Which country do you think is the most responsible for the German defeat in World War II?

Please support you answer. I'll wait to respond with my opinion.

Edited to add: Not including Germany itself, I think I should add......

This is a tough question in my opinion. Many believe that Hitler sealed his fate when he opened the Soviet front as it forced him to split his forces. I tend to agree with that assessment as the Soviets just had so many losses and it is generally recognized that the best Nazi troops fought against the USSR.

However, I do believe that even if Hitler never started the second front, that the US and UK would have eventually defeated Nazi Germany. The industrial power of the US at that time was immense and although an invasion of Europe would have been costly, it would have been done eventually. Also keep in mind that the production of the atomic bomb would probably occurred around the same time and that would have had a major impact on the war as well.

So to summarize, when the Nazi's invaded the USSR, they really took away any chance that they had at winning the war but the US eventually would have overcome the Nazis without Soviet help. So i'd have to go with the USA.

I think the USSR was clearly most responsible for defeating the Nazi army. I also think that the UK was most responsible for making the defeat of Germany possible by staying in the war and staving off the Germans in the Battle of Britain.

The United States provided the balance that kept the war from becoming a stalement both in the form of military forces but more importantly for the struggle in the form of productivity.

I agree with lederuvdapac this is a tricky question.

The Soviet Union - not just Russia - sucked in massive resources after Hitler invaded that could have been critical in defeating British Empire (not simply 'England' - not only did Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland play their part too, but so did Canadian, Indian, Australian, New Zelander, and other troops and support staff from aroudn the Empire of that time) forces.

Britain hanging on was critical too - if we'd fallen or remained neutral, there'd have been no staging area within sensible distance of Europe from which to invade, and so no invasion. There'd also have been no Western front, which would have allowed the Wehrmacht to concentrate their full might against the USSR and quite conceivably overwhelm it. The Allies would most likely have lost.

And without the USA's huge commitment of manpower and resources, final defeat of Nazi Germany would have been impossible - at best, Britain in the West and the Soviets to the East might have been able to stagger on to an uneasy truce had the USA not entered the European theatre.

So I voted 'Other' - the Soviet commitment of sheer numbers of lives, the US commitment of superior resources, and the simple commitment of the British were all absolutely critical to the defeat of Nazi Germany - and that's before we even start talking about the various resistance movements in occupied Europe, which tied down even more German forces - and I think if one or more of them hadn't happened, or happened to the same extent, then the war could have gone very differently indeed.

I applaud modern efforts to attribute a significant amount of responsibility for victory to Russia and other former Soviet nations, which was underplayed for too long in the name of the Cold War. 20 years ago most Westerners wouldn't even have bracketed Russia in with Britain (or 'England' ) and the US at all.

However, I'm not sure how constructive it is to try to single out one ally as more important than the others. Our team won - it doesn't really matter whether the quarterback or the place kicker (I'm struggling here, not knowing the field positions of American Football) put the most points on the board, does it?

I voted other, because I don't think its fair to say one country was most responsible for the defeat of Germany. I we look at numbers, certainly Russia made the biggest sacrifice, but I like to think that the defeat of Nazi Germany was a combined allied victory. I honestly don't think the war would have been won, had any of the three countries mentioned not fought against Germany, at least not by 1945.

And what does it really matter in the end? Germany lost and the world was and is better for it.

Others have already made the very important point that this was truly a group effort. The winning side was wisely known as the Allies.

With that in mind, if I am forced to choose which Ally did the most to defeat Nazi Germany, I have to go with the Soviet Union. Going by sheer numbers of human beings slaughtered in warfare, the War in Europe mostly took place between Germany and the Soviet Union.

(A parallel question might be asked about the war against Japan. I would tend to give the USA the majority of the credit for that victory. As for the war against fascist Italy, it seems to me that the British Commonwealth might deserve the lion's share of glory.)

I would say the Soviet Union. The best and most numerous German troops (and aviation) was at the Eastern Front fighting the Soviets. If the Red Army had not managed to hold after Barbarossa or had it collapsed during Fall Blau, then Germayn could have hold Western Europe against any any US-UK invasion. Or worse yet, it could have brought the full might of its forces against the British.

The Soviet Union.

Whilst the Allied invasion of western Europe and the subsequent bombing campaign of Germanys industrial infrastructure were additional factors to the eventual defeat of the nazi's, one must consider that these were essentially only possible because 80% of Germany's military resources were engaged against the Soviet Union.

If there is one lesson that ought to be learned from the Second World War, it is that the Allies could not have won without Stalin's indifference to high casualty rates.

Without Stalins callous indifference to the misery and suffering of his own countrymen, then I cannot see how else the Soviet Union, and thus the Allied powers could have held out long enough to exhaust Germany's strength.

The lesson is thus an echo of both Sun Tzu and Ho Chi Minh, that wars are not won by logistics, superior strength or good generals but by those who have the will to win them.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the western Allied powers cynically used Stalin as one tyrant against another, expending the strength of the Soviet Union in an attempt to rid the world of both the nazi's and the commie's. If that were so then one must accept that the idea worked in the short term but failed in the long.

I think Finland was the most responsible for Germany’s defeat, though I'd probably rank the Soviets second. Here is my thinking.... Though Finland was sided with Germany throughout almost the entire war, their resistance to the Russians changed the course of history.

The Soviet invasion of Finland gained them some Finnish land, but they did so at a massive cost of over 130,000 KIA/MIA, and 260,000 WIA. Faced with a superior invasion force, the Finns’ performance was so staggeringly good (inflicting 6 times the number of casualties it took, though outnumbered 7 to 1), it convinced Hitler that he could successfully launch an attack against the Russians and break their alliance, simultaneously not only dividing the attention of his troops but eliminating a major supplier. That action changed the course of the war, and the course of history, without a doubt.

I believe that the map of Europe would look markedly different today if not for those Finns putting up such an enormous and fantastic fight in the face of overwhelming odds. The fate of the world, IMO, was changed by one of the smallest nations of all the participants. Anyway, that is my opinion, but I think it makes a good argument.

I got this poll from a gaming site (lots of WWII reenactors). In answering this poll, most used some pretty compelling arguments for any of the first three, usually depending on which side they liked to play. But I’ve never heard it presented that Finland made the most impact (or even mentioned at all), so I was just curious to see what people here think. Not dissin' anyone's contribution in the great war. I certainly wouldn’t… I’m Swiss-Italian, afterall.

Mrs Pigpen.

That theory only works if your arguing that Hitler was motivated by sheer bloody mindedness as opposed to the reality of the Caspian oil fields.

The Finns certainly put up a good defence but I can't imagine this by itself was enough to motivate Hitler into attacking the USSR. Rather, I think he knew that if weas to fuel his panzers, he would need access to some serious fuel reserves and being a nazi, he was more inclined to just take the oil rather than buy it.

I suppose you could say that if Hitler hadn't seen the ferocity of the Finnish defence he would have had more respect for the Soviets, but equally, one could argue that in the light of Finland, Hitler was a fool for ignoring the lesson that people fight best when they are defending their homes.

Indeed, by your reasoning I could argue that France was actually responsible for the downfall of the Third Reich since by capitulating so easily despite their pre war military strength, the cunning French gave Hitler the mistaken belief he was a military genius.

No matter how you argue this question, you really can't get past the fact that the military strength of Germany was bled in the east. A lot of Americans make a big argument about the industrial war but this fails to recognise the simple doctrine that you need soldiers on the ground to fight wars and Germany lost its manpower to the endless resolve of Josef Stalin.

Being a bit of a francophile, I am always frustrated a bit when French capitulation during Battle of France is mentioned as an example of French covardice; in reality, even though Axis had a complete victory, French fought bravely; a simple look into a stat chart on Wikipedia will show that French lost 360,000 dead or wounded in a few short weeks of military action. As British historian Alistair Horne writes,


Now back to the question in hand:

I voted Russia - despite the fact that it was indeed a joint effort, and without Land Lease and, eventually, the opening of the Western Front, Russians would have had much tougher time fighting, the fact remains that the bloodiest, costliest battles were all fought on Russian territory. I don't exactly understand the logic of lederuvdapac who says

- the question was asking not about imaginary "would would have been if", but about real historical events that took place. Yes, if Hitler had never attacked the Soviet Union, United States and Britain would defeat Germany on their own - maybe. However, it never happened. What did happen, however, was Stalingrad, a bloodiest battle in history, where 850, 000 Axis soldiers were killed or captured; Battle of Moscow, where Germans lost 250,000 in casualties; Battle of Kursk, the largest armored engagement ever, where Germans lost 500,000 killed, wounded, or captured. Not to mention smaller battles like Sevastopol (50,000 Germans killed), Crimea (85,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured), etc. The rate of casualties on Omaha Beach, the costliest landing for Allies during the D-day, is less than 1/3 of casualty rate of Russian 13th Guard Division which lost 10,000 men in 1 day on Mamayev Kurgan (after the war, they counted that there's about 1000 pieces of metal per square meter on this damned hill, and the grass didn't grow there for several seasons).
By the time of Normandy invasion in 1944, the best German divisions were already slaughtered on the Eastern front.

The logic behind selecting the USSR as most responsible for the downfall of Nazi Germany is solid. Indeed, once the war was going in full swing their is now little question that Germany was bled white primarily by the Soviet Union.

I will however postulate that Britain (specifically its Air Force) might be most responsible for the following reasons. In the summer of 1940, Hitler approved plans for Operation Sea Lion...the invasion of Great Britain. There can be little doubt that following the disaster in France at Dunkirk that the English were ill prepared for a full scale invasion by Nazi forces in the summer and fall of 1940. While it is true England did manage to rescue the majority of the BEF, its equipment (i.e. tanks, AFV's, artillery, etc) was left behind in France leaving it ill equipped to deal with the German Juggernaut. Hitler however knew that prior to attempting an invasion that the British navy and air force would have to be dealt with. Since the German navy was inferior to the British, he left it up to the Luftwaffe to interdict and destroy the Royal Navy (and the Royal Air Force) as a prelude to invasion.

As we all know, the Luftwaffe was incapable of sweeping the Royal Air force from the skies over England and therefore incapable of controling either the skies or the English Channel. Obviously this was vital if Germany were ever to attempt to move an invasion force over the Channel or resupply their forces once they landed in England. Because of this, Sea Lion was postponed (later abandonded) as Hitler was eager to get on with the invasion of the Soviet Union.

I argue that had Germany been able to complete Operation Sea Lion and landed in force in England several things would most likely have taken place. First, England most likely would have been conquered. Second, whether it would have or not, it definitely would have at the very least delayed Operation Barbarossa...at least until England was dealt with thereby avoiding the strategic blunder of a 2 front war. Third, by the time the United States joined the war, Britain most likely would have been knocked out of the war, leaving the Americans no staging area for the invasion of Europe (ie Normandy) and therefore no second front had Germany invaded the Soviets by then... or at the very least complicating the opening of a second front. Fourth, lend lease to the Soviets would have been for all intents and purposes shut down as the Murmansk convoys would have lost England as a midpoint haven (not to mention Royal Navy protection). This would have had the effect of crippling the Soviet war effort. Lastly, the conquering of Britain would have lengthened the war and possibly given Germany the time it needed to develop its advanced weapons (jet fighters, larger navy including more powerful U-boats, etc) with which to complete its ultimate victory.

Therefore, I say the nation most responsible for the ultimate defeat of Germany is the United Kingdom. By holding on when it was alone vs. the Nazi beast, it allowed for all the later actions that led to Allied victory in WWII.

There are a lot of slightly odd 'straw that broke the camel's back' arguments people make about the ar, including:
-Finland won the war because they convinced Hitler invading the USSR would be easy.
-Yugoslavia won the war because the Yugoslav rebellion caused the delay of the start of operation barbarossa by a critical 6 weeks.
-Italy won the war as they were an enormous and constant demand on german capacity, as they had to keep sending raw materiels, weapons and equipment to this country to keep their Italian allies functioning...

All make semi-valid points about specific moments of the battle, but none of them 'won the war'.

It is unarguable that the USSR defeated Germany. Of 340 divisions the German managed to field at one time or another between 1939 and 1945, 270 of them were destroyed in the East by the Red Army. That leaves only 70 divisions destroyed in the invasions of Poland, the Low countries, France, Norway, Greece, Crete and Yugoslavia, the North African Campaign, The defence of Italy, and following the Allied invasion of France in 1944.

By the wime of Overlord, the USSR was clearly going to win the war on its own even if there had never been a second front. That is not to say it was a single effort of course, it was most certainly not. Allied actions in North Africa, Italy and eventually Northern France tied up men, materiel and in particular aircraft which would otherwise have been turned against Rusia. The US/UK bombing campaign kept a million men occupied in air defence and related tasks, according to Speer himself, and tens of thousands of guns pointed at the skies. lend Lease also gave the USSR materiel, raw materiels but more importantly trucks which lent them mobility in the battles of the last 2 years of the war.

The USSR probably could not have won on its own, but the rest of the allies most certainly could not have won without the USSR.

I'm very curious about this poll. So far, we've had half a dozen justifications for voting "Soviet Union" (and I'd have to agree with that assessment for reasons already covered by several people above) and about four or five "Other" voters.

However, according to the vote (at the time of this response), over a third of participants feel that the US was the most responsible for Germany's defeat, yet only one person has stepped forward to defend that vote - and that was on the basis of a speculative hypothetical set in a parallel universe.

I'm not trying to minimize America's part in the defeat of Germany by any means. Without US involvement, the war would have been resolved very differently - and would doubtless have dragged on for considerably longer. But the question asked for the single country that was "most responsible" for the defeat of Germany and, as a matter of historical record, I don't see how any country apart from the USSR can be singled out.

Mrs. P asked for support for one's vote here. Several people have made it clear why they feel the USSR was most responsible. Several people have ably defended their "Other" vote (though most of them, apart from Mrs. P herself, evaded the direct question posed). No one has made it clear why they feel the US was "most responsible". What's up with this silent 34.62%? Is this just a case of "America was involved and we're the greatest - rah! rah! rah!" or is there actually some empirical rationale at work here? If so, what is it?

Alright, I suppose that I will put up a better justification for my case as to why I feel the United States is most responsible for Germany's defeat in WWII. There is no doubt that the USSR's effort to the war was immense and that the UK's ability to hold on was equally as important. But here is how I see things (not asking you to agree just my POV):

The Germans committed the majority of their forces to the Eastern front as well as their most prestigious units. The Soviets were able to defeat these units but we have to keep things in context. First of all, the Soviets had such a huge population that they could take the mass casualties and still continue the fight. Also, when the huge battles occurred, they were on Soviet soil. This is another advantage of the Soviets in the Eastern front. Furthermore, when the Nazis invaded...blitzkrieg was rolling and could have done a lot more damage if it wasnt for the weather (russian winter gets you every time). The Germans were ill-prepared for winter while the Soviets were ready. Furthermore, it was the Nazis that did more to ensure their own defeat on the Eastern Front than the Soviets could ever do. There were missteps and questionable strategies all over the place and when you are basically fighting in a nation with a meat grinder for an army (sorry for the graphic language) you are bound to fail.

I believe that the UK had an equally important role in the war because as someone mentioned earlier they allowed for the allies to have a staging point for the invasion of Europe.

But when it comes down to it, its the US that was most responsible for vanquishing the Nazis and I will tell you why. First of all, the Allies were the offensive force. The Axis were in entrenched defensive positions in Africa, Italy, and France. Unlike our Allies the Soviets who basically had to survive the Nazi attack long enough to bring up reinforcements, the US and UK needed actual strategies in order to successfully attack these positions. First the defeat of the Afrika Corps and then the defeat of the forces in Sicily and Italy.

D-Day was the most important operation of the war and if the Allies chose the wrong position to invade or failed in their attempt, than of course the outcome of the war would have been vastly different. Imagine if the US was successful but the Nazis inflicted the type of casualties in their defensive position that the Soviets did to them. The rule of combat is always that the attacking army should have more troops than the defending army because it is easier to defend than to attack.

So it is my view of the situation that while the Soviet's role in the situation was huge, the advantages that they had over the Nazis whether it be because of environment or ill-planning by the Nazis was very significant. The US and UK on the other hand were set up to have a tougher time because they had to invade three different areas of the Axis defended positions (Africa, Italy, France).

This question is all about hypotheticals and what could have been. I mean obviously Hitler used his best troops against the Soviets because he was the attacking force and perhaps didnt think he needed his best to defend conquered positions in Africa, Italy, And France.

We shouldnt discount any nation's contributions to the war effort because they were all significant in their own right. But we have to look at the whole situation and in my view it was the ability and strategy of the United States along with our allies that most contributed to the downfall of Germany (aside from Germany itself).

Well, hats off to Leder for his spirit of tenacity. I'm so impressed by it that I feel the urge to play devils advocate.

If I were to argue for the USA as being that nation that contributed the most to the defeat of nazi Germany, then I would not argue about land forces or casualty rates because in these cases, the USA is not particulalry unique. The British, even with meager resources were kicking Rommel all over Africa for years before the US turned up and any close examination at America's great fighting units shows they were nearly always up against poor enemy forces, with few resources and even then the Americans were often defeated. You only have to consider Patton's career for example.

In my opinion, where America outshines the other allies is in the political arena. Allowing the Soviet Union to tackle the nazi's alone for so long was a brilliant move. It didn't please Stalin much, but the western Allies took their own good time getting into Western Europe and when you consider the long term, then its apparent why.

Why should the USA and the British commonwealth forces waste their precious military resources fighting the Germans when, you could get that maniac Stalin to do the fighting for you? After all, its not like Stalin had a choice AND there was the obvious post war vacuum that would be filled when Hitler croaked to consider.

All in all the Americans played a brilliant game (If only we had a General Marshall in this day and age). They took advantage of the situation to play one tyrant dictatorship off against another and got into Europe only when they had the advantage. Too soon and the slog to Berlin would have been far more expensive (in casualty figures) too late and the Soviets might have grabbed too much of Europe for the cold war stand off to take place leaving America alone against the USSR.

Not only that, but by more subtle means they also managed to see an end to the British Empire whilst retaining Britain as a loyal ally ever since.

The only nation which the Americans didn't defeat in WW2, is France.

Um, no. The question is about which country was most responsible for defeating Germany. Not which country would have been, could have been, should have been, might have been, or ought to have been. There's nothing hypothetical about it.


Now that's a decent argument. I would have to agree that the US was the best at resolving the conflict to its own advantage. But in terms of responsibility for the defeat of Germany (if one country must be singled out), I think you were right the first time. Stalin did have a choice. He could have surrendered. He didn't. And that's what made the Allied defeat of Germany possible.

On the other hand, I don't think there's any argument about which country was most responsible for winning the war in the Pacific. That would undeniably be the good ol' US of A.

I put other for I feel that Italy was most responsible for the down fall of Nazi Germany. If Hitler had not diverted massive amounts of troops first to save the Italians in Albania and then Greece the invasion into Russia would have occurred in late April instead of mid June. Leningrad and Moscow would have likely fallen.

With those two strategic cities the Soviet Union may not have be able to withstand the first winter.

Then there was the diversion of troops to North Africa to keep the Italians from loosing Libya.

In short the aid that Germany had to keep Italy from losing cost Germany time, manpower and equipment at the most critical time.

I think the theory works regardless of the motivation. It's a cost to gains equation and if Germany had considered the cost too great they would not have invaded (I think). Stalin had been supplying Hitler with oil during those two years....1.5 million tons of it (also 1.5 million tons of grain, and many thousands of tons of rubber, timber, phosphates, iron and other valuable metal ores).

At any rate, I concede that arguments here are very good, and I could be wrong. I'm glad I started this interesting thread.

This is a tough question. I am not sure there’s a clear answer. Germany obviously invaded the USSR too late and ended up battling the winter conditions. It could be argued had Hitler started earlier Moscow would have fallen. Had Germany been able to fight the Soviets and not had to worry about the US I’m not sure the USSR could have held them off. December 1941 is the high water mark for the Nazis. After that it’s pure speculation. The US entry into the war is the tipping point.

I voted the USA, part of which is my Bias towards what I feel is the greatest superpower ever on the planet. The reason I will to defend my position is that the USA Supplied the USSR through the Baltic, and the USSR were not in a position to do the same in return. The Eastern Front was aided by other allies while the Western Front had nothing from the USSR. War is more than just Bombs, Guns, and troops. Logistics and supply lines are important. Regardless of the front in WW2, the USA had a part in it. the USSR was only concerned with its direct threats, and selfish intrests.
There is no denying that the USSR took more damage in terms of lives lost in the eastern front, but I never thought that you win wars by dieing for your country, you win the war by making the other poor bastard die for his. Before the reincarnated soul of General George S. Patton sues me for plagiarism, I will sign off and let the people more educated than I tell me where my recollection of history is wrong.

There's an enormous amount of vapid Go-U.S. cheerleading (some would say, "patriotism") on this site in general, but here it is indeed baldly expressed.

There really is no doubt that the nation that did the most to defeat Hitler during World War II was the Soviet Union; I doubt that any serious historians of the war would dispute that proposition.

In 1941, Germany threw nearly all of its armed might against the USSR, and there were substantial Romanian, Italian and Hungarian forces included among Germany's. Also Finland joined in the attack, which was by no means a small consideration for the Soviets, given Finland's proximity to Leningrad and to Murmansk. In early 1944, when the Allies were in Italy and the invasion of France was imminent, there were only 16 German armored and mechanized divisions in the West; there were 60 in the East. The disparity in the allocation of tactical air resources was much greater. Italy was a sideshow; in the spring of 1944, the Hermann Goering Panzer Division, one of Germany's most powerful units anywhere, was transferred from Italy to Poland. Not to France, mind you, but to Poland.

In the summer of 1943 with the battle of Kursk, the USSR had already achieved strategic victory. Indeed by 1943, the Soviet Union was substantially outproducing Germany in war materiel, including tanks and other armor; and between 1942 and 1943, the number of men under Soviet arms increased by more than one million. Broad Soviet advances across the Eastern Front were more or less continual from August 1943.

The United States did supply some material assistance; mostly it sent a large number trucks. It did also send some aircraft, notably Air Cobras, a fighter aircraft much less capable than front-line U.S. fighters at the time (which, however, would have been more difficult to maintain and for Soviet pilots to learn to fly). Whether this assistance was pivotal to the Soviet war effort is doubtful, though it could perhaps be debated. What is certain is that the a vast preponderance of the Soviet Union's war materiel, and essentially all of its manpower, was supplied from that nation's own resources. And this was achieved with vast sections of the Soviet Union under German occupation.

It is arguable that the Soviet Union might have been defeated in 1941-1942 had Germany not been at war with Britain at the time. But in fact, very few German ground forces were necessary to keep the British at bay. The Germans were fighting an air war with Britain, but German air forces totally dominated the skies of the Eastern Front in 1941, in any case. Also the massive campaign of aerial bombardment against Britain stopped when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union.

If the 1944 Normandy landings had never happened, the only difference in the outcome of the war would have been that Soviet Forces would eventually have reached the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Had Germany defeated Russia in 1942 or 1943, there would have been no question of the remaining Allies invading Europe. The most likely eventution would have been that peace would have been made with Germany, but had it not, it is by no means certain that a Germany in firm control of the entire Continent, even to the Urals, and with plenty of resources to throw at the problem, would not have beaten the U.S. to the atom bomb.

Most serious students of World War II would have to concede that it was the Russians who did the most to bring about the collapse of the Nazis. The Americans just happened to make better movies about it.

It is clear had Hitler not attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 and dragged Germany in a blood, prolonged death match with the Russians, he would have been able to devote all his military might against the British, as America was still sitting on the sidelines.

"In the West, for some time... public opinion has taken the view that the Soviet Union played a secondary role," says the Russian historian Valentin Falin.

On the other hand, opinion polls show that two-thirds of Russians think the Soviet Union could have defeated Hitler without the Allies' help, and half think the West underestimates the Soviet contribution.

Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

- Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union

- The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement

- The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm

However, it is impossible to determine what might had happened if the U.S. had continued to stay out of World War II and if Hitler had free reign to turn all of his military might against the Soviets would they have been able to withstand the superior German war machine?

At the end of it all, who deserves most of the credit for defeating the Third Reich is less important than the fact that all the Allies made essential and key contributions.

Thanks for that thoughtful and interesting post. With particular reference to the part I have quoted, my point is that Hitler in 1941-1942 did turn essentially all of his military might against the Soviets. One could argue that the initial onslaught came so close to Moscow that with a few more tank divisions or air wings in the right place, that city would've fallen. That certainly would've prolonged the war in the East, but I'm not at all sure that it would've changed the outcome.

I agree with your conclusion that which nation did the most to defeat Hitler is, in itself, a topic only for idle speculation. But it does remain true that the average American has little understanding of the relative importance of the war in the East. Most think that it was the invasion of France that decided the outcome of the war; arguably, all that it really decided was the political future of Western Europe.

Sadly, the average American has little understanding of any history of the East. We receive a decidely one-sided historical perspective...I'm quite sure more so than probably any other country. We seldom get world history...only history as it pertains directly to us.

I would agree with you, Vladimir, than even had Hitler taken Moscow it might not have made any difference. My limited understanding of Russian history is that they have been invaded and seemingly conquered several times in the past (back to at least the Mongols, if I recall correctly), essentially using the vast landmass and inhospitable climate of Siberia as a defensive buffer.

I would point out one aspect of why it is difficult to place a weight on who really won the war...



How much of this could be attributed to the strategic bombing of factories and transportation systems, primarily carried out by Britain and the US? It's really hard to take any one factor and use it to say, 'See, this is why that country did the most'. It's all tied together. Had Britain been invaded and conquered, Hitler could have committed more forces to the East, and the US wouldn't have had a base to operate from, leaving Germany free to produce more and concentrate more on the Eastern front. Each piece has its part in the puzzle.

I would argue that this is a problem in every country. I read somewhere that it is taught in China that Chinese’s guerrillas fighters are what defeated Japan. It is amazing that the US was able to fight two wars at the same time, especially considering the scale of the conflict.

Actually, according to the Chinese tour guide I listened to on a bus in Beijing, it was the Soviet comrades that came to their aid and single-handedly defeated the Japanese aggression. The US was basically insignificant, apparently, which was pretty amusing to a group of military members visiting incognito.

History is usually skewed when viewed backwards, depending on the perspective of the viewer. Had the Italians not needed help, things might have been different. Had the Finns not put up such a defense, things might have been different. Had Moscow been taken, things might have been different. Ect. All of the arguments have merit, IMO....It's interesting to think about.

This reminds me of a story which I read about recently, when some guy was visiting Egypt and was taking a tour of the Nile river and suddenly fireworks lit the sky, shots were fired in the air, and there were other signs of celebrations and merriment. The guy asked his Egyptian tour guide what was the occasion. The guide answered "Oh, this is a great day in the history of Egypt. This is an anniversary of our victory over Israel in 6-Day War". Flabbergasted, the tourist said "How come? I thought Israel had a decisive victory and Egypt had to give up Sinai?!" "Shhhh" - answered the guide, and looked around to make sure nobody listens - "yes, they defeated us later on, but on the very first day, when we attacked them, we were victorious".

The Unitied States clearly shifted the ongoing conflict that had pretty much came to stalemate. France was overcome in a couple of days with the Blitzgrige and England had made a rather undignified retreat from the coast of France. Russia when they were finally invaded were completly routed by the onslaught of the Panzer divisions they had no answer for. It was only Russian winter and a seasoned Siberian division that kept Hitler out of Moscow.

However, the number one reason I think America was the country most responsible for defeating Germany was manufacturing. The US Navy never let the German Navy to be a genuine threat to our trading lanes. The amount of arms produced by the United States was staggering and grew throughout the conflict.

The war was not a stalemate when the US entered. The United States did not enter the war until the end of 1941, and they did not get troops on the ground until the end of 1942, in North Africa. By that time the eventual outcome of the war had already been decided by the Rusians, the Germans would lose. The MANNER and TIMING of that loss was still to be decided, but the loss itself was determined by the Soviet Union.

It is true, the United States was the 'Arsenal of Democracy', or better, the Arsenal of the allies, as the Soviets were about as far from a democracy as the Germans were. But looking at the amounts, and types of equipment sent to the USSR, as well as the timing, it becames clear that the Russians blunted and stopped the Germans in 1941 and 1942 almost entirely on their own. By 1943, when large amounts of raw materiels, and most importantly, trucks started to arrive, they allowed the Russians to conduct a more mobile offensive, helping them enormously, but this again helped decide the timing and manner, not the outcome.

Russia did get mauled in 1941, but so did the Germans. Far too much credit is given to the Russian winters, which were just as hard on the Russians as they were on the Germans. The winter was feirce, but the only reason so many people think the winter tipped the balance is because so many of the post-war recitations of the Eastern Front were written by former German generals now in US employ, who still could not countenance having been outfought by 'untermenshen'.

The Germans in 1941 were beaten by dogged resistance, and by the failurte of their own chain of logistics. The entire German strategic plan of the war was altered after the battle of Moscow, demonstrating that the Germans themselves had given up on winning the quick war.

The Soviets destroyed over 3/4 of the entire German war machine, and they suffered a still-unknown number of casualties doing so, but known to be in excess of 20 million (Military and civilian). One cannot discount the assistance from the west, which played a very important part, but nor can one exaggerate its value...

England, without any doubt.

Consider the following:

England's successful stand tied down a modest number of troops, and more importantly, significant Luftwaffe assets facing the British Isles.

Significant and very high quality Wehrmacht assets were tied down in North Africa, not the least of which was Rommel.

England provided the rallying point and external support for the Resistance throughout Europe, including the Yugoslav rebellion that delayed Barbarrossa.

It is probable that without the centrality of a defiant England in the Commonwealth, Japan would have steamrolled India and Burma. Such success would have closed down the Allied supplies going into China, and more importantly, encouraged the Japanese to blow off their non-Aggression pact with Stalin. This is even more likely considering that, due to the aformentioned problems of conducting an invasion against Fortress Europa without the UK as a staging ground, the US would have focused far greater resources against Japan. Japan would have seen aiding a quick German defeat of the Soviets as a way of freeing the Germans up for significant operations against the Americans and remnants of the Commonwealth. Don't forget that the "hardened Siberian" divisions that "saved" the Soviet Union were freed up by the non-Aggression pact, and hardened in the Manchurian border war. With the bulk of those forces transferred to the Eastern Front (west of their original deployments), and with the experienced troops of the Japanese Army fresh of their butt-whupping of the Commonwealth, the Japanese would have cleaned up western Siberia.

The fall of England in 1940 would resulted in Mussolini's dream of the Med as a new Roman lake being true. The resources expended the Med by the Axis would have been available for use against the Soviets.

In short, with the Axis freed from fighting a two-front war, and with the Soviets more likey to do so, as well as not having American supplies to shore them up, the Soviets would have been defeated by the Axis. Japan would almost certainly have been defeated by a more focused US, as their Army wasn't really much use in stopping the US Navy.

The Cold War would have been America vs. Germany.

None of this is meant to disparage the tremendous efforts put forth by the Soviets, or the US, or the Canadians, the Finns, or any of the other Allies.

"Never have so many owed so much to so few."

p.s., one could toss a bone to Japan, as their non-Aggression pact with the Soviets not only freed up tremendous Soviet resources critical in stemming the Wehrmacht, but also "freed" the Japanese to conduct one of the most brilliant boneheaded move in the annals of strategic warfare, aka Pearl Harbor.

I voted "other"- because, by definition, it was a world war, encompasing many vairables that an not be hindsite viewed as seperate from the other.

Russia certainly did the lions share, without a doubt, as posters here have shown, of pretty much defeating Germany- it came sooner to Germany because of our entry, but the Soviets were already there- and, had we not entered, maybe a very large part of Europe would have been SOVIET Europe instead?

But, we also tied up Japan so that Russia's Eastern flank was pretty well protected, and Japan could not have helped thier ally Germany and fought the US at the same time.

I do think we, as Americans, definately overplay our involvement as the victor in WW2, but it was also very critical, for many of the "ra ra US" group has pointed out as well.

I must interceede here, both of you have made some statements about the Soviat-Japanese situation which are not accurate.

In 1937 and 1938 the Japanese high command was divided between two plans, The North Strike group, led by the Army, which wanted to invade Russia, and the South Strike Group, led by the Navy, which wanted to strike south into the Dutch east Indies and the Pacific Rim.

The decision to strike south had nothing to do with the actions of Britain or any of the allies, it had to do with the spectacular defeat of the Japanese forces at the hands of the Russians in August 1939 at the battle of Khalkhin Gol. A combination of this loss and the signing of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, a pact signed without warning to the Japanese and in direct violation of the anti-Commintern pact, convinced the Japanese to move south. They were committed to this decision a year before the Battle of Britain, which had no impact on their strategy. Japan did not even SIGN a non-aggression pact with Russia until April of 1941, after the battle of Britain had been decided. They signed this under the assumption that the Germans were going to keep to their non-aggression pact with Russia, which only lasted another two months.

Stalin knew exactly what the Russian plans were and their intention to push south, and the impossibility of reversing this decision on short notice due to the excellent soviet spy network in Japan, most famously Richard Sorge. The British had nothing to do with the decisions taken on the Japanese/ Soviet borders.

Lastly, the idea of 'hardened Siberian veterans' flooding in from the East to defend Moscow is also a myth. Yes, troops were transferred from the East to the defence of moscow, but most were green and had far LESS experience than their western counterparts; veterans of the 1939 japanese/Russian war had already been transferred west much earlier. Though they enjoyed the advantages of being fresh and relatively well equipped, in fact the performance of the Eastern troops was generally very poor.

Furthermore, most of these transferred troops were NOT COMMITTED to the defence of Moscow at all, but kept in reserve, and then thrown in as part of Stalin's idiotic December 1941 counter-offensive, which took enormous casualties and accomplished almost nothing. Most of these 'Eastern troops' were thrown away in massed charges against German positions, and massacred. They took no significant role in the defence of the city.


Japan and Germany were not allies. many people make this mistake, assuming these two nations had a relationship like the US and the UK on the allied side, but nothing could be further from the truth. Germany consistently refused to consult (or even inform) Japan on matters of any significance (such as signing a deal with a sworn enemy) and Japan became increasingly disgusted with their treatement. There was some small, limited co-operation from the various resource and technical institutes, but none whatsoever on the political or military front.

Well, I over-simplified to the point of mis-speaking I suppose- yes, the japanese and german's did not consult each other, and were not close buddies, kinda being a "enemy of my enemy..." relationship.

I have often wondered why Japan never re-doubled thier efforts on Russia though- I didn't even think about the Hitler-Stalin pact and how that effected japan though that, and I did know there was some very hard core political infighting in the Japanese ranks that was very different from the Hitler as God style in Europe, but I did not know the Army wanted Russia but the navy wanted the south pacific tack. I am only a curious occasional reader of WW2 stuff, not a hard core buff like some here

Which is to me, the most curious quirk in world history- when one very paranoid man, who never trusted anyone, suddenly decided to trust hitler? Wierd twists in history that effect the whole world, and the entire outcome of a war!

The only real 'alliance' japan had with Germany (and Italy) was the anti-Comintern pact of 1936, which among its clauses specifically stated that neither of them would make any political treaties with the Soviet Union. So when, without any warning at all, Germany announced the Nazi-Soviet pact in August 1939, the Japanese saw this as a total betrayal. Combined with their de-pantsing in Manchuria by the Soviets at the same time, they wrote off any possibility of an attack againat Russia, which was now Germany's 'friend', supplying them with tons of raw materiels. Some Japanese even presumed that if Japan attacked Rusia, germany would help defend the Russians.

Given that, the decision to go south, towards the only other large source of oil nearby (Duth East Indies) was taken and never looked back. When Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941 (again, no warning to the Japanese) it was FAR too late to reverse a year and a half of military planning which was due for execution in just a few months. Nor did the Japanese have the slightest faith in Germany which would make them consider such a change.



A Russian historian once wrote: 'If you are trapped in a cage with a hungry lion, and the lion suddenly offers you a deal, it doesnt matter if you don;t trust the Lion: take the deal.'

Hitler had been ranting to everyone who would listen that he always planned to invade the East. Mein kampf is a huge long litany of his intentions to destroy Russia. The Russians were listening, and they figured that Germany was coming at some point. But the 1938 purge of the Soviet officer corps and the Russo-Finnish war had left the Red Army pitifully weak, and Stalin knew they could not survive a war at that time. Like everybody else in the world, he assumed a war between Germany and France would drag out for years, just like the first world war.

The rest is guesswork, but some historians say Stalin came to trust Hitler when he delivered valuable high-tehnology blueprints and technology as part of his end of the deal. He figured that Germany was getting so much out of the pact (vast quantities of raw materiels) that there would be no point to invade... but thats just a guess... It has also been assumed that he depended on his spy ring, and Richard Sorge had no news of any impending german attack. It did not occur to him that Germany would not bother to inform their Japanese 'allies' of their plans...

Nicely said Vermillion, but note that at no point does my scenario require, or even suggest, Nippo-Nazi coordination. It posits a Japanese attack on Russia in 1942, AFTER Barbarossa, AFTER Pearl Harbor, and AFTER my hypothetical collapse of the British Empire and the Japanese conquests of Burma and India. It plays to the divide and rivalries within the Japanese government by giving the Army a significant role in a conflict that suddenly looks like it will now be purely a naval war, an opportunity to avenge their previous humiliation. It is driven purely out of Japanese self-interest and opportunity.

It also doesn't even explore the role that removing the Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign would have on the Eastern Front. Absolute Luftwaffe air superiority through 1944? It doesn't explore the probability of the Germans and Italians seizing the oil fields of the Middle East. It doesn't examine the possibility of the Turks throwing in with the Axis. And it doesn't examine the impact that removing the third most poweful economy (UK) in the world from the fray would have on the Allies.

Simply put, the Royal Navy and US Navy defeated the Kriegsmarine. The US Army Air Force and Royal Air Force defeated the Luftwaffe, and the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht.

Had the UK fallen in 1940, the USSR probably would have fallen in 1942, possibly even 1941, latest 1943. Consider though the reverse? Had the USSR succumbed in 1942, when would the UK have fallen? Given the arrival of the Yanks starting in early 1942 ... it would've been a LONG time.

To be clear, with the defeat of the UK and/or the Soviets, Germany would not have been defeated and a different Cold War would have ensued.