Who really won World War II?

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (16 posts)
  1. sannyasinman profile image61
    sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago

    The world is commemorating the "Allies" victory and the famous Normandy Landing and World War II: The Lies Grow More Audacious . . .

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-norman … us/5386028

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It wasn't Germany.  It wasn't Japan.  I don't believe anyone would claim that Italy won the war. 

      That doesn't leave much, does, it...outside of the allies anyway.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image95
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        But maaannnn, don't you see, maaaaaaannnnnn? The World Owners just want you to think that, maaaaaaaaaaaannnnnn!

  2. MG Singh profile image44
    MG Singhposted 4 years ago

    Frankly it was a Phyrric victory. The British and French emplres collapsed within 5 years of end of WW II, never to rise again and reducing these nations to 3rd rate powers.

  3. sannyasinman profile image61
    sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago

    If you read the article, written by  Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, it says that Russia and the red army had already defeated and demoralised the German army of over 3 million men  BEFORE the allies landed in Normandy.

    This fact has been conveniently forgotten in favour of glorifying in text books and many films the British and Americans.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-norman … us/5386028

    1. Zelkiiro profile image95
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I wouldn't say they were defeated before Normandy, but yes--with us or without us, the Russians would have stomped Germany into a splattered mess of red rubbery meat.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        The Russians not only would have stomped Germany, they DID stomp.

        But long supply lines and a scorched earth policy had a lot to do with it.  Had Russia tried to attack Germany without allies, the result may have been far different.  It is easy enough to have an opinion as to what would have happened had things been different, it is MUCH more difficult to know what would have happened.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I also believe the Russians had huge amounts of supplies delivered from the western powers and that the US won the war in the Pacific and I don't seem to remember any Russians fighting in north Africa.
          I think all the allies had a part to play in the  defeat of the Axis powers.

          1. GA Anderson profile image79
            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            At last. Someone that looked deeper than a few web articles. Glad to find a little support for my previous admonishments to the other posters.

            Thanks for the unintended witness.


            1. gmwilliams profile image82
              gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              If anyone wants to delve into World War II, there are many books and programs which discuss the Allied involvement in detail.  Steven Ambrose has written many books on the subject.  For the Russian side of World War II, there is Barbarossa, The Russian-German Conflict 1941-45 by Alan Clark,  BBC The War of the Century(DVD), BBC Series The World At War(DVD set), and other books on the Russo-German conflict too numerous to mention.  Agreed that Russia during World War II  received aid from the West. 

              Yes, Russia defeated the German Army in the East while the English, Americans, Canadians, and French armies defeated the German Army in the West.   All in all, the Allies WON World War II-each Allied country had a part to play in defeating the Germany Army under Adolf Hitler.  BTW, my father was in Sicily during World War II, part of a Black battalion.

        2. GA Anderson profile image79
          GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          You are on the right track. It was the all-important "supply" lines that made the difference. And without the U.S.'s materiel support in extending and supplying the materiel for those supply lines - Russia would not have "stomped" Germany. As a matter of fact, they were fighting to the death to defend Moscow until the U.S. gave them the support they needed to push forward to Berlin.

          Geesh... These folks read a few web pages and think they know the "real" story. Britain wasn't the only Ally that benefited from U.S.-made war materials.

          ps... been away a few days, but it's martini time again. I'm lovin' it.

      2. GA Anderson profile image79
        GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        oops.. hmmm... what is that buzzer sound for a wrong answer? 

        See my response to sannyasinman for your next step in revising this incorrect opinion. You are so wrong.

        The Red Army was ready to drown the Germans in Russian bodies - but they did not have the war materiel to do it without the U.S.'s involvement. I am too lazy to go back to the books and pinpoint the year, maybe 1943, but Stalin's "all-in" to-the-last-man commitment would have gotten no further than the defense of Moscow without the U.S.'s  supply of war materials that allowed them to push the front all the way to Berlin.


    2. GA Anderson profile image79
      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It looks like you would benefit from a little in-depth reading of the history of WWII and the U.S. assistance to Russia, (the Soviet Union), instead of just bouncing around with web links that suit your perspective.

      It's like Mark Ewbie's stickman version of the "Somebody is wrong on the internet" cartoon. Your links and opinion I mean.

      "...defeated and demoralised..." Come on, do a little research. You could not be more wrong. Try to find out who's trucks, logistical, and materiel support it was that allowed the Red Army to march to Berlin. Try to find the real story of the near defeat of the Red army due to their lack of logistical materiel - then get back to us.

      I will try to point you in the right direction... try any of Stephen Ambrose's WWII books, or any of these WWII history books - unless of course you think every author that doesn't agree with your perspective is a revisionist author.


      1. sannyasinman profile image61
        sannyasinmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        The author of the article Dr. Paul Craig Roberts states . . .

        " . . . The Germans lost World War II at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought from August 23, 1942 until February 2, 1943, when most of the remnants of the powerful German Sixth Army surrendered, including 22 generals. 

        Nineteen months previously the largest invasion force ever assembled on planet earth invaded Russia across a one thousand mile front. Three million crack German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months.

        By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up.  When the so-called “allies” (a term which apparently excludes Russia) landed in France, there was little to resist them.  The best forces remaining to Hitler were on the Russian front, which collapsed day by day as the Red Army approached Berlin.

        The Red Army won the war with Germany. The Americans and the British showed up after the Wehrmacht was exhausted and in tatters and could offer little resistance. Joseph Stalin believed that Washington and London stayed out of the war until the last minute and left Russia with the burden of defeating Germany".

        Do you dispute this?

        1. Zelkiiro profile image95
          Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Ehhh, Stalin almost has a point, but Britain/France had their hands full in North Africa and the U.S., of course, was balls-deep in Japan, so it's not like they were intentionally leaving Russia to do all the work.

        2. GA Anderson profile image79
          GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          What I dispute is the slant and the omission.

          The omission is my original point. Without the logistical materiel support provided by the U.S., the battle of Stalingrad could/would have turned out much differently. The Red Army did not even have enough trucks to transport their troops to meet the Germans.

          My memory was a little hazy when I mentioned 1943 as the crucial year of our support, but by Dr. Robert's timeline I wasn't too far off. I don't have the tine or desire to do the research again to confirm my recollections, so relying on memory once again, I don't recall all of the items we supplied, but I seem to recall that, beyond mechanical and weaponry  materiel, we even supplied boots.

          I don't dispute the huge national effort and human sacrifice Russia exerted and suffered. Nor do I demean their victory, but your Dr. Roberts paints a picture that completely ignores the importance of the Allied contribution to the Red Army's success.

          But then again, maybe he knows the real truth, and belittles the importance of the Allied effort and the D-Day invasion because the rest of the world is wrong. Must be a lonely guy.

          Like the discredited dead babies story, it looks like, once again, you have found a web article that suits your perspectives.



This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)