Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 42

Who lost WWII (besides Poland)?


Marek11111 9 | 816  
10 Aug 2009 /  #1
In my opinion the only country to loose in WWII was Poland
38% of country in ruins, no industrial complexes survived if they did they got shipped to Russia, Poland lost 20% of it's territory, then years of communism and prosecutions,

and the last stub by England to exclude Polish soldiers from victory parade.
What you think?
Lefty 13 | 124  
10 Aug 2009 /  #2
Everybody lost.

You can win a war no more than you can win an earthquake.
Matowy - | 295  
10 Aug 2009 /  #3
Good description.
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
10 Aug 2009 /  #4
No, it isn't. You can't win an earthquake because an earthquake is a one-sided event. Wars are two-sided or multiple-sided events.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
11 Aug 2009 /  #5
The US won, because it pumped up the economy and made America the world's super-power financially, industrially, technology wise and culturally...Most of Europe lost, Germany lost big time...Germany is still occcupied by foreugn troops, not to mention other forces...Of course, all the PEOPLE lost, except for the rich MFs.
TheOther 5 | 3,872  
11 Aug 2009 /  #6
Germany is still occcupied by foreugn troops

Which are?
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649  
11 Aug 2009 /  #7
Germany lost big time...

Wrong. Germany has the strongest economy in the EU. Also, Germany is now a united country, no longer divided into East/West and the walls around Berlin came down long ago.
frd 7 | 1,399  
11 Aug 2009 /  #8
All those countries that recieved communism as a present after ww2 lost big time..
TheOther 5 | 3,872  
11 Aug 2009 /  #9
What would've been the better choice: 45 years of German occupation or of Russian?

The USSR was the one which brought Nazi Germany down to its knees militarily, not the USA and UK. While the latter two were busy dropping bombs on civilians from the safety of their airplanes, Russian soldiers got killed by the millions. D-Day wouldn't have been possible without the sacrifice of those Russian soldiers. A fact that certain western politicians love to forget when they celebrate themselves as the "liberators of Europe".

That Stalin had other plans with the countries his troops occupied - well, some of his allies knew that beforehand, I guess.

To answer the original question: the whole world lost.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649  
11 Aug 2009 /  #10
That might be the case TheOther but remember eastern Europe didn't want the Soviet Union.

That Stalin had other plans with the countries his troops occupied - well, some of his allies knew that beforehand, I guess.

Most likely not because the cold war didn't start until all the great brains started fleeing the east moving to the west. If this hadn't have happened who knows, maybe the cold war wouldn't have happened either and we would have had a better relationship with the USSR.
frd 7 | 1,399  
11 Aug 2009 /  #11
The USSR was the one which brought Nazi Germany down to its knees militarily,

That's a relative thing, as many opinions as there are people here.

What would've been the better choice: 45 years of German occupation or of Russian?

Well I wonder why did they vote for Russia in the "Whose occupation you want?" great Polish voting?". Pretty strange thing to do. And seriously nobody wanted Soviet Union then. As somebody said earlier each country was fighting for its own reasons - the same thing was with Russia.. Russia wasn't helping anyone but itself. And grabbed a pretty nice chunk of meat because of that..
Babinich 1 | 455  
11 Aug 2009 /  #12
That Stalin had other plans with the countries his troops occupied - well, some of his allies knew that beforehand, I guess.

Most likely not because the cold war didn't start until all the great brains started fleeing the east moving to the west.

The Allies knew Stalin, once settled in countries would not leave. The Cold War started on Nov. 28, 1943. The event signaling the start? The Tehran Conference.
TheOther 5 | 3,872  
11 Aug 2009 /  #13
...but remember eastern Europe didn't want the Soviet Union.

They had no choice. IMHO, the western allies were not strong enough militarily to be faster than the Soviets in their advance.

That's a relative thing, as many opinions as there are people here.

Without Hitler attacking the USSR there would have been no D-Day; at least not in 1944.

Well I wonder why did they vote for Russia in the...

Ask yourself why the Americans sold the Russians almost half of the later GDR just to get a little piece of Berlin.
Babinich 1 | 455  
11 Aug 2009 /  #14
IMHO, the western allies were not strong enough militarily to be faster than the Soviets in their advance.

It wasn't a matter of speed; it was a matter of common sense.

The number of casualties the western allies would have experienced taking Berlin would have been egregious.
TheOther 5 | 3,872  
11 Aug 2009 /  #15
...it was a matter of common sense

I'm afraid, that's also correct. Simple and cold blooded calculation: better the Russians get slaughtered than us.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,649  
11 Aug 2009 /  #16
The Allies knew Stalin, once settled in countries would not leave. The Cold War started on Nov. 28, 1943. The event signaling the start? The Tehran Conference

I thought the cold war started right after people started to leave eastern Europe and Berlin was blockaded or that's what I read in history class in school. People were leaving the Soviet occupied parts of Europe so the Soviets started making it nearly impossible to immigrate and they walled off Berlin to keep people in.

People say the US sold out Eastern Europe but it sounds improbable based on what you are saying. Why would there be a "cold war" if it were as simple as us selling them out?

As for your comment about the Russians getting slaughtered because Americans didn't want casualties, I disagree. They were closer to the Nazis than the Americans. If the Nazis were in Mexico instead of Germany would the Soviet Union have done most the fighting? Not likely. At the time, before the jumbo jet, Europe was still a boat ride away for most.
Sasha 2 | 1,083  
11 Aug 2009 /  #17
38% of country in ruins, no industrial complexes survived if they did they got shipped to Russia, Poland lost 20% of it's territory, then years of communism and prosecutions,

Marek, so you say the USSR has never reconstructed Poland, neither helped her, right?
(that's the way how other people see your message... I can't exclude though that it was the way how you initially got this point)

The USSR was the one which brought Nazi Germany down to its knees militarily, not the USA and UK. While the latter two were busy dropping bombs on civilians from the safety of their airplanes, Russian soldiers got killed by the millions

Merci!

That's a relative thing, as many opinions as there are people here.

Actually there're only two opinions on that: right and wrong.

Simple and cold blooded calculation: better the Russians get slaughtered than us.

Fair enough. :)
Babinich 1 | 455  
11 Aug 2009 /  #18
They were closer to the Nazis than the Americans.

The war was over; the western allies were not going to trade lives for real estate.

As for the cold War; Poland was the first victim in Tehran. There was to be a shift of the Polish border to the Oder and Neisse rivers and the Curzon line

The defeated nations would be divided into occupation zones under American, British, and Soviet control.

It was accepted that the Soviets were to oversee the establishment of government in each liberated Eastern European country.

There's your start...
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
11 Aug 2009 /  #19
Losers in WW2 (in chronological order):

Ethiopia, China, Albania, Czechoslowakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxemburg, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, (Egypt, Lybia, Tunesia - draw), (USSR - draw), Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Austria, Germany, Japan.

M-G (correct me if I have forgotten one)
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
11 Aug 2009 /  #20
Marek, so you say the USSR has never reconstructed Poland, neither helped her, right?

A valid point that is not so oft-mentioned here. We may have had to be Russia's lackey for a time, but at least we got paid, and the money was badly-needed.

Of course, that did also cause other dumb moves like refusing Marshall Aid...
frd 7 | 1,399  
11 Aug 2009 /  #21
Actually there're only two opinions on that: right and wrong.

Well, some people see black and white, and some people see shades of gray. And usually the former is the wrong approach because there is no "all black" or "all white" in this world.

Without Hitler attacking the USSR there would have been no D-Day; at least not in 1944.

That wasn't up to Russians if Hitler's gonna attack them or not. And you state it like it was.
Harry  
11 Aug 2009 /  #22
and the last stub by England to exclude Polish soldiers from victory parade.

You mean the one which the Polish government didn't bother to send representatives to (despite being invited in exactly the same way as the USA) and the one which the free Polish forces didn't bother to send representatives to (despite being invited to do so and being the only 'free' forces to be invited)? You might want to learn a little about history.

Losers in WW2 (in chronological order):

Seeing as the UK was paying off debt from WWII until 2006 and lost an empire in the ten years after WWII, you can probably add them to the list too.
TheOther 5 | 3,872  
11 Aug 2009 /  #23
That wasn't up to Russians if Hitler's gonna attack them or not. And you state it like it was.

That's not what I said. You were questioning my statement "The USSR was the one which brought Nazi Germany down to its knees militarily" and implying that it could as well have been the western allies who brought down the Germans. The latter is wrong in my eyes, simply because the western allies alone were not strong enough to fight the German military machine. D-Day was only possible because Hitler attacked the USSR and opened a second front in the east.
OP Marek11111 9 | 816  
11 Aug 2009 /  #24
Sasha yes Russian communist never helped Poland they just took, why you think solidarity movment happened why in Poland was rations on food where the food was exported to Russia what about the ship building contract that Poland was building ships and Russia was getting them almost for free, I was there and I have seen it

Harry maybe you should read some history books the Poland had a government in west the Polish contribution to Battle of England and the Poles that fight with in west was not invited to victory parade, the communist government was to please Stalin but they did not show so you need to learn about history and have your opinion not the official story line.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
11 Aug 2009 /  #25
Marek, so you say the USSR has never reconstructed Poland, neither helped her, right?

USSR helped Poland in a sense that they defeated Germany and avoided extermination plus saved other Slavic nations however after that USSR not only did not help rebuild but it in fact further destroyed Poland stripping us of what industry was left.

I kind of understand Russians when they're bitter about no one being gratefull to them but the situation of Russia is similar to a man saving a girl from a murderer and then raping and robbing her only to be suprised she's not gratefull he saved her life.

USSR and to be clearer Russia actually destroyed Eastern Europe in a far greater scale than Germans, communism not only wrecked our economies but polluted our society, it will take generations before Poland recovers as a society (not as an economy).
TheOther 5 | 3,872  
11 Aug 2009 /  #27
Not occupying forces...
SzwedwPolsce 11 | 1,595  
11 Aug 2009 /  #28
No one won WWII. But a few countries lost not as much as others.
Harry  
12 Aug 2009 /  #29
Marek: go read the autobiography of General Anders, he confirms that representatives of free Polish forces were invited to the London victory parade. Also read the Times newspaper from the first week of June 1946: it confirms the same thing. Read and learn.
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
12 Aug 2009 /  #30
Who lost WWII (besides Poland)?

How many more of these 'we were the victim' threads are we going to say, its almost like the Poles just love the attention and think the whole world should feel so sorry for them. Nothing can be done about the past yet you still bang on about it so much, its like Poland has nothing else to offer apart from a few sad stories and 'victimisation claims'

I bet you there are more nevagtive than positive threads about Poland on this website, its about time people looked on Poland in a more positive light instead of this trash again and again. If its not Poles copping it in the war then they are getting bullied in the UK, if its not that then their not allowed into the states. How about a few success stories, looking to the bright future, etc etc?? wouldn't go a miss

I've probably just proded the hornets nest, however i think the reactions may prove my overall point :) All i want to see is somebody to say 'actually yes, your right in one sense, why not look forward (or more positively) than in this continual negative fashion' I've just been down to the bookies for the odds.....................

Thanks

T

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Who lost WWII (besides Poland)?Archived