NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think contributed the most to WWII. I am not meaning in lives or number of things produced. I mean strategicaly to overall defeat of the Axis Powers.

United States fought a two front war with Japan and Germany.
Great Britain stood alone for part of the war.
Russia encircled thousands of Germans and devasted their war macine.

The most what? Troops lost in battle? No, that's USSR. The most money and supplies? Probably.

France, can you imagine that amount of missions the Allies wouldn't be able to do if France was still under Allied power?!?!?!?!

All three of those nations were key in winning. However, I'd have to go with the US. Without our weapons and materiel, Britain and the USSR would've probably fallen by 1943.

That's not true. I don't think Hitler could've conquered Britain, but he could have forced a peace upon them.

Who do you think contributed the most to WWII. I am not meaning in lives or number of things produced. I mean strategicaly to overall defeat of the Axis Powers.

United States fought a two front war with Japan and Germany.
Great Britain stood alone for part of the war.
Russia encircled thousands of Germans and devasted their war macine.

Britain fought on 3 fronts. Go us.

(For reference that is defence of Britain and eventual invasion of Western Europe, Africa through Italy, and in defence of Asian colonies.)

France, can you imagine that amount of missions the Allies wouldn't be able to do if France was still under Allied power?!?!?!?!

Huh?

Great Britain, due to an accident of geography.
Without the UK as an island the Axis forces in Europe would have had only one front to fight on. The US forces would not hve had a base to operate from, and ther would have been no support for the resistance movements in Western Europe.

Who do you think contributed the most to WWII. I am not meaning in lives or number of things produced. I mean strategicaly to overall defeat of the Axis Powers.

United States fought a two front war with Japan and Germany.
Great Britain stood alone for part of the war.
Russia encircled thousands of Germans and devasted their war macine.


It was an equal partnership, for the most part, but I believe that Britain was the most important, since we held the nazis off for long enough to scupper any hope for a German victory. (after the battle of Britain, I defy anyone who says the Germans could actually win the war. It would have resulted in a huge German reich, and an uneasy peace, in my opinion. The Russians come second.

But the British blunted, and began the first true counterstrikes (Monty in Africa) to the nazis.

Those Motherland-huggers kicked Krauts best.

I would have to say the US, and its not because I'm an American. Even though we entered the war 2 years later than evrybody else, we still contributed a lot. Many of the planes that helped win the Battle of Britain were provided by America. America also shipped supplies to England. And after Pearl Harbor, the US fought its way across the Pacific and took out Japan, which China or Australia failed to do. We also fought successfully in Italy and Africa. Also, the man in charge of the D-Day operation was American.

Those Motherland-huggers kicked Krauts best.

Yes, the Russians eventually started to win (in 1943, after Stalingrad), but even at it's height in 1944-45, the Red Army was more of a sledgehammer than a truly skilled military force.

I don't want to belittle the Russians, because what their country did during the final years of the war was amazing, but you have to remember that most of their weapons, planes, and non-armored vehicles (i.e. trucks and things) were American.

The T-34 was the best tank of the war, in my opinion, though.

The most what? Troops lost in battle? No, that's USSR. The most money and supplies? Probably.
The most money and supplies is a certainty. Hell, the US produced 2/3 of munitions for ALL combatants. And besides that, the mean reason is the soviets fought dumb. That's all there is to it. They were just fighting German conscripts in the east, not the Waffen SS the US had to deal with. And the US also is the chief combatant in the Pacific. So, for overall WWII, I'd say the US, even though the Soviets lost the most men...

The T-34 was the best tank of the war, in my opinion, though.

Rock Solid.

We have a Russian in the company and he said that a couple years ago they pulled 2 out of a swamp. They fell in while crossing a makeshift bridge during the war.

The cleaned them up and they fired up......

Yes, the Russians eventually started to win (in 1943, after Stalingrad), but even at it's height in 1944-45, the Red Army was more of a sledgehammer than a truly skilled military force.

I don't want to belittle the Russians, because what their country did during the final years of the war was amazing, but you have to remember that most of their weapons, planes, and non-armored vehicles (i.e. trucks and things) were American.

The T-34 was the best tank of the war, in my opinion, though.
There's no doubt about the fact that the Soviets would have fallen in the winter of 1943 without US aid, hell Marshal Zhukov even admitted as such in the book "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV

Now, mind you, I'm not belittling their efforts at all. Hell, they lost 20 million lives during the war, and that's a lot. So, don't get me wrong, I'm just also saying that no one should underestimate the US contribution.

If the USSR hadn't swallowed all of those German lives, tanks, planes, etc would the re-invasion of Europe been successful?

I would have to say the US, and its not because I'm an American. Even though we entered the war 2 years later than evrybody else, we still contributed a lot. Many of the planes that helped win the Battle of Britain were provided by America. America also shipped supplies to England. And after Pearl Harbor, the US fought its way across the Pacific and took out Japan, which China or Australia failed to do. We also fought successfully in Italy and Africa. Also, the man in charge of the D-Day operation was American.
Actually we entered the war officially two years later than the Brits, about 9 months (correct me if I'm wrong) later than the Soviets. But we'd been in an undeclared naval war with Germany since that summer. So, there's stuff to be talked about and all in this.

You also have to give credit to America for comming back so strong after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

If the USSR hadn't swallowed all of those German lives, tanks, planes, etc would the re-invasion of Europe been successful?

If lend-lease handn't supplied them with badly needed equipment would they have been able to hold out?

You also have to give credit to America for comming back so strong after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Not really. The Americans were not harassed at all by the Japanese after pearl harbour... they just sat back and began to churn out carriers.

Pearl harbour is the biggest military blunder that I'm aware of, simply because it achieved nothing. The american fleet may have been pummeled, but the Japanese took no advantage from that, and waited til the Americans built it back stronger than before.... utter pointlessness.

United States nuked Japan. We win! :D

I would have to say the US, and its not because I'm an American. Even though we entered the war 2 years later than evrybody else, we still contributed a lot. Many of the planes that helped win the Battle of Britain were provided by America. America also shipped supplies to England. And after Pearl Harbor, the US fought its way across the Pacific and took out Japan, which China or Australia failed to do. We also fought successfully in Italy and Africa. Also, the man in charge of the D-Day operation was American.

The planes that won the Battle of Britain were the Hurricane & the Spit. The radar system developed solely by the Brits was also a factor. So too was the German decision to stop attacking the airfields & go after the towns/cities.

Australia didn't "fail" to take out Japan. We weren't at war with Japan until Pearl Harbour. It's unreasonable to expect a numerically small nation like Australia to single handedly beat an industrial war machine like Japan.

The Russians took berlin.

Every nation did their fair share of effort(cept France and Scandinavia) but I'd have to give it to the U.S.

1) Single handedly defeated Japan even with a crippled fleet (Thank god our carriers weren't at Pearl)

2) Drove the Germans out of France and back into Germany where the Soviets finished em off.

3) Provided the materials to the Allies.

4) Helped defeat the Germans in Africa. (Britian did most of the work here)

Also have to give Hitler a round of applause for screwing up so bad. He should have never forced himself into strategics. I know I'm leaving out a good amount of info so feel free to rip this post apart :D

If lend-lease handn't supplied them with badly needed equipment would they have been able to hold out?

Don't know. If the Russians had kept pulling further & further back into the USSR hinterland, would they have been able to absorb enough German forces and stop their momentum? Would it have given the Ruskies enough time to rebuild their forces?

Toss up between USSR and USA. USSR defeated Germany, USA defeated Japan.

ths US atomic bomb :)

but russia did do the most damaging sacrifices to the germans

Don't know. If the Russians had kept pulling further & further back into the USSR hinterland, would they have been able to absorb enough German forces and stop their momentum? Would it have given the Ruskies enough time to rebuild their forces?

No. If the Russians had kept retreating, then the Germans would've been able to take Moscow and Leningrad, which would've been a huge blow to Russian morale. Secondly, the Nazis could have taken the oil fields of the Caucasus (sp?) and croppled the Soviet army even further.

And you have to remember that with the exception of Vladivostock, there aren't many large settlements east of the Urals. Could the Soviets won with most of the population behind German lines? I doubt it.

Every nation did their fair share of effort(cept France and Scandinavia) but I'd have to give it to the U.S.

1) Single handedly defeated Japan even with a crippled fleet (Thank god our carriers weren't at Pearl)

2) Drove the Germans out of France and back into Germany where the Soviets finished em off.

3) Provided the materials to the Allies.

4) Helped defeat the Germans in Africa. (Britian did most of the work here)

Also have to give Hitler a round of applause for screwing up so bad. He should have never forced himself into strategics. I know I'm leaving out a good amount of info so feel free to rip this post apart :D

They did not singelhandedly beat the Japanese forces. China was fighting, British & Empire (Indian, etc), Australian, NZ & free Dutch forces all fought against the Japanese.

British, Canadian & Free French, Polish, etc troops were also involved in the liberation of France/Western Europe.

America did supply enormous quantities of material to the allies, as well as fighting alongside them.

Every nation did their fair share of effort(cept France and Scandinavia) but I'd have to give it to the U.S.
What do you have against Scandinavia?

1) Single handedly defeated Japan even with a crippled fleet (Thank god our carriers weren't at Pearl)Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, The Netherlands, China...

2) Drove the Germans out of France and back into Germany where the Soviets finished em off.
No, The Russians drove the Germans out of Eastern Europe and back into Germany. The allied landing in Normandy was just a great help.

3) Provided the materials to the Allies.True, but their material help is overrated. Russia made most of it stuff itself.

4) Helped defeat the Germans in Africa. (Britian did most of the work here)
The Americans did gave the final push to it.

Also have to give Hitler a round of applause for screwing up so bad. He should have never forced himself into strategics.
:) I agree, Hitler was Germany his worst enemy.

I know I'm leaving out a good amount of info so feel free to rip this post apart :D
Thanks! (I bet someone already was ahead of me and did a better job at it)

3) Provided the materials to the Allies.


America sold on credit a lot of material to the Allies - true.

The American companies Ford, IBM, GM and GE also sold a lot of material to Nazi Germany. Up until Pearl Harbour it was a very good war for the Americans.

If you compare sizes, the commonwealth countries (UK Australia NZ), were all seriously punching out of the weight. In terms of war effort the UK clearly was the most hard working of all the involved parties. Indeed, it probably turned itself into the most effiecient war fighting nation in history. It's a small country though.

The USSR lost the most men. (More than anyone). It was badly led, a poor ally and inefficient. If it hadn't been for lend lease, intelligence from the western allies and pressure on other fronts, it would have collapsed in 42-43.

The US, because of its size, techonolgy (a great deal of which was thought up by the brits but could ony be exploited by the US), and the productivity of its industry, became the easily the most powerful nation by '44. There is no also question that even had the USSR collapsed the US could have finished the job, although the war would have dragged on until late '45 when Germany would have been turned into a nuclear desert.

All in all the US probably contributed the most, in terms of both logisitics and manpower.

The Russians took berlin.
So? That's what was agreed upon at Tehran and Yalta and all. The US could have taken Berlin, but we reached the border of our zone of occupation, and sat pretty for a fairly long time period a month or two if I remember correctly.

They did not singelhandedly beat the Japanese forces. China was fighting, British & Empire (Indian, etc), Australian, NZ & free Dutch forces all fought against the Japanese.

British, Canadian & Free French, Polish, etc troops were also involved in the liberation of France/Western Europe.

America did supply enormous quantities of material to the allies, as well as fighting alongside them.

After the fall of Singapore and Malaya, it was mostly US, ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand Army Corp), and the USSR (in Manchuria) fighting the Japanese. The British regulars and colonial troops were more concerned with defending India and fighting in the Middle East.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada were Dominions of the British Empire. Self-governing colonies, really; independent in all but name. So for the purposes of this thread, when I refer to "Britain" I mean the UK and it's true colonies (i.e. India, Burma, Malta, Palestine, etc.). Just wanted to clear that up.

Toss up between USSR and USA. USSR defeated Germany, USA defeated Japan.

first off by itsself USSR wouldnt of beat germany so they didnt beat germany alone i think britain would have fallen if USA hadnt come to assist them and sent them millions of tons of supplies and munitions no country defeated another country alone USA had help defeating japan by australia and a few other countries but they did do most of the work do you think USSR would of won if USA hadnt done D-DAY? i doubt they would of because germany could of deverted resources to russia instead of having to have a big portion of their army in france and also if italy hadnt gotten their butts kicked by greece(wasnt it greece?) then germany would of invaded sooner instead they had to post-pone the russian invasion and devert men into albania and greece to help italy out which made it so they didnt have as much time and the russian winter came which devastated the germans so if they had the extra time i think they may have won on the russian front

No. If the Russians had kept retreating, then the Germans would've been able to take Moscow and Leningrad, which would've been a huge blow to Russian morale. Secondly, the Nazis could have taken the oil fields of the Caucasus (sp?) and croppled the Soviet army even further.

And you have to remember that with the exception of Vladivostock, there aren't many large settlements east of the Urals. Could the Soviets won with most of the population behind German lines? I doubt it.

You're probably right. Still, I find the loss of life they endured, whether due to Germany or their own tactics, is staggering. They destroyed so much of the German's ability to pursue an effective campaign in Western Europe.

Aren't we forgetting a major player here though? Didn't Hitler's own stupid decisions play a large part in Germany's downfall. Stalingrad?

It's a toss up between Britain and Russia I'd say. The Russians took a hell of a pounding, and lost more lives than anyone else.
The Brits were in it from the beginning, as well as fighting on multiple fronts (Europe, Asia, Africa, plus convoys across Atlantic and North Atlantic - The Barents Sea via the Norwegian Sea).
The US was influencial in the defeat of the Axis, but as the Intructions for American Servicemen said "There are housewives in aprons and youngsters in knee pants in Britain who have lived through more high explosives in air raids than many soldiers saw in first class barrages in the last war (WW1)".

Aren't we forgetting a major player here though? Didn't Hitler's own stupid decisions play a large part in Germany's downfall. Stalingrad?

Stalin was a fool there as well. He ordered "not one step back," and as a result many lives were needlessly lost when a retreat and counter-attack from the south or in the Caucasus would have served the USSR better.

However, running from Stalingrad would have been political suicide for the Soviet regime.

I think it was the USSR, but it could be the USA. I don't know the numbers.

So? That's what was agreed upon at Tehran and Yalta and all. The US could have taken Berlin, but we reached the border of our zone of occupation, and sat pretty for a fairly long time period a month or two if I remember correctly.
They did? Damn, I need to get my history straight.

Can annyone back me up with the Russia-the-best idea?

i think its wierd that in the American Civil War we lost more soldiers then in ww1,ww2,vietnam,spanish-american war all of them we lost around 60k in vietnam we were losing that much in a single battle in the civil war around 650k died

After the fall of Singapore and Malaya, it was mostly US, ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand Army Corp), and the USSR (in Manchuria) fighting the Japanese. The British regulars and colonial troops were more concerned with defending India and fighting in the Middle East.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada were Dominions of the British Empire. Self-governing colonies, really; independent in all but name. So for the purposes of this thread, when I refer to "Britain" I mean the UK and it's true colonies (i.e. India, Burma, Malta, Palestine, etc.). Just wanted to clear that up.

The Brits were more concerned with defending India, but they were still fighting the Japanese & drawing off Japanese forces from the main area of the Pacific theatre.

Aus, NZ, Canada were more than self governing colonies, they were (& are) indepent countries in their own right, including name. But that's getting off track. My point really was that the US wasn't the only country fighting the Japanese.

first off by itsself USSR wouldnt of beat germany so they didnt beat germany alone i think britain would have fallen if USA hadnt come to assist them and sent them millions of tons of supplies and munitions no country defeated another country alone USA had help defeating japan by australia and a few other countries but they did do most of the work do you think USSR would of won if USA hadnt done D-DAY? i doubt they would of because germany could of deverted resources to russia instead of having to have a big portion of their army in france and also if italy hadnt gotten their butts kicked by greece(wasnt it greece?) then germany would of invaded sooner instead they had to post-pone the russian invasion and devert men into albania and greece to help italy out which made it so they didnt have as much time and the russian winter came which devastated the germans so if they had the extra time i think they may have won on the russian front

4 days after America declared war on Germany, the Russians stopped the German advance. This was well before America actually did anything.

After they stopped the German advance the Russians advanced west, they did stop advancing west until they met the Americans coming the other way. If America had not suceeded on D-day France would have been communist.

i think its wierd that in the American Civil War we lost more soldiers then in ww1,ww2,vietnam,spanish-american war all of them we lost around 60k in vietnam we were losing that much in a single battle in the civil war

That's because in the other wars six different armies may have been fighting in one battle (case in point: Stalingrad, Anzio, Normandy), whereas in the Civil War it Americans fighting Americans.

4 days after America declared war on Germany, the Russians stopped the German advance. This was well before America actually did anything.

After they stopped the German advance the Russians advanced west, they did stop advancing west until they met the Americans coming the other way. If America had not suceeded on D-day France would have been communist.

The US declared war on Germany in 1941. The Russians finally stopped the Germans in November 1942 at Stalingrad, and didn't begin to drive them back until February of '43.

As for not stopping their westward advance, there is a little thing called logistics. The Soviets did not have the manpower or resources to drive to France after fighting the Germans,, just as the US would not have been able to drive east into Poland.

If America had not suceeded on D-day France would have been communist.
Allies please. Britain and the Empire were there too (Canada, Australia, etc).

The Russians got lucky. The Germans weren't prepared for the harsh Russian weather, and thus lost many lives, giving them the ability to break through the German lines.

Allies please. Britain and the Empire were there too (Canada, Australia, etc).

I'm confident that Britain could have easily held off Russia from their mainland, but I severly doubt they would have risked soldiers protecting France from a second invasion.

Without America Russia would have had all of Mainland Europe by the gohones.

4 days after America declared war on Germany, the Russians stopped the German advance. This was well before America actually did anything.

After they stopped the German advance the Russians advanced west, they did stop advancing west until they met the Americans coming the other way. If America had not suceeded on D-day France would have been communist.
1.) America didn't declare war on Germany

2.) Russia did stop moving west after the 1941 winter offensive - in the summer of 1942, Germany made significant strides eastward in Southern Russia.

edit : nm someone already said this...

If America had not suceeded on D-day France would have been communist.

Some would say they are now anyway. :)

Without America Russia would have had all of Mainland Europe by the gohones.

Do you mean cajones?

Do you mean cajones?

Aye, :D

I'm confident that Britain could have easily held off Russia from their mainland, but I severly doubt they would have risked soldiers protecting France from a second invasion.

Without America Russia would have had all of Mainland Europe by the gohones.

I think even the massive Red Army would have been stretched trying to hold all of Western Europe, not to mention the drain on their economy.

I believe the Brits could have held out indefinitely against the Germans, dependent on supplies making it across the North Atlantic. I don't think they would have been able to re-invade Europe & defeat Germany though.

The Russians got lucky. The Germans weren't prepared for the harsh Russian weather, and thus lost many lives, giving them the ability to break through the German lines.
That, and they stretched their supply lines too far. They couldn't get fuel, ammo or food to their troops, which sorta makes fighting a war difficult. It wasn't due to lack of preparedness, but more bad supply routes (Russian roads were poor, and their railways used a different gauge to the German ones).

I think even the massive Red Army would have been stretched trying to hold all of Western Europe, not to mention the drain on their economy.

I believe the Brits could have held out indefinitely against the Germans, dependent on supplies making it across the North Atlantic. I don't think they would have been able to re-invade Europe & defeat Germany though.

American help was needed to win the battle of the atlantic though. (The most important, and overlooked battle of the whole war.)

The US declared war on Germany in 1941. The Russians finally stopped the Germans in November 1942 at Stalingrad, and didn't begin to drive them back until February of '43.

I was referring to the advance on Moscow. This was the furthest the Germans advanced and they were stopped. The advance on Stalingrad was not something that affected Russian war production.

As for not stopping their westward advance, there is a little thing called logistics. The Soviets did not have the manpower or resources to drive to France after fighting the Germans,, just as the US would not have been able to drive east into Poland.

The Russians had just won a war by the use of the longest, most effective land based supply lines ever. They're logistics were better than the Germans and the had the largest Army in the world marching forward on the basis of this supply train. Who would have been able to stop them from reaching Paris?

Many of the planes that helped win the Battle of Britain were provided by America.


Can you please attempt to back this up. American entry to the war was not untill December 1941 and that was Japan. American entry into Europe was not untill later. The battle of Britain was much longer and vastly dominated by the supirioity of the Spitfire and the Hurricane over the Messchismit. One of the main reasons being that the Spitfire was far eaiser to fly than the Messchismit.


America also shipped supplies to England. And after Pearl Harbor, the US fought its way across the Pacific and took out Japan, which China or Australia failed to do. We also fought successfully in Italy and Africa. Also, the man in charge of the D-Day operation was American.

I dont know where you got that last bit from, but D-Day would never have been such a sucess without the significent British deception tactics. Hitler thought D-Day was a side show and was waiting to use his massive deployment of Panzer tanks in Calis, which never happened. And Britian, unlike America had to deal with significent mainland bombing. There was Pearl Harbour and Midway but unlike Britain you did not have to deal with the large scale bombing of the Blitz. Britain is the only nation to have fought all the way through both World Wars without surrendering.

The Russians had just won a war by the use of the longest, most effective land based supply lines ever. They're logistics were better than the Germans and the had the largest Army in the world marching forward on the basis of this supply train. Who would have been able to stop them from reaching Paris?

The Americans and the British. Seeing as America had the bomb and Britain had the strongest air force, it was hardly likely that Russia would have risked further expanssion.

Britain is the only nation to have fought all the way through both World Wars without surrendering.

And America was the only nation to have made any signifigant progress in both World Wars.

American help was needed to win the battle of the atlantic though. (The most important, and overlooked battle of the whole war.)

This is true, and possibly the most important American contribution to the war. Had Britain gone under on lack of supplies, it is likely that any German invasion would have met with a demoralised and hungry British population unable to properly defend itself.

And America was the only nation to have made any signifigant progress in both World Wars.

That statement is extremely debateable, unlike mine. Had America been involved with the war in Europe from the begining, it is likely that they would be in a simmilar position to Britain by 1941 (IE, pushed out by the German advance and waiting in Britain to prepare a countor offensive). True it may have been slower, perhaps only being pushed out by 1942 or 3 but even with American support, France most likely would have fallen. There is a limit to how much support America and Britian could have given France and the French millitary was so inept that they made little diffrence (the Poles killed more Germans when they were on horseback attacking the German invaders than the French did)

And America was the only nation to have made any signifigant progress in both World Wars.
Please specify how US made more progress than anyone else?

Can you please attempt to back this up. American entry to the war was not untill December 1941 and that was Japan. American entry into Europe was not untill later. The battle of Britain was much longer and vastly dominated by the supirioity of the Spitfire and the Hurricane over the Messchismit. One of the main reasons being that the Spitfire was far eaiser to fly than the Messchismit.



I dont know where you got that last bit from, but D-Day would never have been such a sucess without the significent British deception tactics. Hitler thought D-Day was a side show and was waiting to use his massive deployment of Panzer tanks in Calis, which never happened. And Britian, unlike America had to deal with significent mainland bombing. There was Pearl Harbour and Midway but unlike Britain you did not have to deal with the large scale bombing of the Blitz. Britain is the only nation to have fought all the way through both World Wars without surrendering.

Many of the planes used in the battle of Britain were made in America, or relied on American parts. And I never said that D-Day was all American, I know that without Britain, it would have been a lot harder to win, if we even could have won it. But Eisenhower was in charge of the D-Day operation. He was the man that made all the tactics and such, like the plane diversion further down he coast, to make the Germans we would attack there. And Yes, many american bombers participated in mainland bombings. American and British bombers completely destroyed Drezden. The German fighters also tore up the B-17s, which made America look for better fighters that could go longer distances to protect the bombers.

Russia, hands down.
And not for any reasons mentioned.

Simply, Russia did the most just by being there, it was what Hitler wanted most. "Lebensraum", or however it's spelt. It was Hitlers main goal, to take the east and enslave the people under Germany. Fighting with the west was just something he "had to do" because they weren't cooperating with his plans.

So, solely based on Hitlers preoccupation with invading Russia in the first place, Russia made the largest contribution.
If Hitler hadn't wanted "Lebensraum" (Living Space) in Russia for the Aryans, and the "sub-human" Slavs as cheap labour, then he would have concentrated all his forces in Western Europe, and the US and UK wouldn't have stood a chance.

Remember, by the time the US entered the war full swing, Germany was knee deep in mud in Russia.

American help was needed to win the battle of the atlantic though. (The most important, and overlooked battle of the whole war.)

That's what I meant, I should probably have been more explicit. If Japan hadn't attacked them would the US have been forced to enter the war? Could they have kept supplying Britain on the lend/lease program? I know the US lost a number of ships to the German subs, would they have prepared to accept those sorts of ongoing losses as preferable to actually entering the war?

The Russians had just won a war by the use of the longest, most effective land based supply lines ever. They're logistics were better than the Germans and the had the largest Army in the world marching forward on the basis of this supply train. Who would have been able to stop them from reaching Paris?

The UK and the US could easily have stopped the USSR. We were the only powers to have developed strategic bombing.

It's easy to talk about Russian supply lines and logisitcs and how great they are but that overlooks two factors:

1. The mamoth bombing efforts of 43/45 that smashed german industry and communications. Had it not been for this, USSR would have faced are far better organized and equipped enemy. Indeed, with the ease up of bombing in central germany before d-day, the USSR experienced stiffening german resistance.

2. Large amounts of war material given to the russians by the western allies, which allowed them to concentrate and make their war production more efficient. How many fewer tanks could russia have produced, had it not recieved the 10,000s of aircraft and trucks from the UK and US.

That statement is extremely debateable, unlike mine.

Debating is good.

Without America Russia would have had all of Mainland Europe by the gohones.

What evidence do you have that Russia wanted to annex western Europe? They had shown no territoral ambition before this point?

The Americans and the British. Seeing as America had the bomb and Britain had the strongest air force, it was hardly likely that Russia would have risked further expanssion.
I'm not sure if Britain had the strongest airforce - the America surpassed Britain in air production by extremely large margins, especially in '43 and '44, and the difference between production statistics in 1944 alone cover every British aircraft built from 39-41.

Many of the planes used in the battle of Britain were made in America, or relied on American parts.

I don't think that the planes used in the Battle of Britain in 1940 weren't American built or supplied planes. I understood that hey were British designed & manufactured Spitfires & Hurricanes for the most parts.

Does anyone have any facts & figures to show either way?

Russia, hands down.
And not for any reasons mentioned.

Simply, Russia did the most just by being there, it was what Hitler wanted most. "Lebensraum", or however it's spelt. It was Hitlers main goal, to take the east and enslave the people under Germany. Fighting with the west was just something he "had to do" because they weren't cooperating with his plans.

So, solely based on Hitlers preoccupation with invading Russia in the first place, Russia made the largest contribution.
If Hitler hadn't wanted "Lebensraum" (Living Space) in Russia for the Aryans, and the "sub-human" Slavs as cheap labour, then he would have concentrated all his forces in Western Europe, and the US and UK wouldn't have stood a chance.

Remember, by the time the US entered the war full swing, Germany was knee deep in mud in Russia.

Actually, Hitler wanted to expand to give his "pefect race" more land for them to live in.

Many of the planes used in the battle of Britain were made in America, or relied on American parts.
The American parts I believe you refer to are the tri-blade propellers that were fitted just before the start of the Battle of Britain. Though these early builds were from the US, later units were produced by Britain without US assistance. Planes weren't built for shipment to the UK as there loss would be too expensive and we required food, fuel etc to feed our population. Raw materials yes, aircraft no.

That's what I meant, I should probably have been more explicit. If Japan hadn't attacked them would the US have been forced to enter the war? Could they have kept supplying Britain on the lend/lease program? I know the US lost a number of ships to the German subs, would they have prepared to accept those sorts of ongoing losses as preferable to actually entering the war?


I think the US would have to have entered in a limited fashion. (Maybe not an outright declaration of war, but a statement that it would use all necessary force - i.e. actively hunt and destroy german naval vessels in the atlantic - ro protect shipping.)

While I have no doubt that Britian could never have been invaded sucessfully by Hitler, and could ahve stood alone forever, it was dependant upon the convoys to feed itself. The US was not going to let britian fall, because if nothing else, britian was the only feasible entry into europe and the US was well aware that at some point it would have to be more involved in European affairs. So out of self interest, the US would have kept the supply line over.

Lend-lease, was essentially the same. In effect, the US was just giving the UK weapons (with the odd proviso that they be returned at wars end).

Please specify how US made more progress than anyone else?

I didn't say MORE progress, I said they where the only ones to have made signifigant progress in BOTH world wars. Britain wouldn't have been able to drive Germany out of its trenches in WWI and they would never have been able to retake France alone in WWII.

Russia made huge progress in WWII, but only managed to hold Germany to a stalemate in WWI.

Anyways we'll see what happens in WWIII. :)

We were all allied nations. We all contributed our fair share, and we all made the same sacrificies.
No one made a bigger contribution than anyone else; we all did what was asked of us.

Overall, the US, I think.
Britain had a good air force and all, but I dont think they had enough troops and armour to do anything on the ground, which is where you have to fight, eventually. They could have held Britian for a while, but give Germany a few years to consolidate, make a treaty with Russia for a bit and move some forces down. They could eventually wear the British fleet out with their superior submarines.
Russia had the numbers, sure, but not the material, or leadership. Basicaly they were (mostly) using WWI tactics, although they had a few good tanks, I think that without the US' support they would have lost, even with the aid of winter and all that.

Which is not to say that either was not needed, without them the US wouldnt have been able to hold out in the Pacific or the European theatres, we would have had to choose one, and would have been shot in the back by the other.
Good job Brit/Ruskies :)

And Yes, many american bombers participated in mainland bombings. American and British bombers completely destroyed Drezden. The German fighters also tore up the B-17s, which made America look for better fighters that could go longer distances to protect the bombers.

I was talking about the Blitz on the Brits. Unlike Britan, America had not had to put up with loads of bombing raids for years on end. Yet we still managed to stand tall without you. I suspect it may have even been possible for D-Day to have been won without American troops, provided extensive recruitment plans in the collonies turned out correctly, and the posibility of an alliance with Ireland (why they did not help Britain is still beyond me)

Actually, Hitler wanted to expand to give his "pefect race" more land for them to live in.


Um, that's what I said.

He also wanted to enslave the Slavs to work for the Germans (Or more specificly the Aryans).
This is quite fresh in my mind, as I'm in the middle of a course on this part of history.

[QUOTE=Neo Cannen]That statement is extremely debateable, unlike mine. Had America been involved with the war in Europe from the begining, it is likely that they would be in a simmilar position to Britain by 1941 (IE, pushed out by the German advance and waiting in Britain to prepare a countor offensive). True it may have been slower, perhaps only being pushed out by 1942 or 3 but even with American support, France most likely would have fallen. There is a limit to how much support America and Britian could have given France and the French millitary was so inept that they made little diffrence (the Poles killed more Germans when they were on horseback attacking the German invaders than the French did)[/QUOTE

True, true. The French were horrible in both world wars, more so in the second. But I highly doubt Germany could have invaded Britain, even if America hadn't helped Britain in the Battle of Atlantic, and indeed in the early stages of war American help made no difference. The Germans had not enough fighters to establish an absolute superioty in the air and Goering made some hideous errors that cost the Germans any hope of winning the Battle of Britain.

I'm not sure if Britain had the strongest airforce - the America surpassed Britain in air production by extremely large margins, especially in '43 and '44, and the difference between production statistics in 1944 alone cover every British aircraft built from 39-41.

Strongest air force in Europe. The American air force was still tied down with the Japanese and the Spitfire and the Hurricane had demonstrated their supiriorty over the messcasmit.

The Americans and the British. Seeing as America had the bomb and Britain had the strongest air force, it was hardly likely that Russia would have risked further expanssion.

BTW this whole arguement relies upon D-day failing.

The American did not have the bomb until months after the end of the war. If the Russians had by then installed communist sympathisers across Europe (and don't forget communist resistance groups were active in all of these countries) then all the Americans could do would be to nuke Paris or Berlin. No bomber had the range reach Moscow. No airforce had the capability of subduing the Russian airforce.

What evidence do you have that Russia wanted to annex western Europe? They had shown no territoral ambition before this point?

I'm just going by the fact that whatever Russia touched they took. Eastern Europe, that other Stan country I couldn't spell to save my life, in fact they probably would have kept driving south had they not lost in Afghanistan.

I didn't say MORE progress, I said they where the only ones to have made signifigant progress in BOTH world wars. Britain wouldn't have been able to drive Germany out of its trenches in WWI and they would never have been able to retake France alone in WWII.

Russia made huge progress in WWII, but only managed to hold Germany to a stalemate in WWI.

Anyways we'll see what happens in WWIII. :)
Ok, how did they make significant progress compared to other countries in both wars. You mention what the others didn't do, but not what the US did.

Overall, the US, I think.
Britain had a good air force and all, but I dont think they had enough troops and armour to do anything on the ground, which is where you have to fight, eventually. They could have held Britian for a while, but give Germany a few years to consolidate, make a treaty with Russia for a bit and move some forces down. They could eventually wear the British fleet out with their superior submarines.

Actually the Brits developed some very sophisticated anti-submarine tactics & technologies which turned them into the hunters of the U-boats, rather than the hunted.

True, true. The French were horrible in both world wars, more so in the second. But I highly doubt Germany could have invaded Britain, even if America hadn't helped Britain in the Battle of Atlantic, and indeed in the early stages of war American help made no difference. The Germans had not enough fighters to establish an absolute superioty in the air and Goering made some hideous errors that cost the Germans any hope of winning the Battle of Britain.

I never suggested Gemany could invade Britain

Ok, how did they make significant progress compared to other countries in both wars. You mention what the others didn't do, but not what the US did.

Aside from reclaiming the Pacific Islands and France in WWII. They were probably the first to take the fight out of the trenches in WWI, which would also explain the high number of casualties in such a short amount of time.

True, true. The French were horrible in both world wars, more so in the second. But I highly doubt Germany could have invaded Britain, even if America hadn't helped Britain in the Battle of Atlantic, and indeed in the early stages of war American help made no difference. The Germans had not enough fighters to establish an absolute superioty in the air and Goering made some hideous errors that cost the Germans any hope of winning the Battle of Britain.

The French weren't horrible in WW1, they lost the most troops of any of the Western Allies. That's one of the main reasons they were so inept in WW2, they had no desire to suffer those sorts of losses a second time.

I agree though with the inability of the Luftwaffe to subdue the RAF.

America's entrance won the war.

"To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."
- Prime Minister Winston Churchill (after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor)

Just to show how much America's lend lease program did to help the USSR and the Allies check out this link.

Some of the stats will make your jaw drop.

They were probably the first to take the fight out of the trenches in WWI, which would also explain the high number of casualties in such a short amount of time.

I disagree, commanders on both sides had been trying find a way around the trench warfare stalemate. It's as much to do with the timing of the American entry into WW1 as anything.

Aside from reclaiming the Pacific Islands and France in WWII. They were probably the first to take the fight out of the trenches in WWI, which would also explain the high number of casualties in such a short amount of time.


Your lessons on WW1 are flawed.
Taking the fighting "Out of the trenches" had been done since the Battle of the Marne.
The US got such high cassualties in that war because they were poorly trained for trench warfare, and a war of attrition.
They were also poorly prepared for it in the second world war, but at least then they were smart enough to keep the fighting from going back into the trenches on a large scale.

Aside from reclaiming the Pacific Islands and France in WWII. They were probably the first to take the fight out of the trenches in WWI, which would also explain the high number of casualties in such a short amount of time.
Reclaiming France? You had a claim?
Seriously though, France was freed from the Nazis by a joint US/UK(Empire) assault.
No one got out of the trenches, that was why Germany was so unhappy with the treaties that followed, as they were not defeated as their lines were still intact. Your losses were due to bad leadership, and (as per usual) not listening to your allies (who told you walking across no mans land would be a bad idea, we knew, we tried it).

I disagree, commanders on both sides had been trying find a way around the trench warfare stalemate. It's as much to do with the timing of the American entry into WW1 as anything.

Yes they had been trying to find ways around, but none of them were really successful. Germany tried digging tunnels under No Man's Land and the Tanks where the most effective until Germany developed Anti-Tank weaponry. Although it's true, America has great timing. (Well they used too anyway)

America's entrance won the war.

It certainly helped enormously to win the war & perhaps the war wouldn't have been won without it, but I don't think it's correct to simply say America's entrance won it.

Actually, now that I think of it...

You're all wrong.
Austria gave the greatest contribution to winning the war for the allies.
They produced Hitler, who tried to control his armies, despite his downright stupid tactics and wartime managment.

So, we all owe Austria a "Thank you."

Your lessons on WW1 are flawed.
Taking the fighting "Out of the trenches" had been done since the Battle of the Marne.
The US got such high cassualties in that war because they were poorly trained for trench warfare, and a war of attrition.
They were also poorly prepared for it in the second world war, but at least then they were smart enough to keep the fighting from going back into the trenches on a large scale.

Reclaiming France? You had a claim?
Seriously though, France was freed from the Nazis by a joint US/UK(Empire) assault.
No one got out of the trenches, that was why Germany was so unhappy with the treaties that followed, as they were not defeated as their lines were still intact. Your losses were due to bad leadership, and (as per usual) not listening to your allies (who told you walking across no mans land would be a bad idea, we knew, we tried it).

I regonize that is was a joint attack, but a majority of the ground forces were American.

Also I would like susceed from this debate, I know when I've been beaten. Damn you people and your good points! :D

I voted for the British, simply because I'm British.

I do not believe any one nation is responisble for victory, although I'll admit without the US forces the shape of the conflict would have been very different as the strain on Australasian forces would have been entirely unique. The simple fact is that allied forces achieved this remarkable victory over genuine Evil and I hope we're never in a position to be in this situation again.

Let's learn from history, eh, America?

England was the onle country out of the 3 who actually choe to stop the Germans. The Americans and Russians were forced into a war and did nothing to stop the Germans untill war was brought onto their doorstep.

It certainly helped enormously to win the war & perhaps the war wouldn't have been won without it, but I don't think it's correct to simply say America's entrance won it.

Uh, yes we did.

The US gave the USSR the following number of ships "595 ships, including 28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 trawlers, 22 torpedo boats, 140 anti-submarine vessels and others”

Planes: 4,952 Aerocobras, 2,410 Kingcobra fighter planes, 2,700 A-20 and 861 B-25 bomber planes.

Tanks: 7,056 tanks of all types.

Anti-aircraft guns: 8,218 anti-aircraft emplacements

Guns: 131,600 machine guns and other arms

During the WWII years, the USA delivered defense technology in the sum of $46 billion to the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. The costs made up 13 percent of America's defense spending. The lion's share of deliveries was given to England - $30.3 billion. The Soviet Union received defense technology in the sum of $9.8 billion, France $1,4 billion and China $631 million. In total, the USA supplied arms to 42 countries

Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.

That's taken from the link I posted above.

I was talking about the Blitz on the Brits. Unlike Britan, America had not had to put up with loads of bombing raids for years on end. Yet we still managed to stand tall without you. I suspect it may have even been possible for D-Day to have been won without American troops, provided extensive recruitment plans in the collonies turned out correctly, and the posibility of an alliance with Ireland (why they did not help Britain is still beyond me)
There is no way Britain could have stood tall without the food, weapons, and war material that was shipped from the U.S.

England was the onle country out of the 3 who actually choe to stop the Germans. The Americans and Russians were forced into a war and did nothing to stop the Germans untill war was brought onto their doorstep.

England? The English couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. It was the Welsh who carried the bulk of the fight.

Remember 9 - 11 :p

Uh, yes we did.

The US gave the USSR the following number of ships "595 ships, including 28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 trawlers, 22 torpedo boats, 140 anti-submarine vessels and others”

Planes: 4,952 Aerocobras, 2,410 Kingcobra fighter planes, 2,700 A-20 and 861 B-25 bomber planes.

Tanks: 7,056 tanks of all types.

Anti-aircraft guns: 8,218 anti-aircraft emplacements

Guns: 131,600 machine guns and other arms

During the WWII years, the USA delivered defense technology in the sum of $46 billion to the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. The costs made up 13 percent of America's defense spending. The lion's share of deliveries was given to England - $30.3 billion. The Soviet Union received defense technology in the sum of $9.8 billion, France $1,4 billion and China $631 million. In total, the USA supplied arms to 42 countries

Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.

That's taken from the link I posted above.

Keep in mind that Lend Lease was only about 10% of the US military budget. The US alone could have defeated the Japanese, Italians, and Germans.

It would have taken time and a lot of casaulties but America could have.

www.military-quotes.com (http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2811&highlight=lend+lease)

The above link is the post in the forums of military-quotes.com where I pulled some of the information from.

England was the onle country out of the 3 who actually choe to stop the Germans.
What, apart from the Dutch, the Finnish, the French... Do you honestly believe that once invaded (or persuaded in the case of the Finns) those dedicated to freedom stopped fighting? Does Maquis mean nothing to you except a geekish Star Trek reference?

Chose to stop the Germans... Jesus fucking Christ... :rolleyes:

I was talking about the Blitz on the Brits. Unlike Britan, America had not had to put up with loads of bombing raids for years on end. Yet we still managed to stand tall without you. I suspect it may have even been possible for D-Day to have been won without American troops, provided extensive recruitment plans in the collonies turned out correctly, and the posibility of an alliance with Ireland (why they did not help Britain is still beyond me)

What was the recruitment plan for the colonies? What more could they have given & would they have gone along with it.

I think the reason the Irish didn't help Britain in WW2 is that having recently gained their independence, they have very little sympathy towards the UK.

England was the onle country out of the 3 who actually choe to stop the Germans. The Americans and Russians were forced into a war and did nothing to stop the Germans untill war was brought onto their doorstep.
They didn't chose, they had an alliance with Poland that brought them into the war. This was after Chaimberlan gave Czeckoslovakia to Hitler. "Peace in our time".

Keep in mind that Lend Lease was only about 10% of the US military budget. The US alone could have defeated the Japanese, Italians, and Germans.

It would have taken time and a lot of casaulties but America could have.

www.military-quotes.com (http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2811&highlight=lend+lease)

The above link is the post in the forums of military-quotes.com where I pulled some of the information from.

I agree that the American contribution was huge and probably without it the war couldn't have been won. What I'm saying is that it wasn't the sole reason.

As for winning it alone, I'm not sure. Would the enormous casualties led to the government/population to stop the fighting? Logistically, how could the Americans have landed enough forces in Europe without a base, ie Britain?

I was talking about the Blitz on the Brits. Unlike Britan, America had not had to put up with loads of bombing raids for years on end. Yet we still managed to stand tall without you. I suspect it may have even been possible for D-Day to have been won without American troops, provided extensive recruitment plans in the collonies turned out correctly, and the posibility of an alliance with Ireland (why they did not help Britain is still beyond me)

this is the most ignorant thing i.ve ever heard first off britain would of never had enough men to take the german fortifications and you wouldnt have the MASSES of american air to bomb the germans you wouldnt have the giant american fleet to transport men britain wouldnt of been able to do anything in d-day without america.america had alot more men fighting on d-day then any other nation although other nations were fighting canada,britain,australia i think and ireland would never have allied britain irish hate the english people its just a fact they even opened their ports up for nazi boats so what you say is totaly dumb britain couldnt of won d-day with america didnt eisenhower(however you spell it) plan d-day anyway?

I agree that the American contribution was huge and probably without it the war couldn't have been won. What I'm saying is that it wasn't the sole reason.

As for winning it alone, I'm not sure. Would the enormous casualties led to the government/population to stop the fighting? Logistically, how could the Americans have landed enough forces in Europe without a base, ie Britain?

Casaulties wouldn't have mattered as the US would have been fighting a war for survival so it would continue to fight even if the deaths numbered in the millions.

It would take time for the US to establish a base, but once it did the war would only go forward.

Assuming Britain was occupied by the Nazis the Americans could have liberated it and used it as a base.

I know I sound like an arrogant American but I am just telling it like it is. America won the war.

I agree that the American contribution was huge and probably without it the war couldn't have been won. What I'm saying is that it wasn't the sole reason.

As for winning it alone, I'm not sure. Would the enormous casualties led to the government/population to stop the fighting? Logistically, how could the Americans have landed enough forces in Europe without a base, ie Britain?


I actually believe had britian made peace with hitler in 1940, then germany would have won.

Had that happened, the US would never have been able to supply the USSR, because the only feasible convoy route was to Archangel and without british participation it could not have been kept open. Given the state of USSR industy the Germans would have prevailed.

This is doubly so when you consider the manpower that would have been free d from france and north africa (neither of which the US could have attacked in 42/43/44 without staging through the British Isles), coupled to the fact the germans would not have experienced the devasting strategic bombing from the allies.

The UK was essential to defeating the Nazis.

Edit: Of course the Nazi's couldn't have beaten the US either for the reverse reasons. I imagine it would have ended up being a Nazi/US cold war, with both countries having the bomb (the US first). It is interesting to speculate however, that as the Nazi's were technologically ahead of the USSR in just about every respect the arms race would have been a lot hotter.

Let's be honest here... if the world had seen Hitler for what we was in the first place, none of this would be up for discussion. But the simply fact is that a large percentage of the world (including Britain) sat back and though to themselves "How powerful an ally would this pretender to the World Throne be?" and waited until the lunatic stretched his hand across far to many a nation and destroyed far too many a culture.

If you let evil spread, it will spread. Whatever guise it takes, and however secure it might initially make you feel.

Remember that, America.

There is no way America could have beaten the Germans alone. You are forgetting how advanced the Germans were. They had jet planes before the US, and if we had not kept detroying theiir facilities, would have developed the atomic bomb first. It was truly a combined effort.

Casaulties wouldn't have mattered as the US would have been fighting a war for survival so it would continue to fight even if the deaths numbered in the millions.

It would take time for the US to establish a base, but once it did the war would only go forward.

Assuming Britain was occupied by the Nazis the Americans could have liberated it and used it as a base.

I know I sound like an arrogant American but I am just telling it like it is. America won the war.

I can see I'm not going to be able to change your mind. I don't think you're telling it like it is, I think you're telling it how you see it. I'll just have to disagree with you. :)

america would never have surrendered because of casualties its not in our nature look at the American Civil War 650k+ dead more then in any war america fought in since then put together we would fight until we won no matter the cost :cool:we could of overran vietnam with the fraction of the troops there but politicians ran the war keeping us in a defensive war we also could have carpet bombed their industries and major cities but again politicians stopped them

america would never have surrendered because of casualties its not in our nature look at the American Civil War 650k+ dead more then in any war america fought in since then put together we would fight until we won no matter the cost :cool:
What about Vietnam?

Let's be honest here... if the world had seen Hitler for what we was in the first place, none of this would be up for discussion. But the simply fact is that a large percentage of the world (including Britain) sat back and though to themselves "How powerful an ally would this pretender to the World Throne be?" and waited until the lunatic stretched his hand across far to many a nation and destroyed far too many a culture.

If you let evil spread, it will spread. Whatever guise it takes, and however secure it might initially make you feel.

Remember that, America.


We did. So we invaded Iraq.

Lend-Lease.

Without it Russia would not have recieved the supplies it needed to continue the war, and the UK also benefited greatly from this, not to mention our gift of 50 destroyers to the British and giving away the B-29 to the Russians. (Big mistake, thank god it never back fired on the US.)

We did. So we invaded Iraq.
Remember what you just wrote. For as long as you live, remember what you just wrote.

this is the most ignorant thing i.ve ever heard first off britain would of never had enough men to take the german fortifications and you wouldnt have the MASSES of american air to bomb the germans you wouldnt have the giant american fleet to transport men britain wouldnt of been able to do anything in d-day without america.america had alot more men fighting on d-day then any other nation although other nations were fighting canada,britain,australia i think and ireland would never have allied britain irish hate the english people its just a fact they even opened their ports up for nazi boats so what you say is totaly dumb britain couldnt of won d-day with america didnt eisenhower(however you spell it) plan d-day anyway?

Ireland being neutral, could hardly refuse to allow Germans in... Have you not heard tales of British and German men buying drinks for each other in Irish pubs? Shame... It's almost as good as the Germans and the British playing football above the trenches. The Irish do not hate the British, that is a large generalisation you should regret making. I think someone here, and it's not me, under-rates what neutrality actually represents. Needless to say, WW2 was chance in the end, Hitler being the mad man that he was and deciding to send his forces to Dunkirk instead of where he was advised to send them during the D-Day landings was a crucial error. We're voting between the UK, US and USSR... Why not the Germans? Hitler made enough errors, namely Operation Barbarossa and Operation Sealion. I would say that between them, the UK offered the most to the war. From the start, they fought it out (a stamina America has never showed, btw) and they stood alone. Of course, American resources were needed, but they were hardly enough to support a country... the need for rations were crucial. I would love to see another nation devote themselves to the war the way the British did. It is a small island... The Russians burnt their land... and well, :) the British war effort was crucial for the D-day landings. Had they been invaded, who knows the potential outcome.

Can't we be fecking grateful that it ended up the way it did. A lot of posts in this thread seem to be undermining the amount of deaths made by men on all sides. These threads are pointless.

I think so far, it is US and UK are indespensible to the victory. USSR contributed a lot, but the war could have been won without them.

I actually believe had britian made peace with hitler in 1940, then germany would have won.

Had that happened, the US would never have been able to supply the USSR, because the only feasible convoy route was to Archangel and without british participation it could not have been kept open. Given the state of USSR industy the Germans would have prevailed.

I agree, logistically it's almost impossible to supply fighting forces in Europe from North America. Gathering & landing enough supplies to invade from across the Atlantic is a scenario no sane general would consider.

There is no way America could have beaten the Germans alone. You are forgetting how advanced the Germans were. They had jet planes before the US, and if we had not kept detroying theiir facilities, would have developed the atomic bomb first. It was truly a combined effort.

The jet plane didn't contribute much to the German war effort, it could have, but it didn't. They should have spent the funds in the development of their missiles and creating a good long range bomber.

The Germans were not the only ones with advanced weapons you know? The Brits and Americans created a few nice toys as well. What many don't know is that the US also had a heavy tank capable of knocking out Tiger IIs. The M26 Pershing had a 90mm gun and was very heavily protected. We had them all along but they weren't mass produced because they weren't needed.

And the reason the Germans had so many nice weapons was because they had a huge head start. Before the invasion of the USSR Hitler was quoted to have said that the invasion had better be sometime around '42-43 or else the German weapon advantage would be lost.

A war between the US and Germany would be a long one and the intial superiority of German weapons would eventually fade and the US would defeat them.

Remember what you just wrote. For as long as you live, remember what you just wrote.

People don't often forget wars...

There is no way America could have beaten the Germans alone. You are forgetting how advanced the Germans were. They had jet planes before the US, and if we had not kept detroying theiir facilities, would have developed the atomic bomb first. It was truly a combined effort.
Actually, the US did have jets in mid 1942, but the P-51 was such a superior plane that the jet fighter wasn't opted for.

And beyond that, when the allies did get ahold of the German atomic bomb research facility, their research had barely progressed beyond the 1941 level, and there are two reasons for this: 1) Sabotage by the scientists, Heisenberg and company didn't exactly like Hitler, so they harmed the project. 2) Even if they hadn't done so, the German A-Bomb project was headed in the wrong direction, with everything from their method of extracting U238 being questionable, to their basic design of the bomb.

One might also note that the US had the B-32 Dominator set to be ready by 1943, but, because Britain had survived, we didn't really need it, so the project was delayed, until it became evident that the even more capable B-36 would be ready before it in 1946. The B-29 was also comparable to the B-32, with just a slightly shorter range, so, even if Britain had fallen the bombardment of Europe would have been possible.

The jet plane didn't contribute much to the German war effort, it could have, but it didn't. They should have spent the funds in the development of their missiles and creating a good long range bomber.

The Germans were not the only ones with advanced weapons you know? The Brits and Americans created a few nice toys as well. What many don't know is that the US also had a heavy tank capable of knocking out Tiger IIs. The M26 Pershing had a 90mm gun and was very heavily protected. We had them all along but they weren't mass produced because they weren't needed.

And the reason the Germans had so many nice weapons was because they had a huge head start. Before the invasion of the USSR Hitler was quoted to have said that the invasion had better be sometime around '42-43 or else the German weapon advantage would be lost.

A war between the US and Germany would be a long one and the intial superiority of German weapons would eventually fade and the US would defeat them.
So if the Germans had been first to develop the Atomic bomb, the US still would have won? I'm not so sure.

this is the most ignorant thing i.ve ever heard first off britain would of never had enough men to take the german fortifications and you wouldnt have the MASSES of american air to bomb the germans you wouldnt have the giant american fleet to transport men britain wouldnt of been able to do anything in d-day without america.america had alot more men fighting on d-day then any other nation although other nations were fighting canada,britain,australia i think and ireland would never have allied britain irish hate the english people its just a fact they even opened their ports up for nazi boats so what you say is totaly dumb britain couldnt of won d-day with america didnt eisenhower(however you spell it) plan d-day anyway?
This is the most ignorant thing I've ever read, and I've read lots!
We were bombing the Germans rather well actually. The Lancasters were doing a pretty good job, as far as bombing goes.
Giant American fleet? Most of the ships, and thusly their men, were British. (78000 Brits on board warships comapared to 20380 Americans).
The three British sector beaches contained 75214 soldiers compared with 57500 on the two US beaches. A significant force, admittadly, but not the majority.
D-Day was planned and commanded by Dwight D Eisenhower,overall control (American), Bernard Montgomery(British), ground forces, Bertram Ramsay(British)naval forces, and Trafford Leigh-Mallory (British) tactical airforces.

I agree, logistically it's almost impossible to supply fighting forces in Europe from North America. Gathering & landing enough supplies to invade from across the Atlantic is a scenario no sane general would consider.


Mmm yeah, look at how close D-Day could have been. As it was, we were really lucky and even then it was tough. And that was only from across the channel.

People forget, fortress Europe was a lot more heavily defended at the coasts than tiny pacific islands. Also, it would have been easy to mass a strategic reserve near the coasts, as there would have been no chance of surprise.

What about Vietnam?

vietnam was alot different from ww2 first off our mainland was not threatened it was in ww2 germany would have went on to the americas after he took russia and europe vietnam was a political war ran by politicians who kept us on a defensive war we could of ran over vietnam with a fraction of the troops there but we stayed in our bases and let the vietnamese do guerilla warfare killing 60k americans and the unrestrained reporters showed alot of death on tv and that turned americans against the war i wasnt referring to vietnam i was referring to a world war

Remember what you just wrote. For as long as you live, remember what you just wrote.

Like france should have invaded germany. :rolleyes:

Or what do you want, that the allies should have called hitler a very naughty boy.

So if the Germans had been first to develop the Atomic bomb, the US still would have won? I'm not so sure.
The Germans didn't have a delivery system. They couldn't have actually hit the US.

Actually, the US did have jets in mid 1942, but the P-51 was such a superior plane that the jet fighter wasn't opted for.

And beyond that, when the allies did get ahold of the German atomic bomb research facility, their research had barely progressed beyond the 1941 level, and there are two reasons for this: 1) Sabotage by the scientists, Heisenberg and company didn't exactly like Hitler, so they harmed the project. 2) Even if they hadn't done so, the German A-Bomb project was headed in the wrong direction, with everything from their method of extracting U238 being questionable, to their basic design of the bomb.

One might also note that the US had the B-32 Dominator set to be ready by 1943, but, because Britain had survived, we didn't really need it, so the project was delayed, until it became evident that the even more capable B-36 would be ready before it in 1946. The B-29 was also comparable to the B-32, with just a slightly shorter range, so, even if Britain had fallen the bombardment of Europe would have been possible.

Good post, we seem to be on the same page.

So if the Germans had been first to develop the Atomic bomb, the US still would have won? I'm not so sure.

The Germans never took the idea of a nuclear weapon seriously. Many people are fond of saying that the Germans were very close to making an atomic weapon.

They weren't.

The US government pulled scientists from all over the nation to work in the Manhattan Project. The US spent billions in their development of the atomic bomb.

The Germans diverted their funds elsewhere.

vietnam was alot different from ww2 first off our mainland was not threatened it was in ww2 germany would have went on to the americas after he took russia and europe vietnam was a political war ran by politicians who kept us on a defensive war we could of ran over vietnam with a fraction of the troops there but we stayed in our bases and let the vietnamese do guerilla warfare killing 60k americans and the unrestrained reporters showed alot of death on tv and that turned americans against the war i wasnt referring to vietnam i was referring to a world war
Had Hitler been able to conquer Europe and Russia, I'm sure he would have offered a peace treaty with the US.

guys theres no real way to know who would of won without other countries help i think that they all had their own part in that war that helped all of us win it as the poll says its practicely even and thats how it should be because theres no use for this debate they all did their own part

[QUOTE=Colchus]The jet plane didn't contribute much to the German war effort, it could have, but it didn't. They should have spent the funds in the development of their missiles and creating a good long range bomber./QUOTE]

The jet plane didn't contribute much because the bombing campaign based in the UK initially slowed it's development & production, then starved it of fuel. If the UK had fallen, the jet development wouldn't have been strangled, allowing to play a much greater role later on in the war.

Man for man, probably Britain, was the biggest contributer, to the war effort in Europe and the Middle east anyway.
Hitlers biggest mistake was attacking Russias North, he should have just taken the South, grabbing its oil fields, and then pushing down to the middle east and taking Eygpt and Palistine off Britain.
Other places he should have taken, Malta and the Straits of Gibraltar in the Mediterranean.
Plus he stopped bombing the British airfields in 1940 just as they were starting to become effective in destroying the RAF, and instead switched the bombing to cities.
Not conqureing Britain in 1940 when he could have, with a sea and air invasion, Britain was not ready, was the reason he ended up loosing the war in Europe.

Britain fought on 3 fronts. defence of Asian colonies.)
Isn't that where GB went wrong??? We wonder why the Middle East is at arms with Western society??? Just some food for thought.

Had Hitler been able to conquer Europe and Russia, I'm sure he would have offered a peace treaty with the US.

your sure????? dude theres no possible way you could be sure of that remember hitler was a wacko who did whatever he wanted its possible he would have offered a treaty then waited awhile and regrouped and used all the resources in russia and europe to take the americas

your sure????? dude theres no possible way you could be sure of that remember hitler was a wacko who did whatever he wanted its possible he would have offered a treaty then waited awhile and regrouped and used all the resources in russia and europe to take the americas
OK, How about "I think", feel better now?

[QUOTE=Colchus]The jet plane didn't contribute much to the German war effort, it could have, but it didn't. They should have spent the funds in the development of their missiles and creating a good long range bomber./QUOTE]

The jet plane didn't contribute much because the bombing campaign based in the UK initially slowed it's development & production, then starved it of fuel. If the UK had fallen, the jet development wouldn't have been strangled, allowing to play a much greater role later on in the war.

There wasn't much point to the M-262. It was fast, but plenty of them were shot down by Allied forces. What Germany really needed was a long range bomber.

Not developing a bomber really hurt the Germans later in the war.

your sure????? dude theres no possible way you could be sure of that remember hitler was a wacko who did whatever he wanted its possible he would have offered a treaty then waited awhile and regrouped and used all the resources in russia and europe to take the americas

Can you use some punctuation? It hurts my brain reading your posts.

Can you use some punctuation? It hurts my brain reading your posts.

then dont read them

Had Hitler been able to conquer Europe and Russia, I'm sure he would have offered a peace treaty with the US.

I remember seeing a program on the History Channel not long ago that addressed this question.

Apparently, aside from Mein Kampf Hitler had another diary. In the diary lay plans for the ultimate war, an attack on the US.

Hitler believed that the US in the '20s was the greatest nation in the world. He envied their industry and wanted to model Germany after it.

He also had a belief that what made America great was the Aryans that made it up. Hitler thought that the early immigrants who left the areas that made up Germany at the time were the bravest residents in their village because they had the courage to start a new life. He believed it was these brave Germans that made up America and made it great. Hilter also thought that the Germans that didn't leave were cowards and that's why Germany was in bad shape prior to WWII.

When the US began to slow down immigration of Eastern Europeans, namely Poles, Russians, and Ukranians that America was creating its own master race.

Just something I thought interesting.

america would never have surrendered because of casualties its not in our nature look at the American Civil War 650k+ dead more then in any war america fought in since then put together we would fight until we won no matter the cost :cool:

Excuse me if I'm unimpressed by 650,000+ deaths.

What does that work out as compared to Soviet deaths in WWII?

About 2.5%?

Excuse me if I'm unimpressed by 650,000+ deaths.

What does that work out as comapred to Soviet deaths in WWII?

About 2.5%?

He's talking about troop deaths, not total throughout the population.

Edit: (so it's like 10%)

Excuse me if I'm unimpressed by 650,000+ deaths.

What does that work out as comapred to Soviet deaths in WWII?

About 2.5%?

Deaths aren't something I would use to see how effective a nation has done in a particular war.

Believe it or not, the person who suffers the less deaths more than often wins the war...

Excuse me if I'm unimpressed by 650,000+ deaths.

What does that work out as comapred to Soviet deaths in WWII?

About 2.5%?

Plus it has to be difficult to surrender to yourself in the face of such casualties.
:D

And, playing with the silly (and in my opinion, utterly pointless, but I'm still going to go along with it for now) concept of alternate history, we might consider the other options of the US. We might also assume that the USSR has been defeated, although not subdued. Russian partisans would continue to harrass the Germans, and occupy a goodly number of German troops. If Britain had been defeated, we would expect that a British Government-In-Exile in Canada would have retained control of the navy, well, there are other options than a cross channel invasion. Perhaps an invasion in North Africa first, and a drive to the Suez canal and the middle eastern oil fields. From there, the US would have bomber bases with which to hit Italy and southern Europe in general, an invasion of Sicily, followed by an invasion of Italy, perhaps at multiple places, one high up on the boot, another in the middle and another near the toe, and perhaps one on the other side of Italy as well.

-completed by August of 1943

The conquest of Italy would of course be tough, but they would succeed. Thus giving the US bomber bases capable of hitting Germany. Then, perhaps a drive into the Balkans, invading Greece first, then going up through Yugoslavia, Austria and into Bavaria. Forces would also face eastward to deal with potential German forces from Russia, they might even go so far as to liberate Poland. Not sure about this aspect though.

-completed by August of 1944

With the Germans distracted on their southern flank, the British fleet could be used as the key in the liberation of the British Isles. Putting several divisions of well equipped allied troops on the islands, getting food and supplies to the British people, would spur resistance to the Germans. After which point the liberation of Britain would be complete.

-completed by August 1945

At which point the Germans would be looking for a cross channel invasion, the natural respons would be a friendly little invasion in, Denmark perhaps, drawing the Germans in France away from there, espescially if the allies get there in sufficient numbers and with sufficient success. Germany could not stand to allow such a situation on their northern border, espescially if the invasion got to around, say, Hamburg.

-completed by August 1946

A cross channel invasion can now occur with the Germans occupied in three different areas. It could possibly come as a surprise, as there would already be two forces in Germany proper, A roaring armored advance across France would lead us to the Rhine River.

-completed by August 1947

With Germany surrounded, and under constant bombardment, the three armies, which would now include American and British GIE, and possibly liberated French and Polish forces. Italy is defeated, and Germany is surrounded. We now might see a three pronged advance, eventually culminating in the capture of Berlin.

-completed by December 1948

Take that Harry Turtledove, you crappy writer! I can outdo you on a daily basis!

i wasnt comparing them to russias casualties i was debating with a guy who said america would of surrendered because of casualties and for as historians call it the first modern war with single shot rifles 650k is alot one of the worst wars of the 19th century

See, even I can write alternate history! I even didn't use nukes! (which would have been used, I might add)

then dont read them

Yeah, I spose, but I'm interested in seeing your opinions.

there is a big difference. America was drawn into WWI which made the country sceptical of joining another major war. The USSR went in at the beginning. There is a complete difference in casualties. WWII led to lots of American casualties (although not as much as the Russians), but the American civil war consisted mainly of american lives, and therefore cannot be used in comparison.

Deaths aren't something I would use to see how effective a nation has done in a particular war.

Believe it or not, the person who suffers the less deaths more than often wins the war...

You're missing the point if you apply this to the USSR in WWII. What were the advantages of different nations? USA - massive production base. Japan - Unbelievable loyalty and obedience. UK - geography. USSR - a massive population.

Just as the US used its prodcution facilities to its best advantage, so to did the other nations. In the case of the USSR its prime aserts were being able to trade land for time (as the saying famously goes) and also being able to trade bodies for victory.

The USSR made progress and reached Berlin because of the massive casualties that Stalin was prepared to sustain, not despite them.

He's talking about troop deaths, not total throughout the population.

So 11 million troop deaths doesn't dwarf 650,000?

i wasnt comparing them to russias casualties i was debating with a guy who said america would of surrendered because of casualties and for as historians call it the first modern war with single shot rifles 650k is alot the worst war of the 19th century

Good point. Losing 650,000 to rifles and cannons is a lot, the Soviets faced modern technology in WWII which had greater killing power. Tanks, planes, and heavy artillery will kill a lot more than muskets.

i wasnt comparing them to russias casualties i was debating with a guy who said america would of surrendered because of casualties and for as historians call it the first modern war with single shot rifles 650k is alot one of the worst wars of the 19th century

Counting 650,000 as a total for the Civil War gives 300,000 on each side (at an incredibly rough guess), and we see here that the situation is entirely different due to the fact that it was a civil war.

You're missing the point if you apply this to the USSR in WWII. What were the advantages of different nations? USA - massive production base. Japan - Unbelievable loyalty and obedience. UK - geography. USSR - a massive population.

Just as the US used its prodcution facilities to its best advantage, so to did the other nations. In the case of the USSR its prime aserts were being able to trade land for time (as the saying famously goes) and also being able to trade bodies for victory.

The USSR made progress and reached Berlin because of the massive casualties that Stalin was prepared to sustain, not despite them.



So 11 million troop deaths doesn't dwarf 650,000?


You have to put it into perspective. The Russians lost a lot more because they faced modern technology. However American casaulties came only from musket fire and cannons.

Good point about the USSR using its population to its advantage though.

So 11 million troop deaths doesn't dwarf 650,000?

as i said i wasnt even comparing a modern wars casualties to a war that happened 140 some years ago

it was probaly more like 400k for the union to about 250k or so for the confederacy as the union lost alot more men but thats a very rough estimate

You have to put it into perspective. The Russians lost a lot more because they faced modern technology. However American casaulties came only from musket fire and cannons.

This is missing the point - whether you are armed with pointed sticks, single shot muskets or Nebelwerfers to win you still need to neutralise the enemy. Unless there is a collapse in morale you still have to pretty much kill a good percentage of the enemy force to claim victory.


If anything it is the leaps forward in transport and mobility that would account for greater casualties, rather than the advance in technology.

Good point about the USSR using its population to its advantage though.


This is not to say that I don't think Stalin was a nutter, but he was a wiley one.

This is missing the point - whether you are armed with pointed sticks, single shot muskets or Nebelwerfers to win you still need to neutralise the enemy. Unless there is a collapse in morale you still have to pretty much kill a good percentage of the enemy force to claim victory.


If anything it is the leaps forward in transport and mobility that would account for greater casualties, rather than the advance in technology.




This is not to say that I don't think Stalin was a nutter, but he was a wiley one.

Good points but we have gotten way off subject here. The question originally posted was whether or not the US did the most to win in WWII.

In my opinion, they did.

He's talking about troop deaths, not total throughout the population.

Edit: (so it's like 10%)

Closer to 5%, as I reckon it. Not that I'm trying to push the issue here, but I just think that the sacrifice made by the USSR continues to be written out of history, even in these post-Cold War days.

So 11 million troop deaths doesn't dwarf 650,000?

Hmm, 6 million -ish actually. (from all causes).

Given the USSR population (around 300 million IIRC), not that impressive.

Cetainly nowhere near as good as Britian in WWI. Further troubling becuase a lot of those 6 million were thrown away in 42/43.

apples and oranges are still apples and oranges!

i agree US did do the most but what other countries did was incredible and really helped to take germany out but not many helped against japan

Good points but we have gotten way off subject here. The question originally posted was whether or not the US did the most to win in WWII.

In my opinion, they did.

In my opinion it was the combination of Soviet preparedness to undergo massiv casualties, American production and British tenacity since the early days and advantages of geography. Not to say that the other Allies didn't contribute vastly (say hello to the Canadians, if no one else*), but it seems to me that they contributions weren't so key.



* I can't quite remember what the figure that is at the back of my mind here, but Canada's contribution remains under reported and too often ignored.

agreed, countries were not concerned with helping out against Japan...their front was done!

Closer to 5%, as I reckon it. Not that I'm trying to push the issue here, but I just think that the sacrifice made by the USSR continues to be written out of history, even in these post-Cold War days.
It really isn't. We definitely learned about the 20 million dead Russians during WWII, even in Republicanville, Ohio. So, it isn't a marginalized thing.

And people, come on, I worked hard on the beat Germany alone alternate history strategy. Come one, at least confirm my beliefs that I am superior to Harry Turtledove!

Cetainly nowhere near as good as Britian in WWI. Further troubling becuase a lot of those 6 million were thrown away in 42/43.

I'm not arguing here, but rather asking an honest question: is that 6 million figure for Britain six million subjects of the British Empire or six million inhabitants of the UK?

whos harry turtledove?

Ya know, we were all called the "ALLIES" for a good reason, to not debate about stupid stuff like this 60 years from then.

...*votes U.S., just because I can*

whos harry turtledove?
A crappy author who writes alternate histories. The sheer volume of work, and utterly ridiculous plotlines make for total stupidity. I wouldn't advise reading his books. Ever.

whos harry turtledove?
lol, i agree...turtledove who???

A crappy author who writes alternate histories. The sheer volume of work, and utterly ridiculous plotlines make for total stupidity. I wouldn't advise reading his books. Ever.
know wonder I have never heard of him? I'll take your advise. thanks!

agreed, countries were not concerned with helping out against Japan...their front was done!

Eh? If anything the US was more concerned with fighting that front almost exclusively alone, rather than accepting help. ANZAC forces were ready for combat, but were held in reserve and far away from any possible situations where trouble could occur. The Indians (as part of the British Empire) were still sitting as a bulwark against any further westward spread of the Co-Prosperity zone. The British army themselves were still active on the ground in continental East Asia.

I am not denying that the role of the US in the pacific was a central one, but to claim that they fought it alone is ludicrous.

I think so far, it is US and UK are indespensible to the victory. USSR contributed a lot, but the war could have been won without them.

All three were essential to the war effort. Even if you only look at it like this.
Great Britain: Valuable location from which to hit Germany.
USSR: Even though they lost as many as 10 million men they did bog down the Wehrmacht.
America: Supplied Great Britain and USSR.

i like alternate history books but only American Civil War books since i am a Civil War buff if you like alternate history stuff check out Gettysburg and Grant Comes East by Newt Gingrich 3rd books coming out this year or next year

Ya know, we were all called the "ALLIES" for a good reason, to not debate about stupid stuff like this 60 years from then.

...*votes U.S., just because I can*

Allies can change, at one point Japan was our most hated enemy, now we pratically love each other. France one was our loyal allie, Germany used to start massive wars, and Russia used to have a country. Things change in sixty years ;)

i agree US did do the most but what other countries did was incredible and really helped to take germany out but not many helped against japan

America played the greater role in the Pacific, as it was their "home theatre", for want of a better phrase. Other nations did help though, as I previously listed, the Aussies, Kiwis, British Empire, Dutch, etc.

lol, i agree...turtledove who???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove

here's the wikipedia.

as i said not many helped im not saying noone helped

US military estimated they would lose around a million people in the Invasion of Japan thats one reason they didnt do it and they nuked them instead what do you guys think do you think we would of lost that many?

I'm not arguing here, but rather asking an honest question: is that 6 million figure for Britain six million subjects of the British Empire or six million inhabitants of the UK?

Sorry. I should pay more attention when I type.

The USSR lost six million troops in battle in WWII.

Britian (excluding Dominion and Empire forces) lost around a million troops in WWI.

Not only was britian's sacrifice in WWI proportionately far larger than the USSRs in WWII, britian actually "spent" (for want of a better word) its manpower far more sensibly than the USSR.

USSR casualities in 41/42 (which is the years I meant to refer too) were massive in large part because of Russian incompetence/cold bloodedness, and probably could have been reduced, if the Russians had been a little more tactically adept. (Like issing rifles/machine pistols to infantry, before issuing them to the NKVD battle police, or actually sending supplies ammunition to the west and no the east).

Eh? If anything the US was more concerned with fighting that front almost exclusively alone, rather than accepting help. ANZAC forces were ready for combat, but were held in reserve and far away from any possible situations where trouble could occur. The Indians (as part of the British Empire) were still sitting as a bulwark against any further westward spread of the Co-Prosperity zone. The British army themselves were still active on the ground in continental East Asia.

I am not denying that the role of the US in the pacific was a central one, but to claim that they fought it alone is ludicrous.
too many European powers were too busy dealing with the european part of the war. The only reason America went into the pacific was because they were promised back-up (sound familiar) the russians were willing to come in...in theory...especially after the atomic bombs fell upon Japan.

Depends what you mean. Britain provided spy tactics and early war technology. The Soviets supplied the most as far as men and keeping the germans busy. The US however supplied the most aid and matierals.

Eh? If anything the US was more concerned with fighting that front almost exclusively alone, rather than accepting help. ANZAC forces were ready for combat, but were held in reserve and far away from any possible situations where trouble could occur. The Indians (as part of the British Empire) were still sitting as a bulwark against any further westward spread of the Co-Prosperity zone. The British army themselves were still active on the ground in continental East Asia.

I am not denying that the role of the US in the pacific was a central one, but to claim that they fought it alone is ludicrous.

Not entirely true, the Australians played a crucial role in the defense of New Guinea, a very important point in stopping the Japanese from invading Aus. ANZACs were also involved in the island campaigns (Borneo, Wewak, Sawarwak) but they weren't the main focus of the Pacific island hopping thrusts.

All three were essential to the war effort. Even if you only look at it like this.
Great Britain: Valuable location from which to hit Germany.
USSR: Even though they lost as many as 10 million men they did bog down the Wehrmacht.
America: Supplied Great Britain and USSR.

Yeah, but the UK/US could have won the war without the USSR.

this has been really fun hearing you guys military opinions since im a military history buff mostly Civil War well i g2g its been fun gotta go later

Not entirely true, the Australians played a crucial role in the defense of New Guinea, a very important point in stopping the Japanese from invading Aus. ANZACs were also involved in the island campaigns (Borneo, Wewak, Sawarwak) but they weren't the main focus of the Pacific island hopping thrusts.

Pacific theater was all US shipping and airforce too.

Edit: There was a small british/commonwealth contribution, but not that much, before anyone nitpicks.

US military estimated they would lose around a million people in the Invasion of Japan thats one reason they didnt do it and they nuked them instead what do you guys think do you think we would of lost that many?

Yeah, I think the lossed incurred in invading Japan would have been appalling. The Japanese losses even worse. Does that justify using the nuclear weapons? IMO yes. With today's knowledge of what they do, perhaps not.

I think if the nuclear bombs hadn't been dropped on Japan, we may well have had WW3 with the USSR, because we wouldn't have comprehended the full implications of their power & long term effects.

Pacific theater was all US shipping and airforce too.

Edit: There was a small british/commonwealth contribution, but not that much, before anyone nitpicks.

Without doubt the US took the lion's share of the load in the Pacific.

Not entirely true, the Australians played a crucial role in the defense of New Guinea, a very important point in stopping the Japanese from invading Aus.


I concede that it wasn't entirely true, but I was talking about the later stages of the war, which is what the post I was respondng too was focusing upon.

ANZACs were also involved in the island campaigns (Borneo, Wewak, Sawarwak) but they weren't the main focus of the Pacific island hopping thrusts.

True, but I plead hyperbole, and it remains a fact that the US, for whatever reasons of its own, seemed to want to use its own troops (even at the now horrific idea of large scale American casualties) to crack the hard nuts.

here's the wikipedia.

thanks!

To me, it was an equal labour. The USA was a supplier of armaments to the allies (and in a few cases of supplies to the Axis, albeit without state complicity), and it's undeniable that the yanks made one hell of a contribution to the final victory. However, the American theatre of war was always, for the most part, the Pacific, which is right and proper. That said, it must be remembered that the American troops, for the most part, were pathetically under-trained and in many cases poorly equipped (witness the appalling effectiveness of even the Pzkpfw. IV "Special" against the M4) and that more often than not American troops were used in much the same manner as Russian troops.

The American supplies were critical to the survival of the USSR's armed forces and ability to fight the war, but not, I would judge, their ability to inflict German casualties. Forget not, that the last time someone entered Moskva, the Russians promptly burned it to the ground. The Russians would, I don't doubt, have fought on as long as they had the ability to do so, with or without an organised armed forces structure. Not only that, but it irritates me that people often forget that we (Britain) were supplying the USSR too, all the way through the war, and were manning the ships that transported the materials to them.

The USSR was undeniably the rock upon which Hitler foundered. The USSR's armed forces destroyed 75% of the Wehrmacht in the four years that they fought, and took dreadful losses in the process. Those losses could have been avoided, but for Stalin's purges and ridiculous orders (Kharkov, Voronezh and so on) but while they existed, the aid of Britain and the USA was vital to Soviet well-being. On the equipment front, the Soviets produced the best equipment of the war for the allied side in many cases (the T-34, IS series, the famed katyusha MRLS and the IL-2 spring to mind), and were able to inflict terrible casualties on the Germans - backed up by lorries made in Detriot and shipped from the Tyne.

Britain was what stopped the Germans' advance. Had Germany subdued us, there would have been no Royal navy in the Med, no Royal Navy to guard the convoys, no convoys at all. The U-boats would have had an extra base of operations, security from attack for miles into the Atlantic. Germany would have gained access to the resources of Britain and probably her Empire, too, or at least part of them. While not wishing to sound over-arrogant, while the other allies were making films and abiding by non-aggression Pacts, we were fighting for our lives, on our own and with little to no material aid, in the skies above the South of England. When Lend-Lease became our lifeline, it was our escort ships who shepherded the freighters into their ports from halfway out into the North Atlantic, and as often as not, our crewmen who endured the cold, the wet, the wind and the constant threat of attack. Britain spent herself in World War Two. By its end, Britain had fought through six long and terrible years of conflict, had exhausted her every last ounce of strength, bled herself of it to drown Germany. While we could not have won, or possibly survived, without the aid of our allies, I think it is often forgotten just what this country gave up during that war.

In summary, the allies made equal contrivutions to their victory, but in different ways. America was the arsenal of the allied armies; Russia was the rock against which the German hordes dashed themselves in vain. Britain, alone, stood against Nazism in 1940; without that, the odds are that Nazism would have come to dominate Europe.

To me, it was an equal labour.

Kudos for that post.

Edit: There was a small british/commonwealth contribution, but not that much, before anyone nitpicks.

Australia lost nearly 60,000 dead in WW2, mostly against Japan.
We had only 7 million people at the time, so much for your small contribution.

To me, it was an equal labour.....In summary, the allies made equal contrivutions to their victory, but in different ways. America was the arsenal of the allied armies; Russia was the rock against which the German hordes dashed themselves in vain. Britain, alone, stood against Nazism in 1940; without that, the odds are that Nazism would have come to dominate Europe.

Hats of to you, very well put.

Australia lost nearly 60,000 dead in WW2, mostly against Japan.
We had only 7 million people at the time, so much for your small contribution.

By God, I didn't mention the commonwealth...still, I tend to use "British" as a catchy-all for "British, Empire and Commonwealth", so I hope nobody thinks I'm attempting to belittle the huge contribution made by our (for want of a better term for what I mean) cousins in the former colonies. (And if you want an idea of how bad it was, I recommend The Retreat from Kokoda and The Jungle is Neutral.)

By God, I didn't mention the commonwealth...still, I tend to use "British" as a catchy-all for "British, Empire and Commonwealth", so I hope nobody thinks I'm attempting to belittle the huge contribution made by our (for want of a better term for what I mean) cousins in the former colonies. (And if you want an idea of how bad it was, I recommend The Retreat from Kokoda and The Jungle is Neutral.)

Thanks, but I got all the info I needed from my Uncle Lloyd when I was a kid.
He fought at Kokoda, and killed Jap soldiers in close combat.

Man...lucky fellow, your uncle. Didn't mean it to sound like it was addressing you specifically by the way, even if it's not too clear. :)

Yeah, but the UK/US could have won the war without the USSR.

I personally don't think so, this was an allied effort to defeat a well led, organized, equipped German Army, at a time when the rest of the world was dealing with economic upheavel Germany and Japan were expanding their power. Had the USSR fallen Britian likely would have been defeated, capturing the industry of Russia would have been a huge advantage for Germany, enabling them to possibly rival even the US in industrial output. The fall of Britain would have enabled Hitler to focus almost all of his attention on Russia, not that this would have had all that much effect on the war, a large percentage of German troops were already engaged in the war in Russia. And if Hitler hadn't committed his biggest mistake, declaring war on America, he may have very well fought the Russians and British to a stand still.

No if and whats about it, without the USSR , WWII may not of been won and certainly not when it was. Lets not forget, it was the USSR who reached Germany FIRST!

Eh, since the original question was most, not all, and how much contributed, not sacrificed, I'm voting for USA. Without them, most of the rest of the people wouldn't have had bullets to shoot their enemy with. Britain was running sort of low on raw materials.

Realistically, the US was in the war in its primary role, that of industrial heavyweight, from the beginning.

And fwiw, had Hitler taken all of Europe, including Britain, that wouldn't have been enough to let him seriously assault the US proper for years. He would control about the same amount of land, assuming he had Mussolini as an ally, as the US by itself. And by the time he had anything like a large enough sea force, the US coast would be miles of fortress, with naval yards churning out fleets at a time. The US really hasn't needed to show what it can do on the defensive since the early 1800's. Its wars have been fought with the enemy having the home turf advantage.

Man...lucky fellow, your uncle. Didn't mean it to sound like it was addressing you specifically by the way, even if it's not too clear. :)

He was lucky, he got one of his nuts blown off by shrapnel, and still had kids.
They were still removing the metal fragments from his leg well after the war, they were somehow moving up towards the skin surface from deep inside his leg, he would then feel a lump under his skin, and get the shrapnel removed.
I asked him how he killed the Japs, he said two with a bayonet, and he shot the rest.
He also said he had no animosity towards them, or regretted killing them.

Australia lost nearly 60,000 dead in WW2, mostly against Japan.
We had only 7 million people at the time, so much for your small contribution.

To the shipping and airforce effort? Read the whole post.

Between the three choices, I don't think it is possible to objectively say that one was more integral to the defeat of the Axis than the others. I'd put them all roughly equal.

I personally don't think so, this was an allied effort to defeat a well led, organized, equipped German Army, at a time when the rest of the world was dealing with economic upheavel Germany and Japan were expanding their power. Had the USSR fallen Britian likely would have been defeated, capturing the industry of Russia would have been a huge advantage for Germany, enabling them to possibly rival even the US in industrial output. The fall of Britain would have enabled Hitler to focus almost all of his attention on Russia, not that this would have had all that much effect on the war, a large percentage of German troops were already engaged in the war in Russia. And if Hitler hadn't committed his biggest mistake, declaring war on America, he may have very well fought the Russians and British to a stand still.
Actually, had the Battle of Britain been won by Germany, the tide of the war would have been totally different. Not only would Germany have been able to move significantly more aircraft towards the Eastern Front (which their generals always clamoured for), but the Germans would have been able to concentrate almost its entire military against the Russians without moving forces off to fight in North Africa, keep Italy in check, etc. Furthermore, the invasion of Russia had to be delayed due to the failure of the German attempts to subdue Britain, had Germany succeeded, it would have been able to invade sooner, and Moscow would have likely fallen before winter, likely giving a death-blow to a then disorganized Russian state.

However, you can't give Britain total credit for their success. Without American material and loans, the British would never have been able to survive the Battle of Britain. Furthermore, the claim that the Royal Navy somehow was responsible for tying down the German's is somewhat laughable, as their role in the Mediterranean was only important due to North Africa becoming an issue. The real battle between the U-boats and supply convoys was mainly fought by US destroyers, whom accompanied the convoys to Britain and Russia, not British destroyers.

The main reason the US must be considered as the ultimate victory-makers, is due to the effects of their entry on the war. If the war had solely remained the British and the Russians fighting Germany, a stalemate would probably have occured, though a German victory is still plausible. The reasons for this are clear. Without the need to shift troops to deal with America in other quarters (and the British could not hope to truly make those theatres much of an issue without American aid. Even in North Africa, Rommel would likely have won if he had been able to operate without the fear of American forces) the Germans would likely have had the power to win at either Stalingrad or Leningrad, either of which would have ultimately tipped the balance ultimately towards them. Even after D-Day the Germans had a chance to stop the Russians had they not instead been encircled, and ultimately destroyed (thanks to Hitler's no-retreat policy, largely created due to the American invasion). Had Hitler been able to leave the war in the hands of his generals, instead of wrenching it into his own hands when it become apparent the Americans meant to invade, it is likely that the superiorly run German army would have defeated the Russian army.

It was really the threat of D-Day that ultimately shifted the balance, with the actual invasion being the straw that broke the camel's back. Remember, America could have reached Germany far before Russia did, but Eisenhower ordered a slow and measured advance to clear out opposition, and reduce casualities. Furthermore, American loans of capital and material were of the utmost importance in keeping both Britain and Russia in the fight, and without those loans, it is unlikely that either of those countries would have fought as effectively as they did.

I know I'm baised becuase I live in the US, but most Brits here will say the UK contributed the most, while most Americans will say the US contributed the most. We're all biased. But in reality, all three nations contributed alot. The US single-handedly fought the Japenese in the Pacific Theater and contributed equally large amounts of troops and supplies in the European Theater. Britain had to fight for its life and do it all alone (with the exception of a few weapons bought from the US before they entered the war) until the US and USSR started to fight. They were the only free standing nation left in Western Europe and fought the Italians on the African Front. The USSR beat the Germans on the Easter Front and drove the Italians out of the southern areas of Eastern Europe. In actuality, all three nations were needed to defeat the Axis powers, but I still think the US contributed the most overall.

To the shipping and airforce effort? Read the whole post.

Are you for real??
Australia was Americas main base in the Pacific for war against Japan from 42 to 45, so yes, we did contribute alot to the shipping and airforce effort, we housed, fed and entertained thousands of US soldiers, marines, sailors and pilots, we did alot more than you think.

The real battle between the U-boats and supply convoys was mainly fought by US destroyers, whom accompanied the convoys to Britain and Russia, not British destroyers.

This is at odds with how I understand the situation: I thought it was mainly British escorts. Certainly prior to the actual entry of the US into the war, the US escorts only operated in the western Atlantic.

Wow, I can't believe I just read this entire thread from the beginning at 6am. Very tired, but can't sleep, so here I am. Apologies for this post if it doesn't seem very clear, as I said, I'm very tired...

I think it is impossible to differentiate between the three main allies, and pointless to do so. The whole point is that they were ALLIES and they were in it together. I don't think a combination of any 2 of them could have won without help from the other; at best it would have ended in stalemate.

Has anyone here ever played 'Call of Duty'? Remember the intro video to that: 'In the War that changed History, Victory was not Achieved by one man...' I think that applies to nations as well.

I do know a little about world war two, more than most people, I suspect (unfortunately) but not as much as some of the people who have been posting on this thread! However, for my History A-level final project (a few years ago now!) I attempted to discern which was the most important battle of the war in Europe (the main contenders being, in my inexperienced view, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain and Battle of the Atlantic - not listed in any particular order!). By the end of the study, I had come to the conclusion that it is just about impossible to say that any one of these contributed more than another. Quite often it is the case that the gains made as a result of one victory would be worthless without the gains of another. Winning in the Atlantic, for example, would have been useless if the Battle of Britain had been won by the Germans.

There have been a lot of interesting points made in this thread, and I had been wondering when another WW2 one would show up (the last one I posted in, I actually made this account for!). I wish I had the time and energy to reply to a lot of them right now :) But I expect to be in the library a lot tomorrow afternoon, working on a presentation (on World War One, oddly enough) and I hope this thread will still be going :)

Apologies for the long post.

Are you for real??
Australia was Americas main base in the Pacific for war against Japan from 42 to 45, so yes, we did contribute alot to the shipping and airforce effort, we housed, fed and entertained thousands of US soldiers, marines, sailors and pilots, we did alot more than you think.

What do you want? What exactly is you point? Yes I am for real. The majority of shipping and air forces in the pacific theater were US efforts.

Thank you for feeding us. :rolleyes:

I never said that australia never fought. In fact if you read all my posts in this thread I specifically mentioned that Australia was punching well above her weight. The fact remains, that with few small exceptions, the logistic infrastructure, the naval forces and airforces were american. Furthermore, Australia and MacArthur's command weren't even the "big" sector for the US pacific theater effort. Mostly is was Nimitz's show. That's just how it is. Look don't blame me, take it up with Churchill and Curtin, who had a morbid fascination with pissing about in the CBI theater, wasting everyones time so they could "show" the flag.

Everyone acknowledges Australia's efforts, and praises them, but you are being far to sensitive and trying to claim that australia did things it never did.

Wow, I can't believe I just read this entire thread from the beginning at 6am. Very tired, but can't sleep, so here I am. Apologies for this post if it doesn't seem very clear, as I said, I'm very tired...

I think it is impossible to differentiate between the three main allies, and pointless to do so. The whole point is that they were ALLIES and they were in it together. I don't think a combination of any 2 of them could have won without help from the other; at best it would have ended in stalemate.

Has anyone here ever played 'Call of Duty'? Remember the intro video to that: 'In the War that changed History, Victory was not Achieved by one man...' I think that applies to nations as well.

I do know a little about world war two, more than most people, I suspect (unfortunately) but not as much as some of the people who have been posting on this thread! However, for my History A-level final project (a few years ago now!) I attempted to discern which was the most important battle of the war in Europe (the main contenders being, in my inexperienced view, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain and Battle of the Atlantic - not listed in any particular order!). By the end of the study, I had come to the conclusion that it is just about impossible to say that any one of these contributed more than another. Quite often it is the case that the gains made as a result of one victory would be worthless without the gains of another. Winning in the Atlantic, for example, would have been useless if the Battle of Britain had been won by the Germans.

There have been a lot of interesting points made in this thread, and I had been wondering when another WW2 one would show up (the last one I posted in, I actually made this account for!). I wish I had the time and energy to reply to a lot of them right now :) But I expect to be in the library a lot tomorrow afternoon, working on a presentation (on World War One, oddly enough) and I hope this thread will still be going :)

Apologies for the long post.

The decisive battles of WWII, were the battle of britain and the battle of the atlantic. If either of those had been lost, Germany could well have won.

The rest were not so crucial to win. For example, had El-alamien turned the other way, it would have been possible for the British to fall back across the Nile, and regroup and try again. Stalingrad was a senseless slaughter on the part of both Germany and the USSR.

The brits and the soviets simply refused to be defeated. They preferred death to submission. However if the americans would not have came to the rescue, they might still be fighting. The americans definitely turned the tide of war towards the allies. Think of the morale boost alone when the usa joined the fight, 150 million extra good guys cant hurt!!! I think churchill was right to rejoice.

[QUOTE=Lacadaemon II]What do you want? What exactly is you point? Yes I am for real. The majority of shipping and air forces in the pacific theater were US efforts.

The majority was, but to diminish Australias efforts against the Japanese as unsignificant in the Pacific compared to Americas was a pretty low blow.

Thank you for feeding us. :rolleyes:

You think thats a small thing, well try fighting and marching on an empty stomach and see how far you get.

I never said that australia never fought. In fact if you read all my posts in this thread I specifically mentioned that Australia was punching well above her weight.

We always do, thats why were so good.

The fact remains, that with few small exceptions, the logistic infrastructure, the naval forces and airforces were american.

Right, Im sure the RSL would love to hear from you about how their half million past and present members who fought for Australia, are in your book, just a small exception, wake up mate, we helped you guys out in SE Asia alot more than you realise.

Furthermore, Australia and MacArthur's command weren't even the "big" sector for the US pacific theater effort. Mostly is was Nimitz's show. That's just how it is. Look don't blame me, take it up with Churchill and Curtin, who had a morbid fascination with pissing about in the CBI theater, wasting everyones time so they could "show" the flag.

We were only fighting in 'Churchills war' untill the end of 41, when Japan threatened war on us, we pulled all our troops out of Africa and the mid east to fight with you guys.

Everyone acknowledges Australia's efforts, and praises them, but you are being far to sensitive and trying to claim that australia did things it never did.

I havent mentioned once about Australia doing something it hasnt, unless you could give me something in specific?

[QUOTE]

The majority was, but to diminish Australias efforts against the Japanese as unsignificant in the Pacific compared to Americas was a pretty low blow.



You think thats a small thing, well try fighting and marching on an empty stomach and see how far you get.



We always do, thats why were so good.



Right, Im sure the RSL would love to hear from you about how their half million past and present members who fought for Australia, are in your book, just a small exception, wake up mate, we helped you guys out in SE Asia alot more than you realise.



We were only fighting in 'Churchills war' untill the end of 41, when Japan threatened war on us, we pulled all our troops out of Africa and the mid east to fight with you guys.



I havent mentioned once about Australia doing something it hasnt, unless you could give me something in specific?

Again, Shipping, airforces. I didn't say anything about ground troops. The ships (you know the big metally things that float on the water) were mostly american. Also the aircraft (the not so big metally things in the sky), were again mostly america.

The RAN during WWII comprised of three cruisers, four destroyers, two frigates, and a bunch of little minesweeper. That's not even a screen for a USN task force. We had over a hundred carriers in theater, including fifteen fleet carriers, alone.

Airforces likewise.

As to the food thing, I was kidding. You didn't actually feed us. Because the commonwealth was on sterling balances, you were broke. And while we used to give our allies food and weapons, we paid for everything we recieved. But thanks anyway.

Your point about churchills war is misunderstood. I was talking about the choice of objectives. I don't think australian troops were sent where they could do the most good.

apples and oranges are still apples and oranges!

Thats a relief.

USSR without a doubt. No-one else even comes close, especially the Americans. Britain were pretty good with El Alamein though...

If america could have won the war all by itself, then why did they asked, no begged, the russians to start their offensive earlier during the battle of the bulge ?

Anyone who says the US could have won the war by itself is living in a dream world of untruths.

If the USSR was not in the war, be it through Hitler not invading, or their defeat, the majority of those best German troops would have been transfered to Normandy.

It would make Omaha Beach look like a picnic.
More German troops, more German equipment, not swallowed up by a prolonged Eastern Front campaign.

The Soviets did lend-lease from the UK and the US, but they also made their own stuff, they made their own airplanes which were efficient Tank-Killers, and they built many various types of Tanks, the most famous being the T-34/76 which made it's debut in combat in 1940 against the Finnish and the upgrade, the T-34/85.

The Soviet IS-2 was the best tank of the war, with it's 122mm gun it could defeat Tigers, Panthers and Tiger 2's, was classified as a heavy Tank in the same class as Tiger 1 and 2's, yet weighed little more than a Panther, which was classed as a medium tank, despite having awesome armour.

The Soviets also had Katyusha rockets.

All the allies did an equal share, and no one should belittle the efforts of any one of them.

The British took part in Expeditionary Forces in Norway, Belgium and France, then held off an invasion, then pursued Rommel in North Africa, went into Italy, France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany.

And that's just the European Theatre, they were in the pacific too.

The Americans took part in North Africa, Italy, France, Holland, Belgium and Germany, again not including the Pacific Theatre also.

The Soviets kicked the Germans out, chased them into Eastern Europe and knocked down Berlin.

Let's not forget the rest of the allies also either.

Yay for the Motherland!

Russia has the most votes!

I'm going with russia. while all were important, the sheer size of german troops and resources wasted on the eastern front is stunning. On other fronts the numbers were of the order 100 000, but on the eastern front they were in millions.

Damnit people, no one nation contributed the most to the war. Each needed the other to contribute a further part in an endless cycle. That you're just focussing on the "Big 3" is stupid aswell. If it weren't for all the smaller countries, there'd be a big difference in how the war was fought. Australia, Poland, Canada and (It pains me to say this) France all helped out in such a way that if they hadn't entered the war it wouldv'e been terrible for the other "players".

The fact is, it was an ALLIANCE, all helping eachother. Don't try and say "x" was the greatest because "blah-blah".

That said, I don't think that America was key to winning the war. They shortened it a huge ammount, but they didn't win it. Britain was at a stage where the BoB was being won, Russia was doing just fine with all the cannon fodder they had.

There's one thing that pains me though, and it's everyone lack of recognition for Poland's taking out of the key Italian defenses at Monte Cassino. British, American and Australian history classes all focus on the big 3 which is just making people think that they were the only people that mattered.

The fact is, it was an ALLIANCE, all helping eachother. Don't try and say "x" was the greatest because "blah-blah"..

Well said.


There's one thing that pains me though, and it's everyone lack of recognition for Poland's taking out of the key Italian defenses at Monte Cassino. British, American and Australian history classes all focus on the big 3 which is just making people think that they were the only people that mattered.

Agreed. I would say it was the Polish who took Monte Cassino, but they do not take sole credit, for the British, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans, Australians, French, French Morrocans, and the Poles has all laid seige to it and attacked it. The Poles were sent in last and captured it, but the others efforts should not be forgotten.

We did. So we invaded Iraq.

And protected Saudi Arabia whilst they funded terrorists and insurgents.

The USA just helped speed up the end of the war. NO WAY should more credit go to them than to Great Britain. The people who voted for USA, I think, are getting history wrong.

The USA just helped speed up the end of the war. NO WAY should more credit go to them than to Great Britain. The people who voted for USA, I think, are getting history wrong.

They're Americans - getting history wrong is what makes them Americans.

Unless their Canadians.

[QUOTE=The State of It]
If the USSR was not in the war, be it through Hitler not invading, or their defeat, the majority of those best German troops would have been transfered to Normandy.
It would make Omaha Beach look like a picnic.
More German troops, more German equipment, not swallowed up by a prolonged Eastern Front campaign.

Agreed. The whole of Normandy would have been Omaha beach for the Allies.


The British took part in Expeditionary Forces in Norway, Belgium and France, then held off an invasion, then pursued Rommel in North Africa, went into Italy, France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany.
And that's just the European Theatre, they were in the pacific too.

Yes they were, but mostly as Japanese POWs unfortunately.

[QUOTE]
Yes they were, but mostly as Japanese POWs unfortunately.

But not all.

[QUOTE=Blakes 7]
But not all.

Im sure a few escaped from Singapore, but as a force the British were finished in Asia and the Pacific for good, as was the British Empire.

=Abu Arabia]
But not all.
Im sure a few escaped from Singapore, but as a force the British were finished in Asia and the Pacific for good, as was the British Empire.

shall we just agree that all allied nations contributed in every way they could, each in different way which although seem superfluouse now were important at the time
failing that we the brits had the best strategic commanders
i am not saying america didnt cmon eisenhower kicked ass in organising shaef
but the british commander were more strategy based considering at the start of the war the tactics were outdated we catched up pretty qwick and defeated the reichs best commmanders rommell and rundsed (sorry about the spelling) ps for the americans reading this thanks for the jeep the halftrack the quik brue and so much more :sniper:

I personally don't think so, this was an allied effort to defeat a well led, organized, equipped German Army, at a time when the rest of the world was dealing with economic upheavel Germany and Japan were expanding their power. Had the USSR fallen Britian likely would have been defeated, capturing the industry of Russia would have been a huge advantage for Germany, enabling them to possibly rival even the US in industrial output. The fall of Britain would have enabled Hitler to focus almost all of his attention on Russia, not that this would have had all that much effect on the war, a large percentage of German troops were already engaged in the war in Russia. And if Hitler hadn't committed his biggest mistake, declaring war on America, he may have very well fought the Russians and British to a stand still.

i guess your american and i agree that if jerry had the ruskies industry they would have been SUPERIOR in industrial out put
you need to understand the the u.s although a brilliant power at he time could not have taken on the reich if they had the russian industry and the british.

shall we just agree that all allied nations contributed in every way they could, each in different way which although seem superfluouse now were important at the time

Actually I agree most with this. To actually say that each and every ally in the war was not just as important as the next, is to disgrace every single life lost from every ally who you may deem "not as important as" The Allies won the war. No one single country.

...which is just what I said last night. I think personal feelings are getting in the way of peopke's judgement here, which is a shame. I feel the pain Britain went through more keenly than I feel that of any other nation, on either side. If I were to allow personal feelings to govern my judgement, I'd obviously say that Britain was the chief contributor. We bled ourselves dry to stop the Nazis, fought alone from September 1939 to June 1941 while the Nazi war machine threw its weight against us, and, with little or no material aid, we battled desperately for our lives in 1940. Britain made untold sacrifices during that war, and I can see every one of them in my mind - that's because she's my nation. Doesn't mean that Britain actually contributed the most to victory. In any case: how do you define what the greatest contribution was?

I think it is a tie between the US and Russia. Russia had the trouble of fighting an extremely large German army, and the US had the trouble of fighting all over the globe. Britain's role should be regarded as minimal. They did enough to defend themselves, but they were unable to mount any serious offensive operations on their own. Even in North Africa, they would have never been able to send their troops to somewhere in Southern Europe.

...some good stuff...[/b]

I have to say I pretty much agree with everything you've said... I'm English though so probably biased!

However: To those saying El Alamein and Stalingrad were not important battles, think about this - Stalingrad was not simply a symbolic battle; if Stalingrad had fallen as easily as Hitler had hoped (which would have happened it if was abandoned as some people seem to advocate) then Germany would have been able to carry out her plans to the full. Hitler had hoped that Stalingrad would fall as easily as just about every other Russian city (except Leningrad), and he would therefore be able to divert large forces back into the Caucasus. Bear in mind that the Red Army was barely holding on down there; the addition of the Fourth Panzer Army and possibly elements of the Sixth Army to the German forces on that front could have been disastrous. Of course we'll never know for sure!

El Alamein, I grant may not be as important; it did however mark the final turning point of the war in North Africa. Up until that point, it had been a back-and-forth affair; Britain almost defeated the Italians fairly early on, but then the Germans arrived, and pushed Britain back into Egypt, who then pushed back again, and so on... after El Alamein the Axis forces were in constant retreat, except for a short-lived invasion of Tunisia which was taken care of with great American help. Also we must not forget that most of the tanks that fought in El Alamein were American; following successive British defeats in Africa, Roosevelt had asked Churchill how America could help, and Churchill (allegedly :) ) replied 'tanks!'.

What I am trying to say that, while this battle in itself may not be that important, the key point is that such a battle did happen, such a turning point.

I seem to remember someone earlier complaining that the Scandinavians didnt contribute to the war. Well, Denmark was conquered pretty quickly; Norway fought back fairly well (considering) for a few months, with British help; and Finland was forced by the Russians to fight on the Axis side (great move). Only Iceland and Sweden remained neutral, and Iceland ended up being used as an Allied base anyway.

On a side note, the correct term for Germany, Italy etc.. is it Axis, or Central Powers? It came up in a pub quiz the other day, and we put Axis and got it wrong. I had thought Central Powers only applied to WW1; but now I'm wondering, does it also apply to WW2 if we're talking about allies of Germany outside the Axis alliance (Bulgaria, Romania)?

Actually I agree most with this. To actually say that each and every ally in the war was not just as important as the next, is to disgrace every single life lost from every ally who you may deem "not as important as" The Allies won the war. No one single country.

your right every one from china to america helped the allies win the war to choose one would be disrespectfull to the war dead

I have to say I pretty much agree with everything you've said... I'm English though so probably biased!

However: To those saying El Alamein and Stalingrad were not important battles, think about this - Stalingrad was not simply a symbolic battle; if Stalingrad had fallen as easily as Hitler had hoped (which would have happened it if was abandoned as some people seem to advocate) then Germany would have been able to carry out her plans to the full. Hitler had hoped that Stalingrad would fall as easily as just about every other Russian city (except Leningrad), and he would therefore be able to divert large forces back into the Caucasus. Bear in mind that the Red Army was barely holding on down there; the addition of the Fourth Panzer Army and possibly elements of the Sixth Army to the German forces on that front could have been disastrous. Of course we'll never know for sure!

El Alamein, I grant may not be as important; it did however mark the final turning point of the war in North Africa. Up until that point, it had been a back-and-forth affair; Britain almost defeated the Italians fairly early on, but then the Germans arrived, and pushed Britain back into Egypt, who then pushed back again, and so on... after El Alamein the Axis forces were in constant retreat, except for a short-lived invasion of Tunisia which was taken care of with great American help. Also we must not forget that most of the tanks that fought in El Alamein were American; following successive British defeats in Africa, Roosevelt had asked Churchill how America could help, and Churchill (allegedly :) ) replied 'tanks!'.

What I am trying to say that, while this battle in itself may not be that important, the key point is that such a battle did happen, such a turning point.

I seem to remember someone earlier complaining that the Scandinavians didnt contribute to the war. Well, Denmark was conquered pretty quickly; Norway fought back fairly well (considering) for a few months, with British help; and Finland was forced by the Russians to fight on the Axis side (great move). Only Iceland and Sweden remained neutral, and Iceland ended up being used as an Allied base anyway.

On a side note, the correct term for Germany, Italy etc.. is it Axis, or Central Powers? It came up in a pub quiz the other day, and we put Axis and got it wrong. I had thought Central Powers only applied to WW1; but now I'm wondering, does it also apply to WW2 if we're talking about allies of Germany outside the Axis alliance (Bulgaria, Romania)?


if alemein had fallen we would have lost africa, mont wouldnt have been given such high apointments and we probably wouldnt have pulled off overlord if monty hadnt been on the job, also monty apointed horrocks who

was in charge of taking arnem

Im sure a few escaped from Singapore, but as a force the British were finished in Asia and the Pacific for good, as was the British Empire.

You seem to be forgetting the Forgotten Army, no?

[QUOTE=Blakes 7]

You seem to be forgetting the Forgotten Army, no?

what about general slim and the 39th indipendant,
half a million men fighting the japanese in guerilla warfare
paving the way for the yanks

Im sure a few escaped from Singapore, but as a force the British were finished in Asia and the Pacific for good, as was the British Empire.

didnt we kind of own most of that area untill the 50s

if alemein had fallen we would have lost africa, mont wouldnt have been given such high apointments and we probably wouldnt have pulled off overlord if monty hadnt been on the job, also monty apointed horrocks who

was in charge of taking arnem

almost? we defeated most of italie with a hand full of fairy swordfishes ("stringbags")

if alemein had fallen we would have lost africa, mont wouldnt have been given such high apointments and we probably wouldnt have pulled off overlord if monty hadnt been on the job, also monty apointed horrocks who

was in charge of taking arnem

Not true, that was just one possible place where a stand could have been taken.

what about general slim and the 39th indipendant,
half a million men fighting the japanese in guerilla warfare
paving the way for the yanks

Slim was part of the Forgotten Army.

Eh, since the original question was most, not all, and how much contributed, not sacrificed, I'm voting for USA. Without them, most of the rest of the people wouldn't have had bullets to shoot their enemy with. Britain was running sort of low on raw materials.

Realistically, the US was in the war in its primary role, that of industrial heavyweight, from the beginning.

And fwiw, had Hitler taken all of Europe, including Britain, that wouldn't have been enough to let him seriously assault the US proper for years. He would control about the same amount of land, assuming he had Mussolini as an ally, as the US by itself. And by the time he had anything like a large enough sea force, the US coast would be miles of fortress, with naval yards churning out fleets at a time. The US really hasn't needed to show what it can do on the defensive since the early 1800's. Its wars have been fought with the enemy having the home turf advantage.

i dont mean to insult but you are quite full of yourself
the british were not invade and came out by the skin of our teeth
talk about narrow escapes we should be boasting

...which is just what I said last night. I think personal feelings are getting in the way of peopke's judgement here, which is a shame. I feel the pain Britain went through more keenly than I feel that of any other nation, on either side. If I were to allow personal feelings to govern my judgement, I'd obviously say that Britain was the chief contributor. We bled ourselves dry to stop the Nazis, fought alone from September 1939 to June 1941 while the Nazi war machine threw its weight against us, and, with little or no material aid, we battled desperately for our lives in 1940. Britain made untold sacrifices during that war, and I can see every one of them in my mind - that's because she's my nation. Doesn't mean that Britain actually contributed the most to victory. In any case: how do you define what the greatest contribution was?

i agree but lets not forget the holland went through alot as did poland

Slim was part of the Forgotten Army.

i know i was backing you up

Not true, that was just one possible place where a stand could have been taken.

no alemein had the panzers fuel depos! or am i thinking of beshiba?

Anyone who says the US could have won the war by itself is living in a dream world of untruths.

If the USSR was not in the war, be it through Hitler not invading, or their defeat, the majority of those best German troops would have been transfered to Normandy.

It would make Omaha Beach look like a picnic.
More German troops, more German equipment, not swallowed up by a prolonged Eastern Front campaign.

The Soviets did lend-lease from the UK and the US, but they also made their own stuff, they made their own airplanes which were efficient Tank-Killers, and they built many various types of Tanks, the most famous being the T-34/76 which made it's debut in combat in 1940 against the Finnish and the upgrade, the T-34/85.

The Soviet IS-2 was the best tank of the war, with it's 122mm gun it could defeat Tigers, Panthers and Tiger 2's, was classified as a heavy Tank in the same class as Tiger 1 and 2's, yet weighed little more than a Panther, which was classed as a medium tank, despite having awesome armour.

The Soviets also had Katyusha rockets.

All the allies did an equal share, and no one should belittle the efforts of any one of them.

The British took part in Expeditionary Forces in Norway, Belgium and France, then held off an invasion, then pursued Rommel in North Africa, went into Italy, France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany.

And that's just the European Theatre, they were in the pacific too.

The Americans took part in North Africa, Italy, France, Holland, Belgium and Germany, again not including the Pacific Theatre also.

The Soviets kicked the Germans out, chased them into Eastern Europe and knocked down Berlin.

Let's not forget the rest of the allies also either.

i agree

china was an allie.
goodnight people

i agree but lets not forget the holland went through alot as did poland

Poland seemed to be the sacrificial lamb in my opinion. Which I think really sucks. Russia and America were already making deals about how to split up Europe before the war was even over, Poland got screwed.

As for Holland, I think that one you have to give to us (Canadians) as we almost single handily freed Holland.

That's why I say, the Allies won the war. No one single country could have done it alone. It's too bad we couldn't have that type of unity today. With the exception of FDR and Stalin making backroom deals. But all in all, not the war, but the unity, those were better days.

As for Holland, I think that one you have to give to us (Canadians) as we almost single handily freed Holland.

That's why I say, the Allies won the war. No one single country could have done it alone.

Somewhat ironic, no? That second statement right after the statement which sidelines the advances made into Holland by the British, Poles and Americans during Operation Market Garden...

i agree but lets not forget the holland went through alot as did poland

That's exactly my point. If you concentrate upon one nation, you can give loads of examples of how they made the greatest sacrifices, contributed the most and so forth - but without all the others, it wouldn't have meant anything.

Poland seemed to be the sacrificial lamb in my opinion. Which I think really sucks. Russia and America were already making deals about how to split up Europe before the war was even over, Poland got screwed.

As for Holland, I think that one you have to give to us (Canadians) as we almost single handily freed Holland.

That's why I say, the Allies won the war. No one single country could have done it alone. It's too bad we couldn't have that type of unity today. With the exception of FDR and Stalin making backroom deals. But all in all, not the war, but the unity, those were better days.

i m ostly agree but Horrocks was british as was 30 corps and the 1st para div we sent loads of man into holland few returning