WWII- Who did more?

[ZachScape]

How do you look at WWII? Many Americans believe they did the most work in WWII. As do people living in the UK or Russia (believing that their respective countries did the most or won single-handedly).

Now I can not understand how somebody can think one country won, or could have won single-handedly -- especially for the UK (sorry UK). Now I know this question was asked before, but the main reason I created this thread is to show my analogy and see how other people view the situation.

The way I see it -- in the case of the European Theater -- Russia absolutely did the most work (although I think they are idiots on how they went about it). But it is ridiculous to say they are the sole reason for The Third Reich's collapse.
I see a solid Third Reich as an empty glass. The more it gets filled with water, the closer it is to crumbling -- overflowing.

Now Russia put in more water than any other country, but the US was responsible for pouring enough water to overflow the glass (a lot of water, and more than the UK IMO). However, in the events of WWII, the glass would not have overflowed without the water of every country that contributed.

For AH, the analogy could be expanded. The work a country puts forth is still the water, but the individual country is an individual pitch of water -- however, each pitcher has a limited amount of water before it dries up. Does any individual country have enough water for the TR's glass to overflow? Or is there enough water w/o the US or Russia?
The analogy could further be expanded if Russia or US, or anybody else sided with the Axis, in which the Glass would get bigger, requiring more water.

What are your thoughts on the subject? Does the analogy make sense, and what is your take on it?

 

[jaybird]

So what was France, a shot glass?

 

[BlackWave]

Cue a huge debate and some flaming.

Anyway, fact is, who did the most comes down to opinion or personal slant. Russia technically did the most damage to the Axis, but it was supported by America, who was helped by England in moving into Europe, who were both helped by France...and so on. I think of it more as a clock--each component does its part.

 

[Cornelius]

What are your thoughts on the subject? Does the analogy make sense, and what is your take on it?

In my opinion it's not really important who poured more water, but who poured water at the right moment. Russia gave more than the others allies, you say. True, but if Stalin had refused to listen to Hitler in 1939, maybe we wouldn't even had a WW2. And if the british had accepted the nazist peace proposal, the war would have been completely different and would have required much more "water" to quell.

 

[MerryPrankster]

80% (IIRC) of the Germany Army was destroyed facing the Soviets, but the Soviets received a lot of US aid during the darkest period of the invasion (1941-42) and much of their mobility came from US-supplied trucks.

So the sheers--and the losses taken--of the Soviets disprove the notion that the US won the European war by itself.

(The Pacific, on the other hand, was a US-Britain-China show.)

 

[I Blame Communism]

80% (IIRC) of the Germany Army was destroyed facing the Soviets, but the Soviets received a lot of US aid during the darkest period of the invasion (1941-42) and much of their mobility came from US-supplied trucks.

Without LL aid, the Soviets couldn't have launched the massive mobile campaigns of 1944-45 (there were indeed lots of American lorries). The real key thing about LL was keeping the civilians fed, IIRC, which doesn't contradict you, of course.

However, it isn't true that there was much American aid kicking around in "the darkest period of the invasion (1941-1942)". In 1941, there wasn't enough time for meaningful help to arrive and be brought into use.

 

[Crueldwarf]

However, in the events of WWII, the glass would not have overflowed without the water of every country that contributed.

This is true.
1. USSR without allies cannot win, only maybe stall german advance to stalemate and wage long and bloody war of attrition somewhere around autumn-winter of 1942 frontlines.
2. USA can win without allied help (both UK and USSR) if they have sufficient will to fight protracted war in Europe and Asia, but cost of such war in men and material is comparable to RL soviet losses.
3. Sole UK can only trade somekind of peace deal with Germany. Keep Empire and left continental Europe.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

And it's because of debates like this that humanity can never be united.

The simple fact is no one did 'better' or 'more'. All sides suffered casualties and in my books that makes both sides the losers. All governments willingly gave up their armies lives for a set objective, and people willingly joined the army to help gain that objective. Whether it be a fanatical Nazi government, or an (arguably) democratic British, US or French government. Whether it were the Ukrainian rebels against Nazi oppression, or the Polish who joined the allies to help restore their nation and halt Nazi expansion.

The simple fact is all nations did their bit, some more than others but I don't think that should be measured. And it was due to all these nations that in the Second Great War the axis nations 'lost', or failed to reach their own objectives. As BlackWave says, the nations should be viewed as a clock, each part has its own individual use, but put together the parts can form one thing, and if say one part was taken out then it wouldn't serve its purpose.

 

[Crueldwarf]

but the Soviets received a lot of US aid during the darkest period of the invasion (1941-42) and much of their mobility came from US-supplied trucks.

No, allied shipments during 1941 and first half of 1942 weren't so vital. USSR fights most on its own forces during this time. But allied help was vital to 1944 and later campaigns.

 

[Alex Richards]

Precisement. We cannot take each nation individually. Had the UK surrenderred in 1940, the war would have been lost for the USSR (and US inevitably). Had the US not been involved the war would have been lost for the UK and USSR. You can say the same thing about everyone from France to the free Polish.

 

[Riain]

Britain gave everything it could, it held on when it faced a victorious Axis alone and was fully mobilised by 1942 and couldn't have done any more than she did, not make larger armies or build more stuff. The British people had the crap bombed out of them and faced the spectre of starvation by uboat yet still did everything they could and went broke in the process. Yet the second Germany turned East Britain was sending armaments they could ill afford to spare to the Soviets.

The Soviets gave even more than the British, they were over mobilised, pouring men into the army to die and producing copious armaments. So much so that the Soviets went without food and clothing, and relied on lend lease to backfill this massive sacrifice. As a result of these herculean efforts it was the Soviet who destroyed the Wehrmacht and made victory possible, so they did the most.

This unfortunately, and perhaps unfairly, puts the US last. The US did plenty of fighting and dying, but way less than the Soviets and probably even less than the much smaller British. The US never faced bombing, strangulation or breathtakingly brutal invasion and didn't mobilise it people to the extent the British and Soviets did. So although the US contribution was crucial (I don't think Germany could have been defeated without it) the US didn't bear the brunt of the war like the Soviets and British.

 

[Sean Mulligan]

In my opinion it's not really important who poured more water, but who poured water at the right moment. Russia gave more than the others allies, you say. True, but if Stalin had refused to listen to Hitler in 1939, maybe we wouldn't even had a WW2. And if the british had accepted the nazist peace proposal, the war would have been completely different and would have required much more "water" to quell.

The war would have been prevented if Chamberlain hadn't listened to Hitler at Munich. Britain and France refused Stalins offers of an alliance to stop Hitler and they encouraged Hitler to turn East instead of West. Stalin used his pact with Hitler to hoist Britain and France on their own petards.

 

[cra0422]

I like the analogy of pouring in water into a glass as well as at what time. Here's how I see it. The Big Three (US, UK and USSR) made the largest contributions to defeating Nazi Germany.

• Britain's contribution was Time. By not surrendering, they still provide other theaters of war to reenter the fight (like the Mediterranean) and provide reliable & protected air bases for bombing runs that safe from German attack, as well stopping points for convoy runs to Russia.
• Russia's contribution was Blood. More troops died on the Eastern Front than in any other. The bulk of Germany's armed forces were committed to this theater.
• America's contibution was Material. The US manufactured more material than the 3 Axis Powers combined, and millions of tons of supplies to the other Allies.

 

[Blue Max]

I'd rank it something along the lines of:

1. Soviet Union
2. Nationalist China
3. United Kingdom
4. United States
5. Canada
6. Australia
7. Free France
8. Poland
9. New Zealand
10. Brazil

 

[jaybird]

Precisement. We cannot take each nation individually. Had the UK surrenderred in 1940, the war would have been lost for the USSR (and US inevitably). Had the US not been involved the war would have been lost for the UK and USSR. You can say the same thing about everyone from France to the free Polish.

How so? The Polish contributed a BIG breakthrough to the war in terms of Enigma, but the French may as well have not been there - six weeks to knock out the largest Allied power then?

Had the UK surrendered, the Germans still would have lost to the USSR - the doctrine that brought them victory in Poland and France won't win in Russia. If anything, the Germans suffer from even more victory disease then previous.

 

[Cornelius]

The war would have been prevented if Chamberlain hadn't listened to Hitler at Munich. Britain and France refused Stalins offers of an alliance to stop Hitler and they encouraged Hitler to turn East instead of West.

I beg to differ. It was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that sealed the war. It was the last nail, so to speak. Not that a more farseeing France and Uk would have hurt, though.

Stalin used his pact with Hitler to hoist Britain and France on their own petards.

Indeed. And he got burned.

 

[The Red]

Roughly:

Europe
1. USSR
2. USA
3. UK
4. Canada
5. Other CW nations
6. France

Pacific
1. USA
2. China (Communist and KMT)
3. USSR
4. UK
5. Other CW nations (Including Canada)
6. France

 

[cra0422]

I like the analogy of pouring in water into a glass as well as at what time. Here's how I see it. The Big Three (US, UK and USSR) made the largest contributions to defeating Nazi Germany.

• Britain's contribution was Time. By not surrendering, they still provide other theaters of war to reenter the fight (like the Mediterranean) and provide reliable & protected air bases for bombing runs that safe from German attack, as well stopping points for convoy runs to Russia.
• Russia's contribution was Blood. More troops died on the Eastern Front than in any other. The bulk of Germany's armed forces were committed to this theater.
• America's contibution was Material. The US manufactured more material than the 3 Axis Powers combined, and millions of tons of supplies to the other Allies.

 

[DaleCoz]

Locomotives & Loans

Much of what I would have said on this has already been said, but don't forget that the US contributed a lot of subtle things to both the Soviets and the Brits.

In the case of the Soviets, some of the bigger ones were locomotives to help keep the Soviet railroad system functioning, good quality synthetic rubber (the Soviets could make synthetic rubber, but the quality stunk), high octane aircraft fuel, explosives to help the Soviets make munitions, and aluminum for a variety of uses.

In the case of the Brits, they would have been effectively out of the war in early 1941 without US financial aid (having run out of foreign exchange), and of course the Lend Lease weapons didn't hurt.

BTW:One country I haven't seen on the list yet: Italy.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

I think the Chinese do deserve more credit or at least recognition for defeating Japan as they were the ones who fought the bulk of their massive armies while the US practically hopped their way to the back door of Japan to deliver the killing blow.