Did the allies win or did the axis win?
481975
the allies that was us!! Russia had a pack with gremany no to invade each other however aroind 1941 maybe later hitler broke the treaty and attacked russia then russia because kind of an allie..
201179
I think italy believed that germany would win the war and wanted to be on the winning side.
122741
Alliances ( allies and axis ) and agression by the axis and the allies responce to it.
671056
when the war started in 1939, the Allies were Poland, Great Britain, France, and other smaller countries. By 1941, the Us, China, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the rest of the world was embroiled against the Axis forces.
115205
When you say "allied forces" you generally are referring to the allies (America, France, England, Russia, Australia, Canada, etc.)  The Axis was the German, Italian, and Japanese forces.
504324
~The only way that Germany could have won would have been with the support of the US and by tapping into US industrial might, just as was the case  with Britain and France.  The good thing about sitting on the sidelines until the fight is almost over is that the Johnny-(Sammy)-come-lately gets to pick the winner.  \n\nThus, the occupation of Moscow would have been shared by the US and Germany and the cold war would have been unnecessary.  Britain would have retained some semblance of its present self, but we wouldn't have had to suffer the Lady Di crap. Most likely, Britain would have pulled an Italy and switched sides.   The rest of Europe would be the non-entity it is and was, with US and German troops ever present to keep it that way.  Lech Walesa and Solidarity would never have happened.  The Berlin Wall would not have come down because it would have never been built.\n\nThe trip to the moon  would have happened sooner and much more efficiently.  Synthetic fuels would be the norm rather than the exception.  The Euro would have come into being 5 decades sooner.  The Common Market  would have come into being much sooner, under a different name.  Italy would still by a nice place to visit, but not much else.  The Soviet Union would have been an Anglo-American-German colonial protectorate.  Israel would not exist, Algeria would have gained independence much sooner and Nasser would not have had to, wanted to or needed to nationalize the Suez Canal.  Qaddafi and Idi Amin would have been tending camels rather than running puppet-governments for super powers.  Korea would have been left to the Koreans.\n\nIn exchange for a US alliance, or peace with the US, Germany would have terminated its treaties with Japan.  The Japanese markets and materials would have been replaced and exceeded by the products and profits from the west, with  whom the Germans were much more kindred.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still have the distinction of being the only places on earth to have been nuked, but Uncle will have his day.  Chiang may have stayed on the mainland, but, if not, Mao would have been even less significant than he was.  Nam would have been unnecessary.\n\nThe Middle East would have been subjugated and Sadam and the Shah would be meaningless footnotes in history.  We would still have pillaged Middle Eastern oil, but Opec wouldn't have been able to stop us.\n\nThere is a reason that one of the US's strongest allies today is Germany.  Hitler was an anomaly.  The US and Germany are as tight today as they were when Von Steuben trained the Troops at Valley Forge, and Britain and Germany share more history and monarchical families than any other two nations in European history.\n\nHitler would have been talked away from his racial policies, but not too quickly.  The rest of the world was never really too upset with the camps and the death of 6 million Jews and 9 million others who died in them anyways.  Certainly not the US, who had exercised similar policies with Native Americans and who was pondering what could be done to quash the  Afro-Americans, Eastern and Southern Europeans  and Asians who were making foolish noises about equality and justice and  whose backs were no longer needed in the mills,  in the fields, in the factories and on the railroads.\n\nIn short, not much would be different today.  The names and places of history might be different, but your life would be pretty much what it is.\n\nSo why do you ask?
672617
Victory in Japan.  The west wins the war and America celebrates.
643150
Well, the Allies were many different countries.  You would have to narrow down your question a little bit if you want to know something specific.  As far as some of the Allies go, China, France, England and Russia, as well as many other countries, were fighting to save their homeland.  Many of these countries were actually occupied by one or more of the Axis powers.  England held its own, but Germany was attempting to invade and did its best, but England was too determined to keep them out.  If you ask why the United States was involved in the war, it was partly because we were attacked by the Japanese.  The reason we fought in the European Theater is because the Allied leadership felt it was necessary to defeat the Germans and Italians because they were the more powerful combination in the Axis.  For your actual question, why were they fighting?  The Allies felt that people deserved the right to be free and be able to live the way they wanted as long as they didn't infringe on others right to do the same and the Axis powers wanted to control everyone and force them to live by their rules and according to their beliefs.  That would be why the Allies fought, to stop that from happening.
945087
The only successful wars are those won by overwhelming force.  The wars that are ended through diplomacy only always boil back over later on.  Think of the difference between WW2 and Korea.  We baked the Japanese and they are now close friends of ours.  We negotiated an end to the Korean War, and we are still dealing with the pot-bellied dog-eating dictator, and now he's pointing his puny half-a**ed nukes at us. The only final victory is a complete victory.
1010322
sa A' dat \nMeans victory
705819
Yes, it was a great victory for the American Empire.
807737
The plan was to split the forces  by attacking through to Amsterdam. They would grab the biggest port in Europe and then hold out for a negotiated settlement. Hitler probably did not believe he could win but wanted to prolong the war and bloodshed so he could stop the war before the allies got to Germany. His high command did not agree with the plan but he was the boss.
670765
Absolutely. The US was able to apply resources that the British and the Russians struggled to supply. The Russians fought an incredibly bitter war and in many cases the Nazis were known to prefer fighting against the US and the UK than the Russians. However, it was the sheer scale of the entrance of the US to WW2 that put Hitler firmly on the backfoot. To sum up - The British won the war because they stood fast against a superior army, the Russians won the war through sheer sacrifice of numbers and grim determination, and the US won the war because although they were more interested in sorting out the Japanese (Pearl Harbour), they pumped billions of dollars worth of aircraft, man power and ammunition into the effort.
600783
German resistance would have collapsed sooner.  The Allies were going for "Unconditional Surrender" no matter who was in charge for the Germans.  The result for the most part would have been the same, probably saving a significant number of lives on both sides. The political climate may have been more friendly between east & west over the next 60 years.  There might not have been the partitioning of Germany the way it was.  And maybe it could have freed up a lot of needed resources to get the Pacific war ended sooner also.
244642
Klara would say he was as misunderstood as other dictators in history have been.  Today Bushy is totally misunderstood. Yet Hitler did what he is doing today.  So Klara would convince the jury that if he would have won the war, then history would have been very different, treating him like a respected leader of the German nation.
641416
the allies won WWII, no eating in the computer room, helmets, runs scored, guy who usually wears stripes and thick glasses, does that answer your question
857437
We won a military victory.\n\nUnfortunately, this means very little. We've lost by just about any other account.\n\nFrom reading the other answers, there are still a fair number of people who believe that Iraq had something to do with terrorism. But that just isn't true. Saddam did not tolerate groups like Al Queada because extremist groups represented a threat to his power. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. And Iraq had no WMDs.\n\nThis is all stated very clearly in the bi-partisan congressional report, which you can go and read if you'd like.\n\nAnother congressional report that the 9-11/Iraq believers should read is the congressional terrorism report. Terrorism has increased world-wide since the invasion, so again we have not won on that front.\n\nWe've also dumped over $500 billion into this effort and have nothing to show for it as far as remuneration goes. The government has had to borrow more money from countries like China to pay for it since there isn't enough tax revenue to cover it, ploughing us further into debt. So we have not won on the economic front.\n\nFrom a political standpoint, we've spit in the face of the UN and burned all our political capital we had. We ignored our allies. Everyone was warning against this. And still we went in. Our credibility is now quite low throughout the world, especially in the Middle East. Again, no victory there.\n\nFrom a humanitarian view, we've lost. The people view us occupiers, not rebuilders. Tensions are high. Thousands have been killed, with more dying every day. It is now looking quite probable that a civil war is in progress and gaining momentum. The CIA predicted this was a likely outcome two years ago.\n\nAll of this could have been avoided if:\n\nA) We didn't go in in the first place. The policy of premption is at best a double-edged sword and at worst an excuse for empire building (see Nazi Germany for an example).\n\nB) If a plan had been developed to win the peace. We didn't have one, or at least not one that was feasible. From looking at the old videos of the time, there seemed to be the notion that the Iraqi's would welcome us with flowers and then join together in harmony and democracy. I find this amusing considering the place has been a hotbed of religious conflict for at least the past 1000 years.\n\nIn the end, we can claim a military victory. But we can claim little else.\n\n~X~