>>86609
>Did the good guys win WW2?
There were no good guys in world war II, neither were there good guys in world war I. You could argue that certain countries were more 'evil' than the other but all had their fair share of war crimes and civilian casualties. The implication that the Soviet Union was somehow morally superior to Nazi Germany is laughable to me, I can't find myself justifying the fire bombings on Germany by the allied powers, I can't find myself justifying the murder of the Poles, the Dutch or the subjugation of the French people, I can't find myself justifying the actions of the Japanese on the Chinese population, I can't find myself giving the American state a clean sleight after they essentially helped form the Viet Cong visa the OSS and screwed France as a means to get a vantage point on Japan (and would end up fighting them a good 20 years later, sort of like…).
War very rarely has any 'good guys', as the very act is, generally speaking, simply state sanctioned murder and looting. It reminds of a quote by Martin Walton, "it doesn't matter what war or what fight you head into. It's very hard to condone everything going on in the fight". World War 2, much like it's predecessor World War 1 was just such a pointless conflict and claimed so many lives.
The only real heroes I can qualify as heroes was the 'doomed army' of Poland as they tried to fight off both the Soviet Union and Germany with little capacity to do so with either. Of course, they lost.
I'd have to agree with >>86705
The people lost and the state won.