All I have to say is Russia won the WWII, NOT USA.

Because I like freedom. Freedom to own, do, and say things.  In the case of America, we directly obtained these rights through the usage and ownership of firearms. In application to World War 1 and World War 2, many of our best soldiers defeated the Nazis due to their familiarity with platforms before military training.

I wholeheartedly support the 2nd amendment and freedom of people to purchase and utilize firearms. Additionally, I support those that choose not to own or utilize firearms.

I could rebut that and say that Russia won because the US gave them metal and gunpower to fight the Nazi's.

But don't take my word for it, Gregory Zhukov, the Soviet Union's most prominent commander said the same thing. If it were not for that materiel, they wouldn't of been able to fight nor be as effective as they were.

This is not to say that what Russia did was not important. They played a huge part, but I feel that no allied nation was the sole reason the allies won.

If it were not for Britian and its territories, the Nazis would of taken over more of Europe quickly, and taken over the Middle East wit its oilfields. Thereby having a bigger industrial juggernaught, leading to the destruction of Russia in a timely fashion.

If it were not for Russia grinding down the German machine, the allies would of never been able to land at Normandy or Sicily as quickly or as effectively as they did. The Russians bore the brunt of the German war machine, and were indespensable for it.

If it were not for America supporting Russia and Britian through lend lease, and their eventual involvment in the European theater, neither Russia nor Britian would of been able to win. Both were cash and material strapped. Additionally, let us not forget what the US did in the Pacific theater. They almost single-handedly beat the Japaneese in the theater. If it were not for this involvment, then I am near certain that Japan would of pressed through Manchuko to Siberia and forced Russia into a two-front war... Something they had no chance of winning.

All sides were imperative for the allies. Without any of the three, the war would of dragged on much longer. With any of the three being allied with Germany, the war would not of been won or resulted in radioactive fallout over much of the world. To say that one specific allied nation 'won' borders on stupidity, especially towards the sacrifice of every British, Russian, and American that died during the war - civilian or military.

I found france's story to be the one of the more interesting. A country that was torn apart a the highest levels of government with most leaders ready to accept Nazi rule and a small number literally fighting against not only their own leaders but their own allies to prevent France from no longer existing. WWII could have very well have been the end of France as a country and even if you didn't like him very much Charels De Gaulle was a man on a mission, keep the Nazis at bay while fending off the US and England from dividing up his country.

This is something I debate a lot in my head.  Why did Japan attack USA?  Why didn't they help Germany and attack Russia first.  I suppose both Germany and Japan underestimated USA power.  USA was semi weak at the time but after the war machine got going there was nothing to stop the production output.  I believe Japan should have attacked Russia.  If Russia was knocked out of the war then it would be a  whole different story for the remainder of the Allies.  Funny that Russia steamrolled Japan towards the end of WW2 taking their holding in Manchuria, etc..

The US occupied the Philippines due to the Spanish War. It was a huge launch pad/stronghold for the allies during World War 2, and I would assume the Japanese knew they would have to occupy it to dimish US influence in their theater of war. Do not forget that they were fighting the US-backed Chinese to a stalemate, so they had to do something to turn the tide.

Why not attack Russia too? That is a very good question. It would of opened up a new front, but alleviated the Soviet's one-front war effort.

Its not surprising that the Soviets steamrolled the Japanese at the end of the war. The Russians had figured out how to beat the world's best land force in Germany. Japan's land force in Manchuko was poor by comparison. Japan had no tanks of note, no significant arms to deploy combined arms, and had little in the way of re-inforcements. Comparatively, the Soviets learned long and hard from their last war with Japan over Mongolia in 1938-39 and had vastly, VASTLY improved tactics and weapon systems. You were pitting T-34-85s and IS-2 tanks against men in ditches with bombs and hammers. It was a tactical nightmare waiting to (and did) happen.

According to the ORBAT, the Soviets had 1.6 million troops, 26,000 pieces of artillery, 5,600 SPGs and tanks, and 5,500 aircraft against just 1.2 million troops, 5,400 artillery pieces, 1,200 tanks and 1,600 aircraft. Then (as noted) consider the abilities of Soviet tanks and doctrine against Japan... Complete slaughter.

I find it all interesting. As for those saying one nation "won" WWII this is clearly not the case. WWII involved too many nations on too many fronts with too many individual contributions to ever come to that conclusion.

On a slightly lighter note, whenever I think about WWII now I can't help but remember this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZ8EkK3eWY

@mrstickball
I agree, but did it never occur to you that 2nd amandment is one of the top reasons why USA has the biggest prison population in the world?

No, it never occurred to me that it was a top reason.... Because its not.

Our prison population is as high as it is due to drug laws in the US. We made drug possession a jailable offense in the 1970's, and it caused huge increases in the prison population.

I believe the data will speak for itself. At any rate, if you want to discuss firearms, start a new thread. This is for WW2, not about constitutional amendments.

Hey i was just curious. If WW2 wasn't all about new weaponry, i dunno what is :)

Also tha graph doesn't really confirm that drug laws are the major reason  for prison population. it only shows the huge jump somewhere in middle 80's

That was a pretty funny video.  I find some English' humor a little dry but this is on par with Monty Python's and the Holy Grail.