Thread: Who contributed most to the defeat of Fascist Germany ??

Also the Australian come into mind, the played a big role in defeating the Italian and German in North-Africa.

And the Canadian played a big role in freeing the Netherlands. I know, it's a small country, but in Dutch WWII-history they played a big role when it came to freeing the country.

>Can anyone comment on the involvement of European nations
>in the US's campaign against Japan?

Sorry, I can't. But I can imagine that the European had other things to think of. And since the Germans had captured almost whole of Europe, I can also imagine that Europe had little or even none military power to help the US.

>Africans fighting Hitler ?????

Yes.

> But I can imagine that the European had other things to think of.

I see.... And so couldn't you also get from that that maybe America had other things to think of, too? Kinda like, I dunno - getting out of the worst depression in the country's history?

>>>The Russian steamroller brought Germany down on the eastern front. However, without US aid, it would not have been possible. The Russian staying power wasted many of Germanys resources on the eastern front and bound them there.

you're wrong. the whole point is it WAS POSSIBLE without American aid. the Soviets were holding their own (at least) without much help from anybody.

>>>>The US won the war. Their money supported Russia, their technology and bombers defeated the German troops and destroyed the factories, their Armies marched through France into Germany

1/4 of German armies were on the Western Front, 3/4 on the Eastern Front !!!

The US won the war eh.........its a common belief, i'm trying to dispell it.

>>>>>>Can anyone comment on the involvement of European nations
>in the US's campaign against Japan?

why, its a different topic !!

The Commonwealth countries helped greatly
Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India..etc
also don't forget the Chinese
but the US did most......

Originally posted by Clyde
I was under the impression it was pretty much a joint effort, don't know how much he knew but my history teacher at school said that the USA shortened the war by as much as 5 years but even if they had not entered he thought the allies would still have won.

interesting point......my own view is.....
no us involvement -> stalemate on eastern front, british get sick of fighting and run out of money and come to some agreement, german and soviet people eventually get sick of fighting and depose Stalin and/or Hitler. peace with no victors in 1947/1948.
but who knows ??????

or........

British and Soviet scientists (instead of US/British) get the atom bomb first (Germans were miles behind), after a nuclear bomb on Berlin, Hitler is deposed, Soviets take over Europe. British think this is no better than Hitler taking over and are well miffed !!!

Originally posted by Shiro
Funny how people seem to forget Africa's role in the war.

Just a small fact. About 100.000 Algerians, Maroques, Tunesians and other North-Africans freed the way in Southern Italy so that the US troops could take in Rome.

Another fact. Sultan Mohammed V was asked by Churchill to bring up his divisions to help in Mid-Italy, where they broke the Gustaf Linie.

And finally. A lot of soldiers from Maroque and other North-African countries are burried here in the Netherlands, they helped to free the country.

In other words, there's too much countries who did great things. We can't just put it all on one country.

reason is.....cos it was small compared to other countries. although i'm not disparaging them at all......
you will note that these people were part of the French Empire, ie were in the Free French army. thats why they were fighting.
but yes, few people know.

worse than that i feel is the contribution of the Free Poles being neglected. The Poles suffered more than most, losing >10% of the population killed (6.5 million) and being effectively taken over by communism after the war. few Free Poles were able to return to the country they fought for, due to the communists, so most settled throughout europe, mainly Britain.
thats why we have a large Polish minority, god bless em all...

Originally posted by ygfperson
it was definately a joint effort. the united states came out on top, though. britian got wrecked. russia lost 10+ million soldiers. the united states lost less than 1 million(maybe ~300,000, i haven't checked any records). the united states was fit enough to provide money to european governments.
world war 2 isn't about who won. it's about who absorbed the least damage.

WWII MADE america great !!! it made a fortune out of it !!
ie every tank/plane/ship that was provided to Britain in the Lend/lease program was PAID for !!

it wasn't a gift. Britain was still paying it back in the 50's !!
WWII destroyed Britain economically.
the marshall aid program after th war concentrated on building up germany and japan against communism and rebuilding europe generally, Britain as a supposed victor in the war received little aid.

current figures believed to be-"from The times-atlas of WWII"
25 million soviets
292,100 Americans
331,000 British
up to 10 million Chinese civilians, 1,324,000 chinese soldiers.

>>Well, in that case, the Dutch, French, Portuguese and British helped the US against the Japanese, since some countries in the east of Asia where part of their kingdoms.

of course

>>were in the Free French army. thats why they were fighting.

>>Oh really? So they were only fighting because they were part of the French empire and they were not fighting because some country took their country in?

most of these countries wanted independance from France after the war, but they were armies raised by French money, in the French Empire. France wasn't their country. i'm only saying thats why they were in the war, its not that Algeria etc declared war on Germany, France did it for them you'll find...
but i'm not disparaging these men who gave their lives, and some may have loved the mother country.....

>no, most of these countries wanted independance from France
>after the war,

That's true, and not only after the war. Though I'm not sure if this counts for Maroque. As far as I know, sultan Mohammed V ruled Maroque and Maroque were independent. The army of Maroque wasn't part of the French armies during WWII.

>they were armies raised by French money, in the French Empire.
>not "their" country.

Well, if it is French money, I don't know. I think that in fact it is their money, which the French have taken. Just as the Dutch did in Indonesia, Suriname and those countries.

>and some may have loved the mother country.....

I'm quite sure about that. They were part of France. But they fought for their own country. Germany and Italy were just other invaders like France was. They were just the ones who wanted to take over the empire of France. So nothing would have changed for them. That was also a reason for them to fight.