Most Important Allied Member of WWII

[Bodi]

Well?

 

[JC Callender]

If your question is pertaining to who helped the most to win, I would say the UK.

Well?

 

[DiAnna]

Kind of a loaded question, because every Ally was crucial in winning the war. Theoretically, for the purpose of discussion, I'd have to go with Russia (there was no USSR during WW2), because if Germany hadn't backstabbed Stalin, and Russia hadn't tied up German troops, we very well might have lost. We most certainly would have lost if Russia had joined the Axis.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Kind of a loaded question, because every Ally was crucial in winning the war. Theoretically, for the purpose of discussion, I'd have to go with Russia (there was no USSR during WW2), because if Germany hadn't backstabbed Stalin, and Russia hadn't tied up German troops, we very well might have lost. We most certainly would have lost if Russia had joined the Axis.

When do you think the USSR was formed? The rest of your analysis is very good.

 

[apdst]

No one country claims the title of being most valuable. If not for the efforts of England, The United States and The Soviet Union, Axis forces would have won.

It could be credibly argued that The United States brought a level of generalship to the table that was priceless, which I believe to be true, but I also believe that only two of the Big Three had no chance of winning.

 

[apdst]

Kind of a loaded question, because every Ally was crucial in winning the war. Theoretically, for the purpose of discussion, I'd have to go with Russia (there was no USSR during WW2), because if Germany hadn't backstabbed Stalin, and Russia hadn't tied up German troops, we very well might have lost. We most certainly would have lost if Russia had joined the Axis.

The USSR was formed in 1922.

 

[Coin]

before and during the war - UK
after war - US

 

[DiAnna]

When do you think the USSR was formed? The rest of your analysis is very good.

Started right after WW2, IIRC, as the Allies were dividing the spoils of war, and Russia was claiming its share of Eastern bloc countries. That's simplistic, but basically correct, I believe, for what we consider the "modern" and expansive USSR.

 

[Gathomas88]

Kind of a loaded question, because every Ally was crucial in winning the war. Theoretically, for the purpose of discussion, I'd have to go with Russia (there was no USSR during WW2), because if Germany hadn't backstabbed Stalin, and Russia hadn't tied up German troops, we very well might have lost. We most certainly would have lost if Russia had joined the Axis.

Stalin's war effort might've very well faltered if it were not for the resources provided by the United States' lend-lease program. Likewise, Japan could've wreaked some pretty serious havoc in Siberia if we had not been around to keep their forces otherwise occupied.

Ultimately, the Allied war effort in Europe could be looked upon as being a "hammer and anvil" sort of situation. The USSR played the role of the anvil, keeping the brunt of German forces locked in place, while the US and UK played the part of the hammer, coming in to slam them from behind.

Taken individually, neither element is especially effective. In combination, however; they are devastating.

 

[TurtleDude]

The US. Our ability to produce massive amounts of material out of the reach of the Axis or Japanese bombers would have won the war eventually even with out the Soviets..

 

[APACHERAT]

(there was no USSR during WW2), .

Just another example of liberal revsionism.

 

[DiAnna]

Stalin's war effort might've very well faltered if it were not for the resources provided by the United States' lend-lease program. Likewise, Japan could've wreaked some pretty serious havoc in Siberia if we had not been around to keep their forces otherwise occupied.

Ultimately, the Allied war effort in Europe could be looked upon as being a "hammer and anvil" sort of situation. The USSR played the role of the anvil, keeping the brunt of German forces locked in place, while the US and UK played the part of the hammer, coming in to slam them from behind.

Taken individually, neither element is especially effective. In combination, however; they are devastating.

The Soviet Union had a death toll of anywhere between 22-30 million during WW2, primarily military deaths. The USA and UK combined was less than 1 million deaths. I say again that without Soviet involvement on the side of the Allies, we would not have won that war. :shrug: It's my opinion.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Soviet Union had a death toll of anywhere between 22-30 million during WW2, primarily military deaths. The USA and UK combined was less than 1 million deaths. I say again that without Soviet involvement on the side of the Allies, we would not have won that war. :shrug: It's my opinion.

yeah sending thousands of unarmed men charging German machine guns was a good way to run up the body count.

worst case scenario-the Nazis overrun England. They didn't have enough men to really control all of the USSR. Meaning we wouldn't have had a base from which to Bomb Germany until we developed the B-29

but we would have, and then we would have bombed Germany into submission. We pretty well took out Japan on our own

 

[rathi]

The USSR was the only nation capable of defeating the Nazis. The U.S. was the only nation capable of defeating Japan. These facts are easily backed up if you look at the break down of which nation caused the various losses suffered by the Axis.

 

[TurtleDude]

The USSR was the only nation capable of defeating the Nazis. The U.S. was the only nation capable of defeating Japan. These facts are easily backed up if you look at the break down of which nation caused the various losses suffered by the Axis.

we ultimately would have beat the Nazis if Russia had remained neutral

too many men, too many factories

 

[TheDemSocialist]

USSR is #1 in my choice then #2 is the US.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Well?

The United States. Primarily because it was the only nation truly fighting the Japanese while also engaging in the war against Germany and Italy.

The Russians never engaged the Japanese until they were already about to surrender, and then only to get a share of the spoils in the east.

The British were fighting a holding action on both fronts. There never would have been a victory in Africa, or Italy, or a Normandy Invasion without the USA. Stalin kept begging the USA to open a second front in Europe to take the pressure off and we did first in Africa, then Italy and finally France.

Without the USA in Europe, who knows what the outcome would have been. Without the USA in Asia, the Japs would have won.

 

[The Mark]

Hmm...

I think the USA would have eventually won without the help of Russia or the UK, or for that matter any other allies - the industrial capacity we had toward the end of the war was insane.

But without Russia keeping a vast number of German forces busy on that front, and without the UK holding their island as long as they did to provide a forward base, it would have probably lasted into the late 40s and/or early 50s.

IMO anyways...

 

[Redress]

As many have pointed out, it took all three to win. If I was going to make a "most important", I would probably go with England, though it is by a very small margin. If they had folded early, as was very possible, then Germany gets it all. The Soviets would have fallen to the more concentrated attacks from Germany, there would have been no staging area for a US landing in Europe(or at least not nearly as good) and any attempted landing to open up a second front would have been almost certain to fail. Without the US in the war, there are routes to victory, though they are small and very unlikely. Likewise without the Soviets. Without England however, no route to victory.

 

[TurtleDude]

As many have pointed out, it took all three to win. If I was going to make a "most important", I would probably go with England, though it is by a very small margin. If they had folded early, as was very possible, then Germany gets it all. The Soviets would have fallen to the more concentrated attacks from Germany, there would have been no staging area for a US landing in Europe(or at least not nearly as good) and any attempted landing to open up a second front would have been almost certain to fail. Without the US in the war, there are routes to victory, though they are small and very unlikely. Likewise without the Soviets. Without England however, no route to victory.

how would have Germany launched a successful attack against us. By 43 our submarines were far superior to theirs, our destroyers far more able to take out UBoats, and our heavy bombers were much much better than theirs. The one thing they had was Jets but those had very limited range. we also had far better radar and (while lots of people don't know this) the infra red weapons sight technology was a huge advantage-infrared equipped small arms inflicted a huge number of casualties upon the Japanese on Okinawa for example and neither the Germans nor the Japanese had any real effective countermeasures for the P61 Black Widow fighters

 

[Redress]

how would have Germany launched a successful attack against us. By 43 our submarines were far superior to theirs, our destroyers far more able to take out UBoats, and our heavy bombers were much much better than theirs. The one thing they had was Jets but those had very limited range. we also had far better radar and (while lots of people don't know this) the infra red weapons sight technology was a huge advantage-infrared equipped small arms inflicted a huge number of casualties upon the Japanese on Okinawa for example and neither the Germans nor the Japanese had any real effective countermeasures for the P61 Black Widow fighters

I doubt they would have. They would have had most of Europe and would really have needed time to assimilate all that new territory.

 

[TurtleDude]

I doubt they would have. They would have had most of Europe and would really have needed time to assimilate all that new territory.

probably and sooner or later it would have all blown up. We'd have taken the Japanese out faster without having a European campaign and from then on, we'd be able to pound germany with high altitude B29 strikes and constrict it with a far superior naval blockade.

 

[Redress]

probably and sooner or later it would have all blown up. We'd have taken the Japanese out faster without having a European campaign and from then on, we'd be able to pound germany with high altitude B29 strikes and constrict it with a far superior naval blockade.

I do not think it would have gone quite that way. With a collapsed England, and the war in Europe essentially over without us stirring it up, we would probably have taken out Japan for Pearl Harbor and negotiated peace with Germany. Ofcourse this is all getting highly speculative.

 

[TurtleDude]

I do not think it would have gone quite that way. With a collapsed England, and the war in Europe essentially over without us stirring it up, we would probably have taken out Japan for Pearl Harbor and negotiated peace with Germany. Ofcourse this is all getting highly speculative.

that's a decent speculation but the paranoia of Hitler and the resentment his peasant roots stirred in the aristocracy that ran the Wehrmacht would have lead to all sorts of instability and we'd have the stuff to take them out by 45 anyway

and while they were racing to get the bomb, we had the means to drop it on germany

them-not so much

 

[cpwill]

No one country claims the title of being most valuable. If not for the efforts of England, The United States and The Soviet Union, Axis forces would have won.

It could be credibly argued that The United States brought a level of generalship to the table that was priceless, which I believe to be true, but I also believe that only two of the Big Three had no chance of winning.

I would disagree. People forget that the Atomic Bomb wasn't invented for use against Japan, but against Germany. A U.K./U.S. Bi-lat effort would have taken much longer, and we would likely have ended up reducing much of the European continent to ash, but we still would have won.

The U.S. is the indispensable member of the Big Three: with it, they win. Without it, they lose.