Who was the major nation in the allies during the world war?

Happy 9th day, for some just a common day. In Russia and other countries (mostly ex-urss) they celebrate the victory over Nazism. I was reading an article about how this date is nothing than another normal day for the U.S people. The article also specify that, according to the U.S, they did the most during the war, while the soviet army was more or less a "helping ally". That bought me the doubt about who made a greater impact during the world war 2.

On one hand, the biggest and most bloody battles took place in the eastern front, where the URSS fought against the biggest part of the German Empire army as well as a mixture of Italian & other Balkans armies. They held and recovered victorious from the outrage.

On the other hand, it's also true that the U.S provided the $$ to the other allies nation (including URSS) , and fought pretty much against every Axis nation. They also were the ones who contributed the most against Japan (Empire that, back then, no other asian country could match).

A third option would'be Britain. While I don't think that they had such a major role as the rest, it is to underline that they made it possible to land on France (the D-Day was there), fought the axis and successfully drive them away from the middle east, while India (British colony back then) fought against the rising Japan Empire and provide support to China.

So, who contributed more to the war? Who made a major impact with it's entrance on it?

What if the URSS was never invade (never entered to the war)? Would France ever been recovered? How much would UK hold till it's invade, and USA till it's nuked by german nuclear missiles?

What if USA had never entered in the war? Would they manage to drive away the germans as they did? Would Japan keep his promise and not invade the URSS, or perhaps Japan would never enter to the war in the Axis side?

On another patch, would the war been avoided if the British ( and assuming the French as well) didn't had declare war upon Germany for invading Poland? Would Europe run a different course if no major nation, apart of the URSS had opposed to the Reich?

Assuming that France entered into the war alone and lost: would the U.S intercede? How would they carry on the D-Day, without British support?

It's foolish to believe anyone but the Soviets had the largest impact. Yes, USA sent supplies and such to Russia in the war, but compared to the production of the USSR itself it was nothing. Besides, in comparison to the Soviet tanks and vehicles, the American ones were simple paper constructs. Let's not forget that the Soviets counterattacked near Moscow before the US even joined the war. Furthermore, the US' impact on the Pacific is overhyped, and everyone forgets China, who held out against the ENTIRE Japanese army for 4 entire years on it's own.Without the USSR the allies would've stood no chance, they would've fallen one by one. As for UK, their impact was great at destroying the Luftwaffe and defeating the German and Italian troops in Africa while also fighting in Burma, the British people fought bravely and strongly in the war no doubt, however, their impact was not as great as the Soviet war machine's.

Mexico

Russia would have been fucked without USA's jew gold

CCCP ofc.

Good question. I would say the US simply for the fact that it contributed so much resources to the Allies. You look at the destroyers for bases agreement and you see that even in peacetime, the US was supplying (albeit, with some "shady" dealings by FDR to circumvent isolationism) the UK with the necessary materials needed to maintain the war. Once the US got involved, it was able to beat back the German U-boats which were strangling UK shipping lanes. Had these U-boats succeeded in their mission and the UK collapsed under Nazi pressure, I don't see how the liberation of France would have been possible.

Furthermore, we provided an insurmountable amount of resources and goods to the Soviet Union. EVerything from bullets to fire to trucks to transport artillery. Without the US, I don't see how the Soviet Union would have been able to continue a conventional war.


At the end of the day though, it was an Allied effort. Regardless fo the ideological differences, without the US, the UK, or the USSR, Germany would not have been defeated in such a short period of time. The UK stood alone for a period of time fighting everyday against an authoritarian and genocidal dictatorship. While Hitler thought initiating total war and bombing civilians would eventually break the will of the British people, he instead built up the resolve of the UK and its people to stand up for what they believe in.

The USSR lost tens of millions of people in the war- the majority of them civilians. After decades of a lowered standard of living and faced with the largest invasion in the history fo the world they fought tooth and nail to defend their home. They sacrificed life and land all to drag out the war long enough to move production eastward while stretching out German supply lines only to wait for General Winter to help lead them to victory against insurmountable odds.

While WWII is not celebrated a smuch in the US, I think part of it is that the US was not hurt by it. There were not nightly bombing raids like those in Britain. There was not a large scale invasion such as that in the USSR. We went from an isolationist country with an army smaller than Switzerland's to a global superpower. And whether we realize it or not, celebrate it or not, WWII helped us significantly from ending a depression to uniting us as Americans.

Написано Pheonixking929, 09.05.2016 at 21:51

Furthermore, we provided an insurmountable amount of resources and goods to the Soviet Union. EVerything from bullets to fire to trucks to transport artillery. Without the US, I don't see how the Soviet Union would have been able to continue a conventional war.

Of course bruh.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was definently the most major contributor to the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany.
For example; 1939 to 1945 Germany suffered approximately 4,4 to 5,3 million military casualties.
Now, the amount listed for the period of 1941 to 1945 on the Eastern Front for the German Army is 4 millions.
Regardless of how conservatively you view the total casualty numbers this reflects an excess of 80% of the Wehrmacht operating on the Eastern Front.
And this relationship is not only reflected in numbers, but also quality. Most books and internet sources agree that the men sent to fight on the West Front were poorly trained and weren't equipped with as much advanced gear as the forces on the Eastern Front.
The US did also play a major role in forcing the Germans to fight on three fronts(Italy, France, USSR) and thereby restricting the raw materials and manpower they could tap into and put to use against the USSR. I'd however still argue that the US deserves nowhere near the fame it has after the defeat of the Axis, the USSR definently bore the brunt not only of Germany but also of the minor belligerents of Finland, Romania and Hungary.

After Yugoslavia was occupied,2 anti nazi moves came,and germany needed to hold around 640k soldiers in Yugoslavia(After the capitulation , plan was for Yugoslavia was to leave only weaker occupational forces, like a help for the occupying administration, with various police territorial protective services)

Actually Greece helped a lot too.You know why?

By holding and winning vs the Italians,albanians and bulgarians greeks forced Germany to bring troops down to Greece and slowed Germany's expansion and invasion to USSR.When Greece fell and got fucked as hell germans were already defeated yet they didn't know.

Days passed during Axis invasion to Greece and that brought Winter and german troops couldn't do shit to russians since they couldn't handle the cold and the weather there.





This is in general,too bored to go in details.

I'd say it was a collective effort, but USSR suffered the most, followed by UK. I'd say USSR was a crutial key for the Fall of the Third Reich, but let's not forget they were heavily armed and supplied by the British and US, via Murmansk..

Написано Al Fappino, 11.05.2016 at 16:30

I'd say it was a collective effort, but USSR suffered the most, followed by UK. I'd say USSR was a crutial key for the Fall of the Third Reich, but let's not forget they were heavily armed and supplied by the British and US, via Murmansk..

Compare the industry of the USSR itself, with the supplies from the allies which were given to them and you will see how few it is in comparison, definitely not heavily. The role of the western allies was very much exaggerated because of the cold war, anyone believing the USSR solely won because of the western supplies is simply naive. UK resisted Germany bravely but they didnt suffer as much casualties as USSR by far.

Написано The_Empirezz, 11.05.2016 at 18:54

Написано Al Fappino, 11.05.2016 at 16:30

I'd say it was a collective effort, but USSR suffered the most, followed by UK. I'd say USSR was a crutial key for the Fall of the Third Reich, but let's not forget they were heavily armed and supplied by the British and US, via Murmansk..

Compare the industry of the USSR itself, with the supplies from the allies which were given to them and you will see how few it is in comparison, definitely not heavily. The role of the western allies was very much exaggerated because of the cold war, anyone believing the USSR solely won because of the western supplies is simply naive. UK resisted Germany bravely but they didnt suffer as much casualties as USSR by far.

I didn't say they solely won because the west gave them tons of supplies, infact, and as I said, USSR was a crutial key for the fall of the Third Reich, and perhaps the Allied country who suffered the most, on an economic, military, demographic and territorial level. But as I said, we can't completely discard the fact USSR also got supplies from the West.

Churchill in his memoirs even mentions the fact Stalin was being demanding about Britain supplying the Soviets through Murmansk and kept demanding Britain to supply them with squadrons of planes to counter the germans in the east, at one point Churchill even saying Stalin's demands were endangering Britain's position. However, they managed to fight their own way to a triumphant victory.

Написано Al Fappino, 11.05.2016 at 19:14

Написано The_Empirezz, 11.05.2016 at 18:54

Написано Al Fappino, 11.05.2016 at 16:30

I'd say it was a collective effort, but USSR suffered the most, followed by UK. I'd say USSR was a crutial key for the Fall of the Third Reich, but let's not forget they were heavily armed and supplied by the British and US, via Murmansk..

Compare the industry of the USSR itself, with the supplies from the allies which were given to them and you will see how few it is in comparison, definitely not heavily. The role of the western allies was very much exaggerated because of the cold war, anyone believing the USSR solely won because of the western supplies is simply naive. UK resisted Germany bravely but they didnt suffer as much casualties as USSR by far.

I didn't say they solely won because the west gave them tons of supplies, infact, and as I said, USSR was a crutial key for the fall of the Third Reich, and perhaps the Allied country who suffered the most, on an economic, military, demographic and territorial level. But as I said, we can't completely discard the fact USSR also got supplies from the West.

Churchill in his memoirs even mentions the fact Stalin was being demanding about Britain supplying the Soviets through Murmansk and kept demanding Britain to supply them with squadrons of planes to counter the germans in the east, at one point Churchill even saying Stalin's demands were endangering Britain's position. However, they managed to fight their own way to a triumphant victory.

It helped but the supplies weren't very special, it probably saved the lifes of a few tens of thousands people but it didn't have a huge impact on the Soviet industry and war capacity.