5 ms·

This is not so much a lie as an over-simplification. Anyone suggesting that the US did not play a major role in WW2 is foolish. I'm sure that as a thought exer

This is not so much a lie as an over-simplification. Anyone suggesting that the US did not play a major role in WW2 is foolish. I'm sure that as a thought exercise, someone could identify a number of different events or courses of action in WW2 which could have in principle changed the outcome of the war. In that sense, there are many things which "won" WWII. Further, number of casualties is a perfectly fine argument for "who sacrificed the most," but not necessarily for who "won" the war.

lolinder 5y ago
> Further, number of casualties is a perfectly fine argument for "who sacrificed the most," but not necessarily for who "won" the war. Exactly. It's possible to have that many casualties and then lose the war. All those casualty numbers tell us is that the war on the Eastern front was far more brutal than the war on the Western front, not how strategically important the victory on either front ended up being.
- newdude116 5y ago
  Normandy in 44? The war was lost since many years then. The Soviet Union may have won against Japan too :-) https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-jap...