought a retreating war on the major and important front. As I have said, Russia hadn't just repelled the attack by then, they were pushing back.




Japan didn't have the logistics to seriously threaten Russia. Russia had already absolutely SMASHED Japan in a land war. On top of that, handling logistics between Japan and Moscow on soviet home turf.... It's mind boggling, to say the least.

Specially knowing the allies would reinforce and fight back.



The US had interests in Asia... and we all know how it ends up when people attack US interests... Japan knew this. Logistically a ground war was off the map. Only thing Japan could do was build up a navy and airforce to directly attack the west, in a "one hit wonder" way.

Failing that, they were ******.

Well - your question was who won WW2. I would argue that neither side would have beaten the Axis without the other. I won't attempt to diminish the monumental role that the USSR played, but I think that they would have lost. Without the Soviet Union, the US likely wouldn't have had the guts to invade Europe.

[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