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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cybermastif

Senior member
May 18, 2001
257
0
0
IMHO: Hitler had the most influence on WWII, had he not held back at Dunkirk the Brits would have been finished and what was left of the French command would have been destroyed. The Germans then should have secured the west coast, built up supplies, advanced thier technology, sought out a peace treaty with the US and GB, then turned thier guns on the USSR.

As far as military commanders who had the most infulleunce, the best generals were Gen. George Patton (US 3rd Army), Gen. Bradley, and Erwin Rommel. (Hitler was a fool to not listen to him and a greater fool to have him comit suicide!) Whoever said Montgomery, is as much of a moron as he was. (He (Monty) was almost more of an idiot then de Gaulle!)

Ultimatelly I do believe that the greatest influence in winning WWII has to be the group working on the Manhatten project. For us Americans, the war was not one of simply one theater, winning in one theater did not end the war, in fat many of the troops that were stationed on the european front were in the process of being shipped off to the pacific at the time the bomb was dropped. Dropping the bomb ended the war, andset the stage for history for the next 50 years.

just my opinion....
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,826
13,870
146
OK, screw it. I'm going to say Bob Hope. Without him entertaining the troops, the whole thing would have failed!
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
I have to say Adolt Hitler (he was a real dolt ;) ) contributed greatly to allies victory. He let the British army escaped at Dunkirk, fighting on both front in Europe, fought a fruitless war in Africa to help Moussolini. He wouldn't let his force retreat during the battle for Stalingrad, an entire German army were eventually surrounded and forced to surrender. He got up late during the evasion of Normandy, so no panzer division was released to push the allied landing forces back. His excessive involvment in the war effort eventually did the entire German arm forces in.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
How about the Japanese for pulling the US into the war and Russia for taking out the Germans?
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0


<< As far as military commanders who had the most infulleunce, the best generals were Gen. George Patton (US 3rd Army), Gen. Bradley, and Erwin Rommel. (Hitler was a fool to not listen to him and a greater fool to have him comit suicide!) Whoever said Montgomery, is as much of a moron as he was. (He (Monty) was almost more of an idiot then de Gaulle!) >>



What's actually wrong with De Gaulle? He proposed similar tank-tactics as germans used, but he was turned down by the powers-at-be in France. He was a competent leader.

As for the commanders... Patton and Rommel, yes. Rommel is my personal favourite. Not only was he a brilliant tactician, he was a good and humane leader who was greatly respected by both his men (he led from the front-lines) and his enemies alike. He treated his enemies with respect, he cared and loved for his wife and children and he didn't want to harm civilians (he in fact ran in to trouble when he insisted that SS-troops committing atrocities during the France-campaing should be punished. His request was denied).

Other notable commander is Guderian, the creator of modern panzer-tactics. Also, he was not involved in war-crimes and was not put to trial in Nurenberg.
 

dfi

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2001
1,213
0
0
United States. Why? US produced much more weapons of war than Germany. Case in point: US tanks outnumbered German tanks by more than a factor of 10:1. Yes, that's right, TEN TO ONE! How can you beat that???

dfi
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0


<< United States. Why? US produced much more weapons of war than Germany. Case in point: US tanks outnumbered German tanks by more than a factor of 10:1. Yes, that's right, TEN TO ONE! How can you beat that???

dfi
>>



Soviet Union also outproduced Germany, so what's your point?
 

Newton

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2002
13
0
0


<< i thought you were all computer geeks ;)

but nobody has mentioned TURING yet
>>



Would that be the genius Alan Turing inventor of the first electronic programmable computer kept so secret by the British that they did not even trust the Americans with the knowledge (for 50 years).

Oops nearly forgot, nobody mentioned 'Radar'
 

Bulk Beef

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
5,466
0
76


<< OK, screw it. I'm going to say Bob Hope. Without him entertaining the troops, the whole thing would have failed! >>

You already gave your answer. You can't change it now. :D
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
Roosevelt, as he managed to pull off the Lend Lease Act, to help save the Russians from decimation and the Brittish. I believe this was the single most important turn of events that help the others eventually turn Hitler away. And Churchhill who greatly influenced Roosevelt. Of course no one man or country won that hell of a war. Luck was also a major key element.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0


<< As far as military commanders who had the most infulleunce, the best generals were Gen. George Patton (US 3rd Army), Gen. Bradley, and Erwin Rommel. (Hitler was a fool to not listen to him and a greater fool to have him comit suicide!) Whoever said Montgomery, is as much of a moron as he was. (He (Monty) was almost more of an idiot then de Gaulle!) >>



I would tend to agree that Patton was probably the best Allied commander in Europe. The Germans feared him most because he was tenacious and creative in his methods. He also cared for his soldiers and was very much a soldier's general. I would disagree, however, that Bradley was up there. For much of the war he refused to stand up to Eisenhower and Monty who wanted supplies to launch Market-Garden. He was a general who was too weak to really be an effective commander. He also was far too conservative and not willing to take any gambles, which lead to a prolonging of the war. If the slapping incidents had not occured Patton would have been in Bradley's position and we may have seen a quicker resolution to the war.

To atest to Patton as a leader just look at the Battle of the Bulge. When Eisenhower, Bradley, Monty + others met to discuss exactly what was happening it was only Patton who already had, with his staff, planned three different methods of counterattack. He told his staff back at a base a code-word for each one and when his superiors decided on what he should do he immediately set his plans into motion. In under 48 hours Patton moved an entire division into range to strike back at the German 'Bulge.'

Rommel may have been the greatest general on the field in WW2. His ability to forsee how a battle would unfold and his massive flanking manuevers caught the 8th army with their pants down. If malta had been neutralized, German supplies could have readily been available and Rommel would have definately captured Suez.
 

SpyKey

Member
Nov 2, 2000
165
0
0
To AmusedOne: The USSR joined the war in the Far East on the 8th of August because it was a part of a Yalta agreement (this part was demanded by Roosevelt), that the Soviets will start operations in Manchuria no later than 90 days after surrender of Germany. Therefore, May 8 - August 8 makes perfect sense, especially if you'd try to imagine an effort of moving armies (!) 5000 miles.
I don't think slaughter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had anything to do with it, since the fact hasn't sunk in yet. I think Dresden was a much heavier argument for the Russians at the moment.
And if the intervention of the Soviets in Manchuria had no effect, I am sure it would've been "a heroic effort" if the US troops were involved. BTW, the Soviets kept the Kwantung Army in the same position since 1939, so that's close to a million Japanese soldiers less in the Pacific during the whole war!
As to "shameless land grab": Kuril islands belonged to the Russian Empire before the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, so they got back what was rightfuly theirs.

To brxndxn: Hitler planned to conquer the USSR in two months. Since invasion took place on the 22nd of June it is hard to insnuate that "the Soviet winter" killed "the Germans in revenge".

To etech: As to the USSR allowing Germany to start the war: don't forget, that before Molotov-Ribbentrop ther was a little incident of giving away Czekoslovakia to the Germans by the Western powers, just to appease them. I think that's when they got their appetite going.

To Tominator: Please chack your facts before spreading some . . . I dunno. Christie suspension, and that's the name of the suspension found in a modified form in T-34, was "borrowed" by the Soviets from a production American tank sold to the USSR in the beginning of the 30's. So, the tank with that type of suspension was produced in the States, but was not popular, while the Russians absolutely admired the design.
If you care to read about spectacular tank battles look for anything about the battle of Kursk where close to 600 tanks participated.


All in all it is stupid to state that the Soviets could not win the war on their own if there was no Overlord. By the time the Americans landed in Normandy the Russians were rolling through the Eastern Europe. So for the US it became a race for "who will influence Europe" after the war. Which, BTW kind of stuck in first gear once European winter of '44-45 rolled in (never mind the poor Wehrmaht during the winters of siege of Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad).

Ah, screw this! You guys go watch Saving Private Ryan one more time to persuade yourselves that you saved the world, just don't tell that to anyone in Europe, well, besides the UK.

Now, talk to the hand!
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0


<< If you care to read about spectacular tank battles look for anything about the battle of Kursk where close to 600 tanks participated. >>



actually, there was ALOT more tanks in Kursk than 600! The Battle of Kursk had about 6000 tanks, 4000 aircraft and 2 million men! It was the biggest battle in WW2.

In the early hpase of WW2 someone asked "What does it take to stop a german panzer-army?". The answer was presented in Kursk.
 

nimaxpro

Member
Apr 16, 2001
137
0
0
Q]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! ........[/i] >>



The Shermans had heater, a/c, power seats, power windows, leather wrapped heated steering wheel, and a moonroof......
yeah right, and how does a heater make Sherman superior to T-34????? have 1 sherman and 1 t-34 go against each other and I'm sure everyone would pick t-34 ......sherman would not need a heater after that, since the whole thing would be burning...
someone posted some links to good info about tanks, go read those..
 

CocaCola5

Golden Member
Jan 5, 2001
1,599
0
0


<<

<< i thought you were all computer geeks ;)

but nobody has mentioned TURING yet
>>



Would that be the genius Alan Turing inventor of the first electronic programmable computer kept so secret by the British that they did not even trust the Americans with the knowledge (for 50 years).

Oops nearly forgot, nobody mentioned 'Radar'
>>






These innovations though useful they were still passive in the war. For example, had Hitler redirected the Stuker dive-bombers on the RAF itself and away from London, the battle of Britain would have ended rather shortly, radars and Turing code breakers would not have done much.
 

Newton

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2002
13
0
0


<<

Ah, screw this! You guys go watch Saving Private Ryan one more time to persuade yourselves that you saved the world, just don't tell that to anyone in Europe, well, besides the UK.
>>



Hang on a minute mate, I'm pretty sure most people in the UK viewed Saving Private Ryan as a work of Hollywood fiction, just as they did films such as The Patriot and U-571. If some of the less educated Americans want to fool themselves into believing this sort of stuff, good luck to them, it gives us a good laugh when they start spouting about how wonderful and superior they think they are.

;)
 

Hammer

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
13,217
1
81
Interesting story on why that happened:

Basically, due to weather a German bomber got lost. They were already low on fuel and decided to head back. To lessen their weight they released their bombs. In a wierd twist of fate the happened to be over London at the time. Many people were killed. Churchill decided to send a message and ordered a long range bombing mission all the way to Germany. Some bombers took heavy with fuel and flew all the way to Germany and hit Berlin. Hitler was furious. He redirected bomber away from attack military targets like the fragile British radar posts which they had been annihilating up until then, and had the start hitting London.

What a f*ckup that ended up being because it was radar that allowed the Brits to win the Battle of Britain.



<< These innovations though useful they were still passive in the war. For example, had Hitler redirected the Stuker dive-bombers on the RAF itself and away from London, the battle of Britain would have ended rather shortly, radars and Turing code breakers would not have done much. >>

 

Newton

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2002
13
0
0


<< These innovations though useful they were still passive in the war. For example, had Hitler redirected the Stuker dive-bombers on the RAF itself and away from London, the battle of Britain would have ended rather shortly, radars and Turing code breakers would not have done much. >>



And if, and if. The fact is he redirected them 'away' from the RAF.

Alan Turing's code breakers passive, come off it.

Radar, you don't think that little invention was important then. Surely you're having a laugh.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0


<< To Tominator: Please chack your facts before spreading some . . . I dunno. Christie suspension, and that's the name of the suspension found in a modified form in T-34, was "borrowed" by the Soviets from a production American tank sold to the USSR in the beginning of the 30's. So, the tank with that type of suspension was produced in the States, but was not popular, while the Russians absolutely admired the design. >>



That's right, you 'dunno.'

In the late 20s the US was looking for a tank. Christe tried like hell to sell his suspension design to the Army. You are correct in that the USSR bought a prototype and then paid for Christie to come over and adapt it to their tank design which would emerge as the T34. Your using the words 'not popular' is laughable. The decision to not use it was purely political...My 'facts' remain undisputed.





<< ...34 ......sherman would not need a heater after that, since the whole thing would be burning... >>



I made my point if you would just read it...possibly it is beyond your ability to reason?

Give me 10 men and you take ten tanks on a dark night. In the morning you'll have ten burning tanks....

 

CocaCola5

Golden Member
Jan 5, 2001
1,599
0
0


<<

<< These innovations though useful they were still passive in the war. For example, had Hitler redirected the Stuker dive-bombers on the RAF itself and away from London, the battle of Britain would have ended rather shortly, radars and Turing code breakers would not have done much. >>



And if, and if. The fact is he redirected them 'away' from the RAF.

Alan Turing's code breakers passive, come off it.

Radar, you don't think that little invention was important then. Surely you're having a laugh.
>>





No, radar, A Turing code breakers were huge, but nevertheless, the fact remains that had Germany carried out its annilation of the RAF, the final outcome would have been largely the same with or without radar's assistance. The British could know advance of any German attacks, but truely, were they to be carried out purposely by the Germans, the British still could not have done much to resist, such was the kind of war that ww2 was, war of brute force.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,826
13,870
146


<< To AmusedOne: The USSR joined the war in the Far East on the 8th of August because it was a part of a Yalta agreement (this part was demanded by Roosevelt), that the Soviets will start operations in Manchuria no later than 90 days after surrender of Germany. Therefore, May 8 - August 8 makes perfect sense, especially if you'd try to imagine an effort of moving armies (!) 5000 miles.
I don't think slaughter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had anything to do with it, since the fact hasn't sunk in yet. I think Dresden was a much heavier argument for the Russians at the moment.
And if the intervention of the Soviets in Manchuria had no effect, I am sure it would've been "a heroic effort" if the US troops were involved. BTW, the Soviets kept the Kwantung Army in the same position since 1939, so that's close to a million Japanese soldiers less in the Pacific during the whole war!
As to "shameless land grab": Kuril islands belonged to the Russian Empire before the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, so they got back what was rightfuly theirs.
>>



Nothing you've said has countered my point.