If one man and one people deserve the honour of being the most influential in winning World War II it is Churchill and the British.
Emos
Golden Member
- Oct 27, 2000
- 1,989
- 0
- 0
<< Interesting question. I would further dissect that by asking, What was the most pivotal battle in the war?" >>
My $0.02:
West Front: Battle of Britain
East Front: Stalingrad
Pacific: Battle of Midway
The T-34 gets my vote as best tank of the war, followed closely by the Panther. The Sherman was significant due to the vast quantity of them on the battlefield. To paraphrase a Panzer commander: "We would knock out ten of the damned things only to be destroyed by the 11th!"
AmusedOne
Had it not been for Stalin's purges (including most of Russia's great military leaders and strategists), Hitler never would have made it nearly as far as he did.
I agree but you left out two other important parts. The Soviet German non-aggression pact that allowed Hitler to start the war with Poland knowing that the Soviets would not attack Germany.
The fact that the Soviets before the war let German military designers perfect their designs in Russia when they were not allowed to do so in Germany.
There are so many "if onlys" about WWII it is almost impossible to decide on any one factor as being the decisive one.
The breaking of the German Engima code by the British was a very important factor that I didn't see mentioned.
Just a few of the whoops.
The ME109 was a very short range fighter allowing the British to win the Battle of Britain.
The lack by Germany to build a four engine bomber that would have allowed them to attack the Russians factories before they could be moved beyond the Urals. It also hampered them in the Battle of Britain.
The almost criminal lack of a reliable torpedo by the US Navy probably prolonged the war.
Had it not been for Stalin's purges (including most of Russia's great military leaders and strategists), Hitler never would have made it nearly as far as he did.
I agree but you left out two other important parts. The Soviet German non-aggression pact that allowed Hitler to start the war with Poland knowing that the Soviets would not attack Germany.
The fact that the Soviets before the war let German military designers perfect their designs in Russia when they were not allowed to do so in Germany.
There are so many "if onlys" about WWII it is almost impossible to decide on any one factor as being the decisive one.
The breaking of the German Engima code by the British was a very important factor that I didn't see mentioned.
Just a few of the whoops.
The ME109 was a very short range fighter allowing the British to win the Battle of Britain.
The lack by Germany to build a four engine bomber that would have allowed them to attack the Russians factories before they could be moved beyond the Urals. It also hampered them in the Battle of Britain.
The almost criminal lack of a reliable torpedo by the US Navy probably prolonged the war.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,072
- 1,476
- 126
well of course the obivous concept is that if the US hadn't entered the European war, none of the allies would have stood a chance. The US was basically the sole allied power in the Pacific (British had a limited force there, but it was of little assistance). But the simple truth is that if the British hadn't kept up the fight for so long on its own then the war woulda been over long before the US entered it.
As good as the T-34 was, it was brutally simple and not very reliable...the suspension design was bought from.....get this...an United States Citizen....he was turned down by the US Army...The Ruskies bought it!
Long before the US entered the war it supplied Great Britian with nearly everything it took to remain in existence! Hitler was sure that Germany and GB could come to terms when they understood that resistence was futile and without the US supplies it would have been folly to resist.
The United States as always made it a point to value their soldiers lives and not just throw them into battle. Unlike Russia and Germany the political machine ultimately answers to the voters. That was the primary reason for the US late entry. They wanted to be sure of a win before commiting.
Btw, although they garner much press and fame, tank battles were rather rare as battles go. When they happened they indeed were spectacular but tanks and infantry were mutually supportive. A tank regardless of it's design is an easy target without it's infantry support.
The US rewrote combat tactics in WWII. The Sherman with all it's faults was a superior weapon. The later models had larger guns and more armour. They were cheap to produce, faster, more comfortable and much more reliable than the competition. The Shermans had heaters, the T-34 did not. The Shermans had radio communication within the tank. The T-34 was guided by it's commander by kicking and hitting the upper torso of the driver! After D-Day the Germans had a bad shortage of rubber. So did everyone else but it was US Scientists that developed a substitute. German tanks leaked fuel and were very unreliable because of they never found a sutible substitute.
Both the Russian and German tanks were much heavier than the Sherman. The Sherman could go places the competition never could and was more easily transported. Unlike the other parties in WWII, the US fought everywhere the Axis was a threat. That transportability was every bit as important as it's armour or firepower.
The term 'Ronson' was applied by the British Tommies. They were the first to use the Sherman in any numbers and it 'brewed up' because of it's gasoline motor as the German and Russian tanks were diesel and diesel was much harder to ignite by a hit. The US provided Shermans to the British in North Africa first and to the Russians.
Long before the US entered the war it supplied Great Britian with nearly everything it took to remain in existence! Hitler was sure that Germany and GB could come to terms when they understood that resistence was futile and without the US supplies it would have been folly to resist.
The United States as always made it a point to value their soldiers lives and not just throw them into battle. Unlike Russia and Germany the political machine ultimately answers to the voters. That was the primary reason for the US late entry. They wanted to be sure of a win before commiting.
Btw, although they garner much press and fame, tank battles were rather rare as battles go. When they happened they indeed were spectacular but tanks and infantry were mutually supportive. A tank regardless of it's design is an easy target without it's infantry support.
The US rewrote combat tactics in WWII. The Sherman with all it's faults was a superior weapon. The later models had larger guns and more armour. They were cheap to produce, faster, more comfortable and much more reliable than the competition. The Shermans had heaters, the T-34 did not. The Shermans had radio communication within the tank. The T-34 was guided by it's commander by kicking and hitting the upper torso of the driver! After D-Day the Germans had a bad shortage of rubber. So did everyone else but it was US Scientists that developed a substitute. German tanks leaked fuel and were very unreliable because of they never found a sutible substitute.
Both the Russian and German tanks were much heavier than the Sherman. The Sherman could go places the competition never could and was more easily transported. Unlike the other parties in WWII, the US fought everywhere the Axis was a threat. That transportability was every bit as important as it's armour or firepower.
The term 'Ronson' was applied by the British Tommies. They were the first to use the Sherman in any numbers and it 'brewed up' because of it's gasoline motor as the German and Russian tanks were diesel and diesel was much harder to ignite by a hit. The US provided Shermans to the British in North Africa first and to the Russians.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
<< Brits of course - gotta have at least one vote
>>Make it two. Britain stood up to Germany from the beginning (although not really coming into its own until Churchill assumed the position of Prime Minister in May 1940). American involvement in the war (the European theater anyway) really didn't even being minimally until Summer 1942, when the first U.S. bombing raids began, and in earnest in November 1942 when Operation Torch (the U.S. invasion of North Africa) got underway. By then, the Brits had been facing the Axis essentially alone for two long years. Even the Soviets only got involved in June of 1941 when Operation Barbarrosa began, a full year after the surrender of all the rest of Western Europe, including France.
Without Great Britain fighting on alone, the war would have been lost by Summer of 1940. Thus, if you exclude Hitler himself, the Brits deserve the most credit in the winning of the war.
Ur all daft....it's all about the koreans!!! We rule!...haha
Seriously...it's gotta be the Russians. Honestly, they threw in the most because, in the end, they had the most to lose. I mean, lets take the argument that the british and americans took italy...not all that impressive when you consider that the italians were repelled in africa by SPEARS!!! The germans had to send in armored units to do it for them. You can argue that the US took out Japan virtually single-handedly, but what if japan won the Pacific? Then we'd have a lot more japanese speaking people round here I imagine, and they would have complete dominance over the Pacific. They still couldn't dent the Russians. We'd prolly have a situation like back in the days of napoleon...where britain held sway over the seas and france held the armies of europe.
Sigh...back to my studying.
Seriously...it's gotta be the Russians. Honestly, they threw in the most because, in the end, they had the most to lose. I mean, lets take the argument that the british and americans took italy...not all that impressive when you consider that the italians were repelled in africa by SPEARS!!! The germans had to send in armored units to do it for them. You can argue that the US took out Japan virtually single-handedly, but what if japan won the Pacific? Then we'd have a lot more japanese speaking people round here I imagine, and they would have complete dominance over the Pacific. They still couldn't dent the Russians. We'd prolly have a situation like back in the days of napoleon...where britain held sway over the seas and france held the armies of europe.
Sigh...back to my studying.
I'm of the distinct opinion that, as long as Britain had US commercial support and extensive military support, Germany never could have taken England. The stopping power of water is hard to overestimate. I don't think that any reasonable change to technology or tactics (excepting nukes and the like) could have changed that.
As for the US desire to know it could win a war before committing, that's really not the case--FDR always thought he could win the war, so he committed. The US population before Pearl Harbor was so overwhelmingly against war that the Good Neighbor speech and God only knows how many other attempts of FDR's to get the US involved fell on deaf ears. So while yes, the US wasn't necessarily stupid to stay out of the war, the country can hardly get credit for zealous participation
I agree about the great purges entirely; I forget the number but Stalin more or less decapitated the Red Army--something like 30% of its officers; maybe more.
NB: Hitler only abandoned operation sea lion as it was conceived because it became impossible for Germany to wipe out the RAF.
I for one am absolutely convinced that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was intended by Stalin to be a realistic, honest agreement. It's an interesting question--what would have happened to Britain had Russia not entered the war, but I can't answer it and I doubt anyone can I'm dubious to engage in such speculation about what-if, but IMHO Russia's work in killing the most germans means they are most directly responsible for winning wwii.
I think--and this I can't prove--that the economic/political basis for the German war machine was rotten to the core, and I think it wouldn't have been able to stand ad infinitum.
One Man's Opinion
As for the US desire to know it could win a war before committing, that's really not the case--FDR always thought he could win the war, so he committed. The US population before Pearl Harbor was so overwhelmingly against war that the Good Neighbor speech and God only knows how many other attempts of FDR's to get the US involved fell on deaf ears. So while yes, the US wasn't necessarily stupid to stay out of the war, the country can hardly get credit for zealous participation
I agree about the great purges entirely; I forget the number but Stalin more or less decapitated the Red Army--something like 30% of its officers; maybe more.
NB: Hitler only abandoned operation sea lion as it was conceived because it became impossible for Germany to wipe out the RAF.
I for one am absolutely convinced that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was intended by Stalin to be a realistic, honest agreement. It's an interesting question--what would have happened to Britain had Russia not entered the war, but I can't answer it and I doubt anyone can
I'm dubious to engage in such speculation about what-if, but IMHO Russia's work in killing the most germans means they are most directly responsible for winning wwii. I think--and this I can't prove--that the economic/political basis for the German war machine was rotten to the core, and I think it wouldn't have been able to stand ad infinitum.
One Man's Opinion
<<
<< USSR.... wishful thinking. Yes they stopped the Germans (with a little help of those nice winters over there). >>
At first, russians did get help from the weather, but not in the later stages. And in the later stages, they rolled right over Wehrmacht, no matter what the weather was like.
<< I would place my vote for the designers of the P-51 Mustang (The ones with the Merlin powerplants). It allowed greater success in strategic bombing. As we have seen in recent wars, it is really quite helpful. >>
Strategic bombing didn't gain much. Germans broke all their previous production-records regardless of massive-bombings.
If I had to choose a design-team, I would choose the team who designed the T-34 tank. >>
First of all, the T-34 had been in production and in the Soviet army for several years for the outbreak of World War 2. Also, strategic bombing did work. German production did go down over time due to the bombing. The strategic bombing so hurt German production that they were forced to relocate many of their factories underground or hide them in schools. German plane production and German oil production were much lower in late 1944 than they were in 1942.
<< Stalin did not support the US against Japan and even took American Airmen hostage for making emergency landings at Russian airfields >>
Stalin made a pact w/Japan that they wouldn't fight each other...it kept him free to concentrate his forces in the West
Damn, I was in Poli Sci class when a good topic comes up :| :| :|
My answer: Hitler, without any doubt.
If you want a flame war, in the glory of Iron Chef:
THE HEAT WILL BE ON!!!
My answer: Hitler, without any doubt.
If you want a flame war, in the glory of Iron Chef:
THE HEAT WILL BE ON!!!
brxndxn
First of all, the T-34 had been in production and in the Soviet army for several years for the outbreak of World War 2
I don't believe that is so.
thehistoryof.co.uk/World_War
The T-32 had proved very good in trials and a small production was ordered. But after battle experience in the Spanish Civil War, showed that it needed more armour protection. The improvements led to the T-33 and T-34. The T-33 used the wheel/track system, meanwhile the T-34 didn«t. After many trials, the T-34 were accepted by the War Council, and mass-production was ordered. The T-34 was known for its excellentely shaped hull and turret and the 76m gun of a relative long barrel-length and its high muzzle-velocity made it to a feared devil. The T-34s use of a diesel-engine reduced the risk for fire when hit, and gave the T-34 larger operation range. The Christie-suspension permitted high speed in rough terrain, meanwhile its wide tracks made it able to cross mud and snow easier and faster.The first T-34/76A was delivered to the Red Army in June 1940. When Operation Barbarossa was launched on June 22nd 1941, the production of the T-34 had not reached far enough to employ sufficient numbers to the Red Army.
Interesting read on a US eval of the T34
Development history of the T34
First of all, the T-34 had been in production and in the Soviet army for several years for the outbreak of World War 2
I don't believe that is so.
thehistoryof.co.uk/World_War
The T-32 had proved very good in trials and a small production was ordered. But after battle experience in the Spanish Civil War, showed that it needed more armour protection. The improvements led to the T-33 and T-34. The T-33 used the wheel/track system, meanwhile the T-34 didn«t. After many trials, the T-34 were accepted by the War Council, and mass-production was ordered. The T-34 was known for its excellentely shaped hull and turret and the 76m gun of a relative long barrel-length and its high muzzle-velocity made it to a feared devil. The T-34s use of a diesel-engine reduced the risk for fire when hit, and gave the T-34 larger operation range. The Christie-suspension permitted high speed in rough terrain, meanwhile its wide tracks made it able to cross mud and snow easier and faster.The first T-34/76A was delivered to the Red Army in June 1940. When Operation Barbarossa was launched on June 22nd 1941, the production of the T-34 had not reached far enough to employ sufficient numbers to the Red Army.
Interesting read on a US eval of the T34
Development history of the T34
<< Gotta be the Germans. They opened another front, while they were fighting in to other areas, and that other front was Russia in the winter. Should've learned from Napoleon that it's a bad idea. >>
The Russians stopped the Germans from advancing further but they didn't do anything to topple Hitler
It wasn't a dumb move on the Nazis part either...who would have guessed that the Russians wouldn't surrender after 1 million+ deaths and 900 days of siege?
well if it were a battle of egotism it would surely be the US. yes the US had a large contribution, and yes they were pivotal in the war and without them perhaps the war would have been lost for the allies. But from the way some people make it sound is as if the US single handedley fought the war on all fronts and with equipment that was superior to that of their enemies in every respect conceivable, while also singlehandedly feeding the entire rest of the world without ever making a single mistake or relying on anyone else for assistance. Get off your high horses.
The war was an allied effort. no one had a more influential part to play than anyone else.
and as for why i felt compelled to make a post like this, i point you to:
<< << Russians >> >>
<< Dying doesn't necessarily make you influential >>
so far no one who has posted an opion of someone other than the US has felt the need to discredit the efforts of anyone else... why proponents of the US feel the need to is beyond me.
The war was an allied effort. no one had a more influential part to play than anyone else.
and as for why i felt compelled to make a post like this, i point you to:
<< << Russians >> >>
<< Dying doesn't necessarily make you influential >>
so far no one who has posted an opion of someone other than the US has felt the need to discredit the efforts of anyone else... why proponents of the US feel the need to is beyond me.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
It's a very interesting question to ask. Looking beyond the Pacific where the United States conducted the vast majority of operations against the Japanese, the war in Europe is hard to decide. While Britian did stay in the war for a very long time, they would have lost out if not for the Lend-Lease policy of FDR, which allowed supplies to be delivered to them. However, that should not take away from Britian's incredible resolve and fighting capability. After all they won the Battle of Britian and prevented Hilter from invading. America, though, was the predominate player in winning the supply battle in the Battle of the Atlantic. They contributed much to U-boat hunting technology and, coupled with the British were able to deliver supplies.
One also must consider that the British had ULTRA, which could decode the German Enigma machines. This proved invaluable in Torch and during the Battle of Britian.
Although the Sherman was a 'weak' tank to begin with, it recieved substantial field improvements which turned it into a pretty decent piece of machinery. You also have to remember the Sherman was a trade-off; four of them could fit on a transport in the spot of one tank the size of a T-34. With the exception of the German 88-mm flack/artillary gun America had very good long range capabilities. They also had the Superfortress bombers and the P-51 'Mustang' fighters. The M1 was the most reliable weapon on the field and the tommy gun was a pretty decent submachine gun. They also had the fifty-caliber machine gun, a novelty during the war, and, probably one of the greatest vehicles of all time: the jeep.
Whatever flaws were in American weapontry were made up by producing massive quantities. I believe that by the end of the war America had produced 2/3 of the weapons in the world.
Russia, although they fought brilliantly towards the end of the war, could not have completely defeated Germany without America's help. By keeping Britian alive German soldiers were committed to defending the 'Atlantic Wall' which drew veteran divisions away from the Eastern Front. Although Russia bore the brunt of casualties, I do not believe they could have beat Germany on their own.
I honestly believe it was a combined effort to beat Germany and that no nation could have done so on its own. America supplied a new fighting spirit, good equipment (and plenty of it), good soldiers. Britian brought veteran leaders, high morale, technological inovation, and experienced soldiers. Russia brought it's enormous size, will of it's people, and the T34.
One also must consider that the British had ULTRA, which could decode the German Enigma machines. This proved invaluable in Torch and during the Battle of Britian.
Although the Sherman was a 'weak' tank to begin with, it recieved substantial field improvements which turned it into a pretty decent piece of machinery. You also have to remember the Sherman was a trade-off; four of them could fit on a transport in the spot of one tank the size of a T-34. With the exception of the German 88-mm flack/artillary gun America had very good long range capabilities. They also had the Superfortress bombers and the P-51 'Mustang' fighters. The M1 was the most reliable weapon on the field and the tommy gun was a pretty decent submachine gun. They also had the fifty-caliber machine gun, a novelty during the war, and, probably one of the greatest vehicles of all time: the jeep.
Whatever flaws were in American weapontry were made up by producing massive quantities. I believe that by the end of the war America had produced 2/3 of the weapons in the world.
Russia, although they fought brilliantly towards the end of the war, could not have completely defeated Germany without America's help. By keeping Britian alive German soldiers were committed to defending the 'Atlantic Wall' which drew veteran divisions away from the Eastern Front. Although Russia bore the brunt of casualties, I do not believe they could have beat Germany on their own.
I honestly believe it was a combined effort to beat Germany and that no nation could have done so on its own. America supplied a new fighting spirit, good equipment (and plenty of it), good soldiers. Britian brought veteran leaders, high morale, technological inovation, and experienced soldiers. Russia brought it's enormous size, will of it's people, and the T34.
If u say it was US then there are 2 possibilities:
either because you are an American or you have watched too many US-made war movies.
either because you are an American or you have watched too many US-made war movies.
<<
<< << Russians >> >>
<< Dying doesn't necessarily make you influential >>
so far no one who has posted an opion of someone other than the US has felt the need to discredit the efforts of anyone else... why proponents of the US feel the need to is beyond me. >>
I made that comment as I'm sure you're aware. That is the usual argument people give for the Russians--to include the Russians in the post-war effort (Remember Berlin?)
I didn't discredit the efforts of the Russians or say they did nothing, too little, not enough or anything along those lines--Just that you can't determine their influence (as the title of this thread asks :Q) to the whole effort based on how many they had killed.
Anyhow, I'm sorry if I made you cry. I didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings
<< If u say it was US then there are 2 possibilities:
either because you are an American or you have watched too many US-made war movies. >>
This feels like someone trying to discredit US efforts
Anyhow, who do you think had the most influence then?
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
<< If u say it was US then there are 2 possibilities:
either because you are an American or you have watched too many US-made war movies. >>
Whoa there. America contributed greatly to the war effort, the only country perhaps that committed more resources and manpower was Russia. The US's role cannot be denied in this war, they shipped supplies to both britian and russia to keep them alive, fought just as hard as the british in italy and in france. Come on, give some credit to them.
<< Anyhow, I'm sorry if I made you cry. I didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings >>
well you did... i'm going to go cry myself to sleep now!
but yes, the russians were particularly adept at dying en masse, however they were also wizard at killing germans so it really balances out.
To be fair, you have to question whether the scale of the supplies line to Britain had anything to do in influencing the war or how long it lasted . I mean, for example, say that x-tons of cargo needed by England/Allied for the european front was 50 tons, if the US shipped 200 tons of supplies to Britain does that mean the extra 150 tons had a influence on the way the war was won? Many say that outside of maybe 1942-1943 the supply line to Britain was nolonger needed.
i don't know if this was mentioned before but right after the Germans took over France, the USSR and US weren't even in the war yet and it was only Canada and Great Britian fighting the war... since Canada is/was GB's ally they were automatically in once Hitler declared war....the US (isolationists at the time, yet ironically totally opposite these days) at the time, however, were still trying to get Congress onboard and some say they knew about Pearl Harbour and only let it get sacked so that they could get the public/Congress into the war. so yeah, the US had a big effect but they kinda jumped in later on and pinch hitted...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter