Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The war was an allied effort and no single country can lay claim to be the sole contributor, however I'd argue that the US was the biggest victor of the war. It defeated Japan which was the terminal point of the war and ended up as the dominant power in the world.
The Soviets did more to win, and sacrificed far more, than any other nation against the Nazis. Not even close. Now...nearly as many Chinese were killed by the Japanese as Soviets by the Nazis.
But what did England accomplish with their involvement? I'll give the RAF a lot of credit, as well as Bletchley Park and the Royal Navy. They did have notable accomplishments. But until D-Day, it was a Russo-German war that was fought with American arms and material and Soviet blood.
The whole Lend-Lease deal was a small percentage. However, arguably, the most important deliveries were in the winter of 1941 (largely by the British) when things were on the brink during the battle of Moscow.
Having said that, Soviet Union would have won anyway, imo. Combination of vast territory (and ability to quickly move production to the east), unforgiving winter, and last but not the least literally facing extermination. Eastern front was very different from anything else in WW2.
The war was an allied effort and no single country can lay claim to be the sole contributor, however I'd argue that the US was the biggest victor of the war. It defeated Japan which was the terminal point of the war and ended up as the dominant power in the world.
No debate there. If you have a choice, see to it that your country is between two giant anti-tank ditches.
The whole Lend-Lease deal was a small percentage. However, arguably, the most important deliveries were in the winter of 1941 (largely by the British) when things were on the brink during the battle of Moscow.
Having said that, Soviet Union would have won anyway, imo. Combination of vast territory (and ability to quickly move production to the east), unforgiving winter, and last but not the least literally facing extermination. Eastern front was very different from anything else in WW2.
The Germans were doomed at the start of 1942. Even if they had of captured Stalin in Moscow, they would have never beaten the partisans, but the war would have dragged on for another year to two. The Germans had one chance to win in the East, and that was the recruitment of Ukrainians who suffered so terribly in the previous decades Holodomor , as well as those other Soviet Republics like Latvia, Lithuania, and others. The Cossacks, great horsemen and fighters who knew the territory, could have been recruited. Some did fight for Germany.
But Hitler alienated and persecuted all these people, all viewed as "inferior". For a great book on the subject read Kershaw's "War Without Garlands- Barbarossa 41/42"
The USSR defeated Germany. Most of the fighting and deaths happened on the Eastern Front. It's not downplaying the influence of the UK or the USA, it's just it wasn't their war to fight.
7 out of 10 Germans were killed by the Red Army. England was only around for mop up duty with the U.S. after June of 1944.
The USAAF did a stellar job with their bombing runs but its documented than German armament production continued to increase until wars end.
you must have learned history from an illegal alien. try reading a real history book and find out what really went on during world war two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
Clearly the Soviet Union did the most to defeat Germany by any measure, even though at first the two countries were allies.
If Hitler had not attacked the Soviet Union, the story would be very different, but he did attack them so that's that.
first the soviets and the germans were NOT allies. the only thing they had between them was a non aggression pact, that divided poland, and set lines that hitlers armies would not cross.
second when you suggest one country over any other country had more to do with winning world war two, denigrates ALL the other countries on the allied side. for instance, it was britain that kept the sea lanes open, including the ones to russia, so that manufactured goods could flow from the US to britain and russia.
it was britain that stopped the germans at the english channel, and in north africa before the US got in the war.
it was the US that manufactured huge amounts of the weapons of war before and during the time we go tin the war. everything from trucks, to tanks, to cargo ships, to landing craft, to airplanes, fighters, fighter bombers, and bombers, warships, guns, bullets, bombs, grenades, etc. we built so many aircraft that we were supplying russia with a large part of their air force, as well as a fair amount of the british and australian air forces, and the chinese air forces.
henry j kaisers ship yards were pumping out liberty ships at the rate of one every four days, and that was before we got into the war.
and while the russian effort was indeed gigantic, dont forget that they one had to fight on one front, britain and the US fought on more than one front. we fought a two ocean war.
take any one of the allied pieces off the board and the war turns out quite different. for instance take britain off the board, and the d day invasion becomes far tougher to accomplish since everything would have had to cross the atlantic with no air support beyond halfway.
or take the US off the board, and russia gets beaten down by the germans, because the 8 million men and their equipment isnt there to make the d day invasion as well as the italian invasion the success they were. in fact take the US off the board, and there is no sicily invasion, and forget normandy, that never happens. and without the western allies beating up on the german army in western europe, the eastern front becomes much tougher for the russians, and i doubt they push the germans back to berlin. more like the lines stabilize outside stalingrad, and a negotiated peace takes place with germany oh so close to the russian oil fields.
and of course without the US there is no atomic bomb to end the war in the pacific either, and japan holds a huge empire there including a large portion of china, all of korea, and indochina, through to burma and perhaps even part of india.
no you cant make the claim that one ally had a larger contribution than another.
The war was an allied effort and no single country can lay claim to be the sole contributor, however I'd argue that the US was the biggest victor of the war. It defeated Japan which was the terminal point of the war and ended up as the dominant power in the world.
You can't say the USA became the dominant power when the USSR ended up in the same position. Did you forget about their little rivalry i.e. the Cold War?
England was only around for mop up duty with the U.S. after June of 1944.
Nope. My grandfather was serving in the RAF at the time my father was born in 1940.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
