Who really won World War II?

1. 58

   sannyasinmanposted 9 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

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 9 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.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
2. 75

   MG Singhposted 9 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.

   replyreport
3. 58

   sannyasinmanposted 9 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

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Zelkiiroposted 9 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.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 9 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.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Silverspeederposted 9 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.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 9 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.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  gmwilliamsposted 9 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.

                  replyreport
         2. 89

            GA Andersonposted 9 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.
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 89

         GA Andersonposted 9 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.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 9 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.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 58

         sannyasinmanposted 9 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?

         replyreport
         1. 88

            Zelkiiroposted 9 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.

            replyreport
         2. 89

            GA Andersonposted 9 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.
            
            GA

            replyreport