Just finished a solid but thought provoking read, Europe at War 1939-1945, No Simple Victory: Norman Davies.

Exceptional for the broader (Eastern Eruopean) perspective it provides on all the major conflicts of the war, including the Battle of Britain. Davies has attempted to look at the conflict in a non-partisan light, taking the dictum that history is written by the victors, and turning it around to imagine a history written, if not by the vanquished, then by the forgotten.

If you lived in the Eastern Bloc after the war, would you regard the war as having been won, or lost by the West? Was the real victor not the USSR?

Read about it here:

http://www.freewebs.com/heinkill/booksfilmssites.htm

Mmm... Before we get into this, finish the story on those Zero's???

A funny little thing is the leader left standing after the war was soviet...

Hitler = dead
Tojo = dead
Roosevelt = dead
Churchill = voted out
Stalin = alive and still in power

No more info about the zeros since the last email with my friend sorry.

(shrug)

Stalin, still alive, in power and in control of half of Europe...

Not really a sound comparison:

Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt were the highest authorities in their countries;
Emperor Hirohito and King George VI were both very much alive, thus, if you omit Roosevelt as he died of natural causes, only Germany had lost their ultimate figurehead because of the war.

Also, at the war's end, Germany and Japan came under the rule of other political systems and countries, whereas no matter who was the leader of Great Britain, USA and USSR, the systems of government were still the same and intact in all three.

That books sounds very slanted

The "West" and "East" did not fight WWII

The Allies and Axis did. If I lived in the Eastern Bloc after the war, and I was told that the "West" or the "East" won WWII, I would be the subject of some very intense propaganda. In the USA, I was taught that the USA, Great Britain, and the USSR were allied with many other countries to fight a common foe- Germany, Japan, and Italy and all their allied countries. The war was not about communism and the desire to halt it's spread, or about securing "freedom" for democratic elections. That was the *result* of WWII, not the cause. This book seems as if it would like to mesh the Cold War with WWII which is very revisionist

The Allies brought the war to the conclusion they desired. That is the definition of winning a war

The US lost 400 000 dead and became the leader of the free world.

The Soviets lost 23 million dead and gained a couple of unwilling buffer states.

It depends on your definition of winning, I guess...

I say.. Steady on old boy. England won the war laddie.. England.

Britain lost 450 000 dead and its empire. That was "only" half the number of dead in WWI, however.

Who won?

Short term - Russia - the eastern front was THE theatre that led to Germany's defeat.

In the long run - those who made and sold the weapons, also known as the military industrial complex. A warning from the President of the United States. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY . Take a look at who owns the mainstream media in the United States today.

Sweden won the WWII.

yeah not so good!
A big mistake on the allied side. They should have realised this in time, teamed up with germany and kick the soviets back. Who knows? maybe the cold war, korea, vietnam etc could have been avoided.

*ducks*

Ducks? I would be looking over my shoulder for something more dangerous than them after that comment. Trolls maybe...?

In long term, also (W)Germany and Japan won. You just have to select the right enemy by whom to be defeated. Succesfull war strenghtened Stalin´s regime but not for any good of its citizens for next decades.

Norman Davies is a very good writer and an interesting historian.

I'll keep an eye out for this book.

Who did, Supermarine and Hawker? Uralmash tank factory and Curtiss? Edgar Schmued and Sydney Camm?

The US and GB's contribution to the war was more the strategic bombing than the land front, which I'm sure was fine with us. 23 million people dead is a pretty big blow. Russia would have had a much harder time defeating Germany if their industry hadn't been crushed by strategic bombing. On the other hand, we would have had a much, much harder time taking on Germany on the land if they weren't concentrating on the eastern front. With out either parties, it would have been a much, much longer war. Germany didn't really have a chance either way; they just didn't have enough people. It could have, however, been much worse. Honestly, I'm glad that we weren't the people who had to get 23 million of our guys killed.

I thought East Europe was left to Russia to try to placate them ...?