Which nation was most important to defeating the Axis in WW2?

[Insomniac]

And provide your reason for saying so, if you don't mind.

[Hanover Fist]

The US simply because of our industrial might. Without it England would have been blockladed and starved and Russia would not have lasted long enough to slow the Germans and grind them up.

Russia only built 92 trains during the entire war, the US supplied them with almost 2,000 locomotives. Not to mention the 18,700 aircraft, 2/3 of all the trucks and jeeps they used, and vast amounts of raw material and clothing. Without that transportation ability all the other material the Russians built was worthless.

[Archangel]

Yeah, but without Zhukov and Rokossovsky's military genius, you'd have faced a million German soldiers in France.


You can give people the best weapons around, but you can't make them fight like tigers. Ask the Russians, they gave their best hardware to the Arabs, and the ragheads still got their arses kicked.

Russia fought harder and bled more than any other nation. To suggest that because you gave the Russians some hardware, you won WWII in Europe is simply preposterous. Russia would have beaten us using sticks and stones (and Field Marshal Frost), like they beat the Teutonic knights and Napoleon. The war would have lasted longer, granted, but you can't beat Russia on Russian soil. Full stop. Yes, British tenacity and American military might DID play a very large part, but we were beaten at Stalingrad and put on the defensive at the Kursk Bulge. You guys didn't even join the fight until after that.

As a German, I'll go on record to say that anybody who says anything but the USSR is a manifest idiot, at least as far as the war in Europe is concerned.

[Archangel]

Oh, and moved to P&C.

[Archangel]

Basically, using Hanover's reasoning, I could say that the Soviet Union won the Vietnam War because of the AK-47s and the SAMs the Soviets gave to the VC and the North Vietnamese.

[Archangel]

However, the US can take pretty much all the credit for defeating Japan.

[freegood]

Russia because they had the soldiers to grind.

There isn't a right answer. Without GB that front would have been lost.

[Hanover Fist]

Arch you are just wrong. There is simply no other way to put it. There would not have been a Russian front if not for the industrial might of the US. Sure the Russians had millions of troops and tens of thousands of tanks, but without all the transportation and material to get them to the front, they would never have been logistically able to confront the Germans.
They would have had virtually no heavy trucks, no locomotives, no transport aircraft, no raw materials to build the actual war machinery that they produced domestically.
Sure when it came to the fighting and dying the Russians were much more the reason that the war was ended, but the thing is, it never would have gotten that far without the US.

Of course, it could be argued that the main country that defeated Germany in WWII was Germany itself and the major gambles and gaffes that Hitler instituted that didn't pay off.
From letting the British Expeditionary force escape at Dunkirque, to bombing civilian instead of military targets in the air war over London, to building lighter bombers instead of 4 engine heavy bombers, to miscalculating rail gauge of the Russian railroads, to invading Russia prior to knocking Britain out of the war, and so on.

[Archangel]

And if you had given those trucks, trains and blankets to a bunch of limp-wristed pansies, what would have been the result then? If it had been the French and not the Russians, all your admittedly instrumental logistics would have been for nought.

Both are necessary, but between providing fighting men with the tools to fight and having the spirit to actually bleed and fight, the second is what wins wars. As I said, the Soviets gave the Vietnamese communists their hardware, but you never hear people talking about the USSR winning the Vietnam War.

[Hanover Fist]

And if you had given those trucks, trains and blankets to a bunch of limp-wristed pansies, what would have been the result then? If it had been the French and not the Russians, all your admittedly instrumental logistics would have been for nought.

Both are necessary, but between providing fighting men with the tools to fight and having the spirit to actually bleed and fight, the second is what wins wars. As I said, the Soviets gave the Vietnamese communists their hardware, but you never hear people talking about the USSR winning the Vietnam War.

Comparing an insurgent war like Vietnam to an all out war like WWII is ludicrous. The US won every military engagement in Vietnam and were more defeated by the media and the US populations aversion to the television showing the reality of warfare.

The Russians simply would never have had the opportunity to even get into the fight without the aid of the US. They could not have brought their superior numbers into the meatgrinder if they couldn't get them to the battlefields. If not for all those US trains,trucks, and aircraft the Russian tanks would be stuck hundreds or thousands of miles from where they were needed. How do you think those tens of thousands of artillery pieces that pounded the Germans into oblivion got where they were? They didn't walk there.
The Germans had a completely mechanized war machine, the fact that the Russians could respond and move their armies with all the equipment the US gave them meant that they could make countermoves and block the Germans from strategic points. They sure as fuck weren't going to do that with a marching army towing artillery by horse carriage.

[Yelram]

And if you had given those trucks, trains and blankets to a bunch of limp-wristed pansies, what would have been the result then? If it had been the French and not the Russians, all your admittedly instrumental logistics would have been for nought.

Both are necessary, but between providing fighting men with the tools to fight and having the spirit to actually bleed and fight, the second is what wins wars. As I said, the Soviets gave the Vietnamese communists their hardware, but you never hear people talking about the USSR winning the Vietnam War.

Goddamn it, THE FUCKING RUSSIANS WERE ON HITLERS SIDE UNTIL 1941. One bad military maneuver on Hitlers part does not lend itself to Russia having some sort of superior fighting machine. Had the US not been there, you would be speaking Russian. You might be able to claim that Russia beat GERMANY, but the US was the key to defeating the Axis powers RUSSIA INCLUDED. (I know they werent technically included in that)

[Archangel]

Yelram has the rare power of giving headaches to people 8,000 miles away.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Don't you get it Arch? You don't agree with Yelram, SO FUCK YOU!

There is no correct answer to the question, I think. It took a joint effort.

[Yelram]

Yelram has the rare power of giving headaches to people 8,000 miles away.
The truth of it is, Russia and Germany were both expansionist countries hellbent on their ideology running Europe. If there wasnt a power to keep Russia in check, Europe would have been out of the frying pan, and into the fire. If Germany wouldnt have attacked Russia, Russia would have attacked Germany. But i'm sure the Ruskies woulda treated you guys real well....

BTW Arch, you'd sound alot smarter if you TRIED to refute my points.

[Satan]

D. Japan

Gave the U.S. the excuse it needed to enter the war

[Axel]

BTW Arch, you'd sound alot smarter if you TRIED to refute my points.Nope.

You might drag him down to your level of idiocy, then beat him with experience.

[Archangel]

The truth of it is, Russia and Germany were both expansionist countries hellbent on their ideology running Europe. If there wasnt a power to keep Russia in check, Europe would have been out of the frying pan, and into the fire. If Germany wouldnt have attacked Russia, Russia would have attacked Germany. But i'm sure the Ruskies woulda treated you guys real well....

BTW Arch, you'd sound alot smarter if you TRIED to refute my points.

No, I wouldn't.


Because you wouldn't dignify me of an answer if I presented you with a completely twisted and unrecognisable version of American history that existed only in my head, either.

However, just to make myself clear, my point was about who beat Germany. If you ask me about who won the last Superbowl, I don't get into who might have won the Stanley Cup that year if certain criteria had been met.

I mean, are you fucking lecturing me about how Russia would have treated an occupied Germany? I GREW UP IN A DIVIDED GERMANY, jackass. My dad was one of president Weizsäcker's chief fucking policy advisers on reunification. You can't paint the USSR as an "Axis Power" so you can inflate America's contribution to WWII ex post. Nobody's denying what you did for Western Europe after '45, so why are you acting as if people were?

[Yelram]

No, I wouldn't.


Because you wouldn't dignify me of an answer if I presented you with a completely twisted and unrecognisable version of American history that existed only in my head, either.

However, just to make myself clear, my point was about who beat Germany. If you ask me about who won the last Superbowl, I don't get into who might have won the Stanley Cup that year if certain criteria had been met.

I mean, are you fucking lecturing me about how Russia would have treated an occupied Germany? I GREW UP IN A DIVIDED GERMANY, jackass. My dad was one of president Weizsäcker's chief fucking policy advisers on reunification. You can't paint the USSR as an "Axis Power" so you can inflate America's contribution to WWII ex post. Nobody's denying what you did for Western Europe after '45, so why are you acting as if people were?

And had we not been there it would have been a united Germany, thats my whole point. Russia was not trying to save Europe, they were trying to dominate it. It just happened that the enemy of our enemy helped in some ways. The question was not "who beat Germany" because that is not the thread title. The thread title is "which nation was most important to defeating the Axis powers", and the answer to that still is, and will always be the United States.

[Hanover Fist]

A good example of what the lack of movement does to an Army that outnumbers its opponents would be The Battle of Tannenberg in 1914. The Russians vastly outnumbered the Germans, but the Germans could move troops all over the place quickly, while the Russians were stagnant. It allowed the Germans to continuously gain the territorial advantage and surround the much larger Russian forces time and time again. After this battle the Russians wouldn't step foot on German soil again until after WWII.
It could be said that the mobility of the Russian military was even worse at the start of WWII than it was in WWI. They had basically converted their entire peacetime manufacturing industry to building armored vehicles, totally ignoring the need for logistics. Without the US lend lease, the Eastern front would have been a mirror image of the Battle of Tannenberg only at a much much greater scale.

[Pharon]

This is a difficult question to answer, because WWII had two fronts. I don't think there's any question that the U.S. were the most important country in the Pacific, with respect to defeating the Axis powers. If the question was strictly about who was most important on the European front, maybe I'd go with the Soviet Union. But the U.S.'s dominance in the Pacific combined with their contribution in Europe -- I don't think there's any question who was the most important OVERALL.

Advantage: United States

[UNC]

Another attempt by an anti-american to discredit the United States and her achievements in the world.

[Archangel]

This is a difficult question to answer, because WWII had two fronts. I don't think there's any question that the U.S. were the most important country in the Pacific, with respect to defeating the Axis powers. If the question was strictly about who was most important on the European front, maybe I'd go with the Soviet Union. But the U.S.'s dominance in the Pacific combined with their contribution in Europe -- I don't think there's any question who was the most important OVERALL.

Advantage: United States

Granted, but there IS that whole Johnny-come-lately thing to consider.


Another attempt by an anti-american to discredit the United States and her achievements in the world.

Exactly. Because as a German, I know shit about WWII.

Anti-American, indeed.

[Pharon]

Granted, but there IS that whole Johnny-come-lately thing to consider.
Fair enough, but I still stand by my choice. The Germans weren't the only Axis power who got beaten. The fact that the U.S. was so instrumental in defeating Japan AND Germany is what puts them over the top, in my opinion.

[BIG PIZZLE]

I'm in the US so I'm bombarded by evidence that it's the US but I'm gonna say Russia.

[Hanover Fist]

The list below is the amount of war material shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from June 1941 to 30 Sept 1945


Aircraft 14,795

Tanks 7,056

Jeeps 51,503

Trucks 375,883

Motorcycles 35,170

Tractors 8,071

Guns 8,218

Machine guns 131,633

Explosives 345,735 tons

Building equipment valued $10,910,000

Railroad freight cars 11,155

Locomotives 1,981

Cargo ships 90

Submarine hunters 105

Torpedo boats 197

Ship engines 7,784

Food supplies 4,478,000 tons

Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000

Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons

Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons

Chemicals 842,000 tons

Cotton 106,893,000 tons

Leather 49,860 tons

Tires 3,786,000

Army boots 15,417,001 pairs


Russia would have been annihilated by the Germans if not for the Lend Lease Act. They would have had 10 million starving, immobile infantry protected by out of fuel half built tanks, that were constantly being bombed because they had no air cover.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Actually it was probably the US if you count Japan in the Axis powers.

This is a cool site.

http://www.teacheroz.com/WWIImaps.htm

[Archangel]

Fair enough, but I still stand by my choice. The Germans weren't the only Axis power who got beaten. The fact that the U.S. was so instrumental in defeating Japan AND Germany is what puts them over the top, in my opinion.

Um, you are aware that Mao and Chang fought against the Japanese for almost a decade, right? That China lost something like 20 million people in that war? You dealt the death blow to the Empire, but China (with massive US support - granted) had been sapping their strength for years.

I don't know, you people lost like, what, 400,000 soldiers in WWII, in both theatres combined? Jesus, the Soviets lost three times that at Stalingrad alone.

[Archangel]

Basically, America was in the advantageous position of having the best troops in theatre when the fighting stopped. That's a different thing from winning a war, though.

[Archangel]

I wonder how many Americans have even heard of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War).


EDIT: Well, maybe a few have heard of the Flyng Tigers, at least.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Well if the score is tied 24/24 and the ball is on the 30, it's fourth down, 0:04 seconds left and Worshowski comes in for the field goal. It's cold with a slight wind... the snap is clean and the kick is good, 27/24. Who won the game?

[Pharon]

Um, you are aware that Mao and Chang fought against the Japanese for almost a decade, right? That China lost something like 20 million people in that war? You dealt the death blow to the Empire, but China (with massive US support - granted) had been sapping their strength for years.
So what's your point? That China was the most important nation with respect to defeating the Axis powers in WWII?

I don't know, you people lost like, what, 400,000 soldiers in WWII, in both theatres combined? Jesus, the Soviets lost three times that at Stalingrad alone.
Loss of life is not an exclusively determining factor in answering the question posed in this thread.

Bottom line is this -- was the Soviet Union more instrumental in defeating the Japanese than the U.S. was in defeating the Germans?

No one here is saying the U.S. single-handedly won WWII. The question is who was the most important nation, on both fronts combined, in winning the war.

[fuldstændigamok]

Well, seeing that the French Resistance was not on the poll, I had to vote for the second best.

[Pharon]

Yeah, I remember the French Resistance being instrumental at the Battle of Iwo Jima.

[Archangel]

So what's your point? That China was the most important nation with respect to defeating the Axis powers in WWII?


No, but while I will say that America defeated Japan, China's contribution should be recognise.

[Insomniac]

Let me ask this, if Britain had made a peace with Germany after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, could the Soviets or the U.S. have done anything at all?

In addition to being Airstrip One for the U.S., they were instrumental in North Africa, the Mediterranean, conquering Italy, and fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.

Their contributions in every theater of war were enormous, and they were the only nation to fight Germany after the defeat of France and Poland, and held up for nearly year. Can you imagine Russia or America managing that?

[freegood]

Not sure why we need to crown an MVP to the bloodiest brawl in the history of mankind.

Germany and Japan lost. Lots of people died. The winners and France were rewarded permanent UN security council seats for it.

The End.

[Axel]

I'd say it was a joint effort. Talking about which part of the Grand Alliance had greater merits seems redundant to me.

EDIT: fuck, that was almost simultaneous, freegood

[Claydon]

I'd say it was a joint effort. Talking about which part of the Grand Alliance had greater merits seems redundant to me.



QFT

[Archangel]

Let me ask this, if Britain had made a peace with Germany after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, could the Soviets or the U.S. have done anything at all?

In addition to being Airstrip One for the U.S., they were instrumental in North Africa, the Mediterranean, conquering Italy, and fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.

Their contributions in every theater of war were enormous, and they were the only nation to fight Germany after the defeat of France and Poland, and held up for nearly year. Can you imagine Russia or America managing that?

Bullshit.

You never see the Brits doing anything of value in American WWII movies and games, so we all know that they never actually fought.

[Kerjack]

Sometimes I wonder what the people in far removed nations thought about the whole thing whilst it was happening. Like Paraguay

[Hanover Fist]

Sometimes I wonder what the people in far removed nations thought about the whole thing whilst it was happening. Like Paraguay

They were all busy hoarding Nazi gold and harboring Mengele after the war.

[freegood]

Bullshit.

You never see the Brits doing anything of value in American WWII movies and games, so we all know that they never actually fought.

Hollywood taught me that they were willing semen depositories.

[Mustard]

E. Germany

Because they started it.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I don't see how anyone could in their right mind say England. They had their asses kicked off the continent back to their little island.

England didn't do shit until the US got them back onto Europe.

[Claydon]

I don't see how anyone could in their right mind say England. They had their asses kicked off the continent back to their little island.

England didn't do shit until the US got them back onto Europe.

Ummm, yah but they really did a top notch job holding back the German Air Forces.

[Satan]

Col. Hogan was American, so the answer to this question is obvious.

[The GWD]

It's gotta be the Soviet Union, right?

If they hadn't thrown millions of troops at German forces, then we'd have been fucked. Hitler fucking over Stalin was his biggest mistake.

[wacker]

They were called allies for a reason, it was all one team

[Morfin]

How about: It was a team effort, well done. All played vital roles and without any of them, it would not have been successful.

Anyone?
Anyone?

Oh, well. Go back to your arguments.

[kid_vidrio]

I don't see how anyone could in their right mind say England. They had their asses kicked off the continent back to their little island.

England didn't do shit until the US got them back onto Europe.
I don't think they were absolutely on one side or the other prior to the Battle of Britain.
Why commit troops if some of your top brass thinks being part of the Reich was withing the realm of possibilities.
The organisation was aimed at the influential in society, and the membership was dominated by businessmen keen to promote commercial links. Members included Bank of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England) director Frank Cyril Tiarks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Cyril_Tiarks), Admiral Sir Barry Domvile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Sir_Barry_Domvile), Admiral Sir Murray Sueter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Sir_Murray_Sueter), Prince von Bismarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Christian_Archibald_von_Bismarck), Governor of the Bank of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_the_Bank_of_England) Montague Norman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_Norman), and Hjalmar Schacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Fellowship


Then again, maybe not.

[Axel]

How about: It was a team effort, well done. All played vital roles and without any of them, it would not have been successful.

Anyone?
Anyone?

Oh, well. Go back to your arguments.I'd say it was a joint effort. Talking about which part of the Grand Alliance had greater merits seems redundant to me.Reading = good

[taters]

The soviets took the brunt of the germans attacks over the years, took the largest amount of casualties, and were the first to get into Germany and start freeing concentration camps. All by design.

Unfortunately, the other allies anti-communism campaigns issued massive amounts of propaganda to tell their citizens that we (the US) were Europes primary liberators.

Ironically, if the Soviet Union had kept back and had a better leader than 'brute force' Stalin, the other Allies would not have been able to repel them from coming in after britain and the US absorbed the brunt of German forces and taking over almost all of Europe.

[Archetype]

Which country had the biggest hand in replacing the German government and economy after the war?

[taters]

Which country had the biggest hand in replacing the German government and economy after the war?

Which Germany?

Even so, that is separate from the issue of who was most important in defeating them.

[Claydon]

Germany does have a rather nice Federal system.......

arch, you may send my dead grandfather a thank you card.

[Archetype]

Which Germany?

Even so, that is separate from the issue of who was most important in defeating them.
In every victory there is always a conqueror. So who conquered Germany?

[Archangel]

Ironically, if the Soviet Union had kept back and had a better leader than 'brute force' Stalin, the other Allies would not have been able to repel them from coming in after britain and the US absorbed the brunt of German forces and taking over almost all of Europe.

That's one way of looking at it. You could, however, also argue that it was Stalin's utter disdain for the lives of his countrymen which won the day at Stalingrad.
Whether Russia winning was actually a good thing is another matter entirely. For every person that Hitler had murdered in his camps, Stalin killed five of his own people through purges, neglect or incompetence.

Which country had the biggest hand in replacing the German government and economy after the war?

Germany.

Because Konrad Adenauer refused to be a mere puppet from 1948 on, much to the surprised chagrin of the allied governors.

;)

[Archangel]

In every victory there is always a conqueror. So who conquered Germany?
The Soviet Union.

Last I recall, it was the hammer and sickle flying from the ruins of the Reichskanzlei in Berlin on May 8th, 1945.

[Claydon]

The Soviet Union.

Last I recall, it was the hammer and sickle flying from the ruins of the Reichskanzlei in Berlin on May 8th, 1945.

This is true, and it was an epic battle, I have read MANY MANY books about the battle of berlin. Although, I prefer Patton's view, that the US should have kept rolling into berlin and onward to Moscow. The Russians were at their very end with regards to industrial output. Might have saved the US about 20 trillion over 50 years.

[Archangel]

This is true, and it was an epic battle, I have read MANY MANY books about the battle of berlin. Although, I prefer Patton's view, that the US should have kept rolling into berlin and onward to Moscow. The Russians were at their very end with regards to industrial output. Might have saved the US about 20 trillion over 50 years.

Good to see that your priorities are straight.


I'd have thought "might have saved 250 million people 50 years of totalitarian rule" or "might have saved, oh, 30 million lives lost under Stalin", but what are those compared to US dollars?

[Claydon]

Good to see that your priorities are straight.


I'd have thought "might have saved 250 million people 50 years of totalitarian rule" or "might have saved, oh, 30 million lives lost under Stalin", but what are those compared to US dollars?


Stalin slaughtered most of his people prior to ww2, although his purges post ww2 were epic in scale. I always find it funny when kids wear a shirt comparing bush to hitler or something lame like that. Comparing him to stalin would be a far worse insult.

[Archangel]

I think Mao takes the mass murderer cake, though.

[Claydon]

I think Mao takes the mass murderer cake, though.

Most likely, however I do not think the total of Mao's greatness has ever been truly quantified. I have read estimates of 25 million to as high as 40 million.

[Archetype]

Stalin slaughtered most of his people prior to ww2, although his purges post ww2 were epic in scale. I always find it funny when kids wear a shirt comparing bush to hitler or something lame like that. Comparing him to stalin would be a far worse insult.
Most of those kids are pinkos, though.

[wacker]

But none will compare to the sure fire death Obama will no doubt bring.

[Archangel]

Most likely, however I do not think the total of Mao's greatness has ever been truly quantified. I have read estimates of 25 million to as high as 40 million.

Really? Because I read between 50 and 65...

[Claydon]

Really? Because I read between 50 and 65...

As I indicated, the total number has never been quantified. Not unlike the rape of nanking.

[Pharon]

It's gotta be the Soviet Union, right?

If they hadn't thrown millions of troops at German forces, then we'd have been fucked. Hitler fucking over Stalin was his biggest mistake.
"Thrown" being the operative word there. The reason we were finally able to defeat the Germans is because they used up all their bullets on the Russians.

True story.

[Archetype]

Morans thought they could take Stalingrad.

[Menace2Sobriety]

I don't see how anyone could in their right mind say England. They had their asses kicked off the continent back to their little island.

England didn't do shit until the US got them back onto Europe.Battle of Britain?

[Pharon]

Morans thought they could take Stalingrad.
Someone should have told them that it gets cold there in the winter. And by 'winter' I mean September to June.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Battle of Britain?

That was an air attack they defended from. How can that be confused we mounting an assualt and taking Europe back?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Russia went into Berlin because it was decided by Ike that Patton would not.

End of story. Patton chased the Germans back to Belin. The Marines throttled Japan.

So if defeating the Axis means you had to fight and beat Germany and Japan than the US most most responsible for defeating the Axis.

[Archetype]

Someone should have told them that it gets cold there in the winter. And by 'winter' I mean September to June.
Sounds like home.

[Claydon]

"Thrown" being the operative word there. The reason we were finally able to defeat the Germans is because they used up all their bullets on the Russians.

True story.

I like how they sent in the human waves where something like 1 out of 3 soldiers had a weapon. If they were lucky, some poor shlub would get wasted and then they could grab that man's weapon.

[Soup Nazi]

If the question was "which nation was most important to defeating Nazi Germany" I would wholeheartedly throw my support behind the USSR. The same with if the question was "which nation was most important in defeating the empire of Japan" I would say China. But since it's the entire Axis, and I am not a history buff, I will go with the US since they were heavily involved in both theaters.

[Swurgen]

However, the US can take pretty much all the credit for defeating Japan.

I haven't caught up on the rest of the poll yet but if you're giving the US all the credit for beating Japan and we admittedly get a good deal of credit for helping out with Germany then don't we get the win according to the question at hand???

[taters]

In every victory there is always a conqueror. So who conquered Germany?

I would disagree to that first comment. Some victories come at the cost to the victor, other result in the losing side winning because it kept whatever it needed during the fight.

Germany was conquered by both the Allies and the Soviets. Evident in the fact that it was split between both sides.

[Archangel]

I haven't caught up on the rest of the poll yet but if you're giving the US all the credit for beating Japan and we admittedly get a good deal of credit for helping out with Germany then don't we get the win according to the question at hand???

Because I'm German, and really don't care much about that little skirmish on some backwater islands.

[Claydon]

What we are all failing to discuss is the fact that it took basically two civilizations to bring down the germans......

ballsy bastards

[Archangel]

We held up for six years while fighting basically the entire world, with the exception of Romania, Italy, Bulgaria and Croatia, and managed to have a running infrastructure right until the very end.

Hell, if not for one idiotic decision and one instance of bad luck, we might have won the bloody thing, not that I'm saying that that would have been desirable. The nazis might have been the scum of the earth, but the Wehrmacht, for the most part, acquitted itself well.

[Claydon]

We held up for six years while fighting basically the entire world, with the exception of Romania, Italy, Bulgaria and Croatia, and managed to have a running infrastructure right until the very end.

Hell, if not for one idiotic decision and one instance of bad luck, we might have won the bloody thing, not that I'm saying that that would have been desirable. The nazis might have been the scum of the earth, but the Wehrmacht, for the most part, acquitted itself well.

superior technology (minus the bombing fleet/navy). shermans were a joke compared to the nazi hardware, they only won because we made 4 to every 1 of the german tanks.

[Archangel]

Pretty much can be said about German v American automobile manufacturers today.

[Claydon]

Pretty much can be said about German v American automobile manufacturers today.

serioiusly, the force multiplier tehcnology of nazi germany was stunning. a lessone the US learnned very well.

[Insomniac]

Hell, if not for one idiotic decision and one instance of bad luck, we might have won the bloody thing

Would that idiotic decision be attacking the Soviets when the Brits were still in it, the whole approach of the Battle of Stalingrad, or declaring war on the United States for positively no reason?

Really, you were probably closer to winning the First World War than the Second. Whether or not Napoleon invaded Russia, he couldn't have conquered Europe by anything but brute force and occupation, and we all know how well that works out.

[Archangel]

Stalingrad.

[Hanover Fist]

There were many bad decisions and miscalculations of epic proportions that led to the defeat of Germany in WWII. Starting with the Dunkirque and then the decision to try and terror bomb British civilians instead of hitting military/industrial targets during the Battle of Britain.
In the Eastern campaign the decision to scrap plans for a 4 engine bomber meant that the German medium bombers didn't have the range to hit the Tank factories and marshalling yards over the Urals. The fact that the Russian train track gauges were different than Europes was probably the biggest factor of all.
Germany could not bring supplies directly to the front for their soldiers, they had to unload every single German train and reload it onto a Russian train or in a lot of cases had to tear up existing track and relay it down to the proper gauge. A massively time and manpower consuming task that left weeks and weeks worth of war supplies staged in mountains of goods that became prime targets for bombing and sabotage.
There were of course tactical blunders galore by the Germans mainly in the realm of intel and their reliance on too much bad information and the belief that their enigma machines could not be breached.
Germany bears as much of the credit for defeating the Axis as any of the Allied powers. Given hindsight, an extremely well trained and supplied Wermacht would have rolled through the Allied powers in Europe and the war probably would have ended in 1941 or early 1942 before the impact of American supplies came into play.