WWII- Who did more?

You could argue that with the Soviet intervention the Japanese lost all hope and coupledd with the atomic bombs is what prompted them to surrender.

This is certainly what Japanese documentation argues, IIRC, and in warfare as in all history what people thought is far more important than the physical realities.

The reason the Soviet war with Japan was brief was because it was a picture-perfect combined arms operations that smashed the Kwantung army and compelled Japan to surrender. Are we going to argue that the Germans can't have done that much to France since they were only up against them for less than a year?
 

Larrikin

Banned
Kwantung Army

It was essential for the defeat of the Kwangtung army.

I think the effort of proving that the fate of the Kwangtung army wasn't important to the Japanese lies with you.

By summer 1945 the Kwantung Army was a shell. All it's good units had been redeployed elsewhere, and all its remaining units were way understrength and lacking in weapons, ammunition, vehicles, fuel, food, etc.
 
By summer 1945 the Kwantung Army was a shell. All it's good units had been redeployed elsewhere, and all its remaining units were way understrength and lacking in weapons, ammunition, vehicles, fuel, food, etc.

And nevertheless, I believe documentation shwos that Japan considered its destruction a factor in their decision to surrender near or equal to the nuclear bombs.

Pacififc War 101: Whatever you do, don't expect the military leadership of Japan to make sense.
 

burmafrd

Banned
One very common mistake for too many here is to think that todays society is anything like it was in the 30's and 40's. We were a much meaner and nastier and stubborn people back then. Those talking about "will" are really out to lunch. My father and Uncle both fought in WW2, and over the years I have been lucky and honored to talk to many vets. One thing they all said over the years was that they remembered how it was when the whole country was united to win the war. Sure people got tired of the war- who wouldn't? But do not mistake tired for lack of will.
 
Personally, I'd say that the Germans provided the largest individual effort.

Not the way I'd phrase it. I'd phrase it to say that Germany paid the highest cost of WW2.

Germany was fighting the war longer than anyone else (a side effect of having started it!), and came out of the war with less than anyone else, basically nothing. Infact it didn't even survive WW2 with its borders intact.

But as to the question of "who DID more", I'd agree that the Russians and British put in the most effort, and the Yanks built the most.
 
The British Commonwealth at one point stood alone against the Nazi's but then the Nazi's screwed up and got into a huge mess with Russia. Russia wears down the Nazi's and the British Commonwealth does its part. Then America joins in FINALLY to "make the glass overflow" as the analogy earlier would suggest. Nazi's collapse under the combined effort.

In short, it was a team effort. Accept it.
 
By summer 1945 the Kwantung Army was a shell. All it's good units had been redeployed elsewhere, and all its remaining units were way understrength and lacking in weapons, ammunition, vehicles, fuel, food, etc.

You know, not to be completely mean, but you could make similar arguments re: Western vs. Eastern fronts in '44. And some obnoxious people do.
 
The questiion needs to be clarified. When we talk of which nation did more, we need to define what contribution means. Various measures exist-such as monetary value of weapons and other goods, manpower, etc. We also need to remember that sacrifice is not the same as a contribution.
 
Personally, I'd say that the Germans provided the largest individual effort.

If the Germans had done what the British and Soviets did they would have won the war. Instead the Germans had a party plundering occupied territories for a couple of years before they pulled their collective fingers out and started making sacrifices and manufacturing a lot of stuff.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
In Europe, I think of it like this:

Britain gave us the Bases, without their position bombing Germany would've been much harder. America gave us the supplies, without which many more would be dead from starvation, or being outright incapable of fighting back. The Soviet Union gave us the People to wash over the black mass that was the Third Reich.

You could do without one or the other. It would've been much harder, but it could be done. However, without all of the 'Big Three', the world as we know it would be a much darker place, a much sadder place. For all the atrocities committed by the Big Three(Dresden, the expulsions, the general 'Pillage and burn' mentality of the Soviet armies), we were saved an infinitely more horrible future. Only the most ignorant would say that Nazi occupation was better than Soviet installation of puppet governments.

Some of the acts committed by the Big Three were horrible, wretched, outright undeniably inhuman. However, it only goes to show how much worse the alternative was. I am a Prussian through and through, however I understand and accept that what happened was, at the time, seen as the only option. Irredentism of all breeds had to be utterly crushed, for we saw what happened when hate was allowed to fester in the hearts of a humiliated and bitter people who felt(rightly) they had been wronged by the 'Powers that be'.

All of you should be very well aware that I do not blame all of the German people for the atrocities of WW2. However, in order to secure Peace in Europe, or even, in the world, they all had to have been punished. Germany(And by extension, my beloved Prussia) was sacrificed at the altar in the name of Peace, a Peace which has been maintained since that day, for no war even remotely on the scale of the Second Great War has been seen since.

To sum it all up: Everyone played their part, everyone had a role. If you want to gauge it only in lives lost, the Soviets take first place. If you want to gauge it in strategic importance, Britain wins gold. If you want to gauge it in sheer scale of arms and supplies, America leads the way.
 
The British paid with time. The Russians paid with blood. The USA paid with money.
Don't know who said it, I've heard it stated that everyone from Stalin to an unknown soldier or reporter said it. But I think it covers the details of this thread.
Without one of them, WW2 in Europe becomes a lot harder if not impossible to bring to a successful conclusion.
 
Then America joins in FINALLY to "make the glass overflow" as the analogy earlier would suggest.

The Phoney War ends in May 1940. America enters in December 1941 (after supplying the Allies). The War in Europe ends at the end of April 1945. UK was in the war for only 20 moths longer, considering the war lasted 60. So what do you mean by "FINALLY"?
 
The Phoney War ends in May 1940. America enters in December 1941 (after supplying the Allies). The War in Europe ends at the end of April 1945. UK was in the war for only 20 moths longer, considering the war lasted 60. So what do you mean by "FINALLY"?

The US was the last of the Big Three to join in. Brits were at war in September of 1939, Soviets were at war in June of 1941.
 
The Phoney War ends in May 1940. America enters in December 1941 (after supplying the Allies). The War in Europe ends at the end of April 1945. UK was in the war for only 20 moths longer, considering the war lasted 60. So what do you mean by "FINALLY"?


I mean it took you Yanks two years to join the bloody war. :p ;)
 

Cook

Banned
This just looks like an opportunity for a slanging match.

Or did I miss the mention of alternate history there somewhere?
 
Top