Who had the most influence in winning the World War II ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
russians in the european theater and the US in the pacific theater

don't forget a big "aircraft carrier" named Great Britain, without them I would be speaking german or russian
basically great britain made it possible to open the second front for the US

just my 2 eurocent

now flame away :D
 

chansen

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,133
0
71
Interesting question. I would further dissect that by asking, What was the most pivotal battle in the war?"

In Europe, the Battle of Britain stands out as the first time the Germans were stopped or even slowed. Of course, the Russians and their winter had an even greater effect on the German army than the Brits had on the Luftwaffe. Of course, the

In the Pacific, of course, it was mostly American involvement, and the Battle of Midway definitely comes to mind as the turnin point.

I used to read a lot of historic accounts about the war, as well as novels. A terrible time in history. We've not learned much, have we?
 

SpyKey

Member
Nov 2, 2000
165
0
0
Russia. Thanks to the States for help, but the major force was Russia.
For people that do not read books and meanwhile state that Russians did not fight in the Far East: Russians annihilated a million-strong Kwantung Army in Manchuria in a matter of three months in 1945. What was the biggest Japanese force that the US troops faced?
 

Murpheeee

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2000
3,326
0
76


<<

<< America, we supplied the Russian tanks ... >>



And fighter aircraft and medical supplies and Stalin tried like hell to stop the Russian People from finding it out. He had the medical and food supplies relabled....
>>



I heard a story that among the supplies the US sent over to Russia were condoms. Apparently they sent Extra-Large ones and re-labled them as "Small"

Not sure if its true....but it's what I heard........everything is bigger in America right?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,826
13,875
146


<< Russia. Thanks to the States for help, but the major force was Russia.
For people that do not read books and meanwhile state that Russians did not fight in the Far East: Russians annihilated a million-strong Kwantung Army in Manchuria in a matter of three months in 1945. What was the biggest Japanese force that the US troops faced?
>>



Um, the Japanese army in Manchuria were suffering from a lack of supplies, no armor, were in the middle of a redeployment and therefore very unorganized and ended up surrendering in a matter of weeks because the US dropped the bomb. Yet the Soviets claimed the Kwantung Army did not surrender for 5 days after the order was issued by the Japanese Emperor. Why? Because the Soviets were in the middle of a shameless land grab. A surrender would mean they could not advance into China.

The Soviet advance into Manchuria had little to no effect on the outcome of the war. It was too little, too late, and the only reason Stalin did it was in an attempt to gain a piece of the pie.
 
Aug 16, 2001
22,529
4
81
Russia played a very important role. If the Germans vere not stopped in the east, it's very probable that most of Europe would speak german now.
 

Spagina

Senior member
Dec 31, 2000
565
0
0
The United States had the most influence in helping to win World War II. The two fronts we were fighting ourselves, especially the Pacific Operation which was almost solely a US effort. We also had the largest production number of arms out of any country in the war, that includes tanks, ammo, planes, guns, etc.

Russia is another good candidate, but they mainly had to concentrate on one front in the war, much of which was supplied by US supplies.

Ultimately, my answer is United States first, Russia running at second place.
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0
In Europe: Russians by far

In the Pacific: USA by far

Russia could have defeated Germany even without Overlord. They were already driving germans back west long before Overlord. Yes, USA did give Soviets tanks, but their number were pretty small when compared to tanks manufactured by soviets themselves. And soviet-built tanks were superior to western tanks.
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
Germany was fighting not a two but a three front war. They were doomed. Blame Hitler already and be done with it!!
 

im2smrt4u

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2001
1,912
0
0


<< It was Hitler. He tried to expand the war to far to fast. >>



Exactly! If Hitler wasn't such a dumba$$ he would have accomplished his goals...If he would have stayed on the Russians' good side, he very well might have won! :Q
 

CocaCola5

Golden Member
Jan 5, 2001
1,599
0
0
It would be Hitler, one for not seeing the impact the nuclear bomb would have. I think its been said that german scientists approached Hitler and suggested to him to pursue such a project but for some reason he never took them seriously.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
I'd give some credit to europeans and russians, since they were the ones who had to fight on their own soil. As for us, even though we did make a huge contribution, we didn't have to see our cities burned and our civilians killed.
 

oboeguy

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 1999
3,907
0
76


<< And soviet-built tanks were superior to western tanks. >>



I know that the US M4 tanks had no chance against the German armor (good book on that, "Death Traps", by Belton Cooper).

To answer the question... hard to say. I have to lean towards others' analysis that if not for the US, Europe would be one big Germany. On the Pacific side of things, the US clearly was the only one on the winning side.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
SpyKey

"Russia. Thanks to the States for help, but the major force was Russia.
For people that do not read books and meanwhile state that Russians did not fight in the Far East: Russians annihilated a million-strong Kwantung Army in Manchuria in a matter of three months in 1945. What was the biggest Japanese force that the US troops faced?"



Of course, you are overlooking the fact that by 1945 the Japanese army in Manchuria was undermanned, underequiped, and underfed. They bled troops and equipment out of China to try to stabalize the military disasters they were facing in the Pacific. Also, the US Submarines cut off almost all Japanese sea transport which meant the troops in Manchuria had no way in which to get equipment or food to their "million man" army, which in truth was more around 700,000. The tanks and equipment that they had in Manchuria were the same stuff that they had there in 1939, which was obsolete by anyone's standards. Beating that army was no challange to a large modern army such as the Soviet Union had and therefore was the only reason they got involved in the Far Eastern Theatre. Also, Stalin did not attack the Far East until the day after the atomic bomb was dropped, so the troops the Soviets faced were demoralized and scared. Most of the work done by the Soviets in World War 2 was them getting their butts kicked by the Germans and then the Soviet winter killing the Germans in revenge.
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0


<< Most of the work done by the Soviets in World War 2 was them getting their butts kicked by the Germans and then the Soviet winter killing the Germans in revenge. >>



That is just so wrong in so many levels...

Yes, the russian winter killed alot of germans. But in the end, it was the soviet soldiers who won them. In the latter half of the war they were annihilating germans round the year. They faced the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and they won, fair 'n square. Anyone who claims otherwise shows enormous disrespect for their efforts!

This is coming from a finn who dislikes what russians did to us in the Winter War.
 

Novgrod

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2001
1,142
0
0
First, it's hard to say that Russian tanks were superior to US tanks, though the case can certainly be made.

Second, everybody IMHO is right about Russia winning in Europe and the US in the Pacific. Of every eight germans who died in wwii, russians killed seven of them.

Hitler really never had a chance once he invaded Russia; that was a mistake, of course. It's my opinion (and i'll send my paper to anybody who cares; pm me) that Russia would not have entered the war if Germany hadn't invaded. Hitler never could have taken Britain; the stopping power of water was far too significant for him to overcome. Now as to what would have happened had he not invaded Russia, that's hard to say. I still don't think he could have won because I don't think he could have lived with Russia on his border and would have screwed with them enough to prompt an invasion. Even if he took stalingrad/leningrad/moscow, it would have been a pyrrhic victory; not like he could have held them.

Though in the Pacific, the Chinese did play a smallish part in the demise of the Japanese. Hard to argue against America though.

Hard to make a case for technology too; the Russians' tech sucked. German jet engines and buzz bombs didn't change the course of the war, and radar/sonar helped for certain, but they certainly didn't win the war.

Just one man's opinion.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
The military/industrial complex of the United States had the most influence on WWII. All other arguments are invalid. Repeat.... invalid.