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?
