Who contributed most to the defeat of Fascist Germany ??

**ctimm46** · 04-20-2002

First of all to claim that any one thing or person or battle was the key battle, is a little extreme. I have heard historians say that some of the more important battles were those fought over Greenland. Hitler was using that area for a weather prediction outpost and such. Cutter boats were instrumental in the victory there. So, it wasn't truly one thing, but a bunch of things, which probably makes this whole discussion pointless, but I like it anyway.

The Russians may have had a large impact, but then you could say that it was because of the winter that they were able to turn the tide. The Russians were getting beaten at every turn until the winter started to hurt the Germans. Hitler made the mistake of allowing his troops to stay in Russia too long. So, I have a hard time saying it was the Russians who turned won the war. Besides if the Germans hadn't broken the non-aggression pact they had with Russia, Russia never would have gotten into the war. Stalin and Hitler had a deal, Hitler was dumb enough to believe he could fight a 2 front war and not have to pull out during the famed Russian winter. (Yes I know it was the Soviet Union, but it is Russia again and it is quicker to type Russia)

I believe the British did quite a bit, but in a more specialized manor. They were great at "special ops" they had spies and double agents that worked wonders all the way to Berlin. It is my opinion that Montgomery wasn't all he thought he was and got alot of credit because he was one of the highest ranking British officers and he seemed to have a good PR person. The Russians, British and American split most of the kudos amongst themselves, but with the cold war coming on, the Russians weren't given much credit among the westerners.

The US did a great deal, but they didn't really have the "hardships" that the British and Russians had. Besides Pearl Harbor and Midway there weren't too many attacks on areas that were held by America. So, the American "War Machine" was able to function without dealing with having to rebuild buildings and so on.

I think the greatest contribution was made by Hitler himself. Between not truly trusting his aides to holding back German tanks from Normandy because he believed there was to be another attack (the main attack) further South. Also, not unleashing Rommel on his western front was a mistake in my mind as well. He should have given Rommel complete control. Staying in Russia for the winter and I believe he got a late start on that whole assault anyway, is a mistake that he should have known not to make. Hitler seemed to pull the reigns in on his men when things got a little rough, which hurt one of the main premises of the blitzkrieg, that local officers make the decisions that effect them most. That generals make overall plans and officers make local plans. In the end there were troops that were waiting north and south of Normandy that were waiting for the call from Hitler to move or counter-attack. The British counter-intelligence units "made" Hitler believe that Norway and the Paile de Cailes were major targets, much bigger than Normandy. (Please forgive the spelling and I am not 100% sure about the exact locations -- but somewhere north of Normandy and somewhere south of Normandy). So Hitler held back troops through the end.

There were too many contributions made to really identify the biggest, however Hitler did far too many things for him to ever overcome to win, but I believe the US made it a shorter war.

And let's not forget the French who added new meaning to the word surrender. Again the spelling is difficult but the Majenough line. It was a line of cannons and other obstacles built before the war to hold back the Germans. It was built along the border of France and Germany, it cost billions in todays dollars and the Germans were in Paris in 2 weeks anyway, with French troops warming up their white flags.

**stevey** · 04-20-2002

>>>>>>And let's not forget the French who added new meaning to the word surrender. Again the spelling is difficult but the Majenough line. It was a line of cannons and other obstacles built before the war to hold back the Germans. It was built along the border of France and Germany, it cost billions in todays dollars and the Germans were in Paris in 2 weeks anyway, with French troops warming up their white flags.

i think we are all a bit unkind to the French, i hate to admit it !!

when the French signed an Armistice, their army was totally defeated. the reason is they were poorly equiped and trained etc, because the armies of Britain and France and the other western allies were neglected by a pacifist public, who would do anything to avoid war. we were not ready for war. so their fault was to be weak, but weak because nobody wanted to fight, thats it basically.
the US army was also very weak at this time, but they were building up rapidly seeing that war in Europe and/or against Japan was more than likely. so they had time to get ready, 2 years in fact.

and the Maginot line ?? much maligned and unfairly. since it only covered the Franco-German border, and the Germans went ROUND IT, i think it served its purpose. the fault was actually in not making it longer !!!

and what you said about Greenland, are you taking the ........ ???
Greenland weather prediction stations were more important than Stalingrad, Kursk, Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Arnhem ???? are you off your trolley ???

**ctimm46** · 04-20-2002

My point about the Maginot line (thanks for correcting my spelling) is that they had put an great effort into defending themselves, but it was a foolish effort. But they did make an effort, until Hitler knocked on the door.

My point about the Greenland is that even Historians (granted, some have their own agendas) cannot agree as to what was important and what wasn't. My point was that if some can say/justify that the battles over Greenland were critical, then it just goes to show that you cannot really put an emphasis on any of the above.

**stevey** · 04-20-2002

well i think you read some quack historians, if they think Greenland was one of the important battles !!!!!

i think there are key battles/decisions/events...

no serious historian would say Midway, Stalingrad, Kursk, D-Day etc etc were not the key battles......that the invasion of Russia(oops USSR) was not one of the key events.......

**stevey** · 04-20-2002

Originally posted by Ken Fitlike
Another thread i've not read so forgive me if someone has already suggested:

John Wayne.

It's a well known fact that the 'Duke' similtaneously and single-handedly defeated the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific.

He won the West too.

I know - i've seen the movies and they never lie.

John Wayne !! bloody draft dodger !! all American film heroes are you know.....theres sly stallone.... errrrrr.....Audie Murphy.....no thats wrong.....errr... well, bruce willis is scared to fly anyway.

**ctimm46** · 04-20-2002

I didn't say (nor did the historians I mentioned) that other battles weren't important.

I am just saying just like in any victory it is the sum of the total, not the effect of one or two events.

Besides I think that the largest contribution was made by the growing paranoia of Hitler himself.

**tim545666** · 04-20-2002

I think America played the largest role in Germany's defeat mostly because of its air superiority. With the idea of radios between infantry, takns, and planes, airplanes were finally able to bomb where they were supposed to. And they also shortened the war. Had it not been for the US, Germany would have had more time with its new fighter jets and V2 rockets. Had Germany had more time to develop these weapons and mass produce them, it could have easily won the war. No country in the world had an answer for these weapons at the time of their development, but they came too little too late for Germany.

**novacain** · 04-22-2002

>>well i think the war on terrorism is necessary, and i think the Gulf War was necessary. Of course it was about oil, oil fuels all our economies, ie is the reason for our standard of living. Economies are precariously balanced, oil is vital....
Saddam controlling Kuwait and threatening Saudia Arabia was too bad a scenario...... and if there is another war against Saddam to prevent him getting a nuclear bomb then i hope Britain will support the USA..... "

Yes, I agree. But would like to see the US stop suppling / selling these 'democratic' leaders arms and training to use against the 'right' people.

Then the US looking suprised a few years later when these people use the arms / training against the 'wrong' people.

Then all of us having to clean up the mess.

In our war on terrorism.
Why is it so clear who are the terrorists in Afghanistan when in Ireland, Israel, Phillipines and Sri Lanka ect, who the terrorists actually are is a very complicated issue?

Just lucky I guess we have the US government / TV to tell us who the terrorists are.

**stevey** · 04-22-2002

Originally posted by tim545666
I think America played the largest role in Germany's defeat mostly because of its air superiority. With the idea of radios between infantry, takns, and planes, airplanes were finally able to bomb where they were supposed to. And they also shortened the war. Had it not been for the US, Germany would have had more time with its new fighter jets and V2 rockets. Had Germany had more time to develop these weapons and mass produce them, it could have easily won the war. No country in the world had an answer for these weapons at the time of their development, but they came too little too late for Germany.

The USA deserves massive credit for being the arsenal of the West, but youre barking up the wrong tree with these arguments above.....

1) US 8th Air Force - total 7100 planes
British Bomber Command alone (ie not the entire Royal Air Force) - total 6900 planes

Total bomb tonnage dropped on Germany and Axis powers -
USAAF 1,460,000 tonnes
RAF 1,235,000 tonnes

ie 50/50.

and it was the British and Russian(ooh sorry USSR) close support attack planes that were the best of the war.

2) V1 and V2 's dropping on London etc were a real pain, but were not effective weapons and were enourmously expensive. After years of developement the ICBM's and US space effort were the results, but they were never going to be a war winning weapon at the time. after France was liberated, they couldn't even reach London. a total of 2420 V1 &V2 hit london, but we attacked Berlin and Dresden with 1000 Bombers each with bigger payloads than a V2!!! easy to say with hindsight but they were not worthwhile and had little effect.

3) the Germans were more advanced with jet engines, but the British were not far behind and the first Meteor jet fighters were operational before the end of the war. In fact it is debatable who actually invented the jet engine. And the rolls-royce jet engine was given to the USA gratis (part of desparate attempts to get the US into the war), this engine was developed by the US and this engine became the basis of the famous Sabre jet fighter and also the famous MIG 15 when we'd sold it to the Russians!!! so it must have been a good engine.

on a similar subject, the German tanks were far better than the British and US tanks, but not the Russians - they had some of the best in the war.
But just before the end of the war the first British Centurian tanks entered service, these were exceptional tanks, and were used to great effect by Israel in 1956,1967 and 1973 against Russian tanks. ie they were STILL good 30 years after the war !!
In 1945/46 some good US heavy tanks were also entering service.
So basically the Western allies had caught up technologically, and there is no reason to think that if the war hadn't ended sooner, that the Germans would have better technology, its a myth.

**stevey** · 04-22-2002

Originally posted by novacain
>>well i think the war on terrorism is necessary, and i think the Gulf War was necessary. Of course it was about oil, oil fuels all our economies, ie is the reason for our standard of living. Economies are precariously balanced, oil is vital....
Saddam controlling Kuwait and threatening Saudia Arabia was too bad a scenario...... and if there is another war against Saddam to prevent him getting a nuclear bomb then i hope Britain will support the USA..... "

Yes, I agree. But would like to see the US stop suppling / selling these 'democratic' leaders arms and training to use against the 'right' people.

Then the US looking suprised a few years later when these people use the arms / training against the 'wrong' people.

Then all of us having to clean up the mess.

In our war on terrorism.
Why is it so clear who are the terrorists in Afghanistan when in Ireland, Israel, Phillipines and Sri Lanka ect, who the terrorists actually are is a very complicated issue?

Just lucky I guess we have the US government / TV to tell us who the terrorists are.

yeah i agree.
we should all be careful who we sell arms to, unfortunately its such big business !!
ie the French would sell arms to anybody who the US wouldn't !!
and if not them the Russians have a dire need of cash !! the Chinese love to sell their AK 47 copies to anyone and everyone !!
the British are not far behind...we all love to sell arms and get upset when they are actually used !!

i guess its all a little more comlicated than that really, but even so......

**stevey** · 04-22-2002

Originally posted by Ken Fitlike
>>John Wayne !! bloody draft dodger<<

Steady!

Jimmy Stewart then - it must have been him because he was actually a squadron leader in USAF bombers.

I saw that on tv - it doesn't lie either.

yeah Jimmy was a war hero !! anyway i love Jimmy Stewart !!
what a voice !! imagine him drawling on the radio in 1944 over Germany..........awwwwwwww boysss....the the theressss ttttheres some fighters at six o'clock..........

**Sentaku senshi** · 04-22-2002

>Yes, I agree. But would like to see the US stop suppling / selling these 'democratic' leaders arms and training to use against the 'right' people.

Then the US looking suprised a few years later when these people use the arms / training against the 'wrong' people.

Then all of us having to clean up the mess.<
Novican you have forgotin that Durring World War I and II as well as other times, we sold weapons to countries to help them. We did the same thing for Iraq to help them defeat Iran, and Afginaistan to fight the USSR. Thus the reason we sold the weapons was right. Unfortonitly they turned around and used them for the wrong perposes.

Isreal was created by a two thirds vote by the Untied Nations. The vote was an even split between Western and Middle Eastern Countries also. The very next day those countires declared war on Isreal, but Istral atacked first. After the war Isreal should have gone back to it's orginal boarders but it didn't. So thus we have the land hungry middle easterners who are calming the muslam faith as a reason to atack people for land. (much like the crusades) Isreal made the mistake of not withdrawing so both sides are wrong.

>In our war on terrorism.
Why is it so clear who are the terrorists in Afghanistan when in Ireland, Israel, Phillipines and Sri Lanka ect, who the terrorists actually are is a very complicated issue?<

It is easy to see who the terrorist are in Afghanistan as they did so openly and with support of the govenment. It was a sorta main base.

The terriorst in Ireland have the own orginaztion that is know, but there is nothing to atack, as they operate in secret.

Isreal was created by a two thirds vote by the Untied Nations. The vote was an even split between Western and Middle Eastern Countries also. The very next day those countires declared war on Isreal, but Istral atacked first. After the war Isreal should have gone back to it's orginal boarders but it didn't. So thus we have the land hungry middle easterners who are using the muslam faith as a reason to atack people for land. (much like the crusades) Isreal made the mistake of not withdrawing so both sides are wrong.

On one of those political talk shows, the Philpines were brought up as a posible next target after afginstan.

**stevey** · 04-22-2002

>>Isreal was created by a two thirds vote by the Untied Nations. The vote was an even split between Western and Middle Eastern Countries also. The very next day those countires declared war on Isreal, but Istral atacked first. After the war Isreal should have gone back to it's orginal boarders but it didn't. So thus we have the land hungry middle easterners who are using the muslam faith as a reason to atack people for land. (much like the crusades) Isreal made the mistake of not withdrawing so both sides are wrong.

heres an interesting fact that very few people know.....after the 1948 war, the defeated Arab countries expelled 900,000 Jews from their territories and conviscated all their money and possessions etc.
These approx 1 milllion jews were settled in Israel, they did not become refugees...they were absorbed into the country....

This is in comparison to the Palestinians, who are treated as refugees and are not wanted by the Arab states. The Palestinians have been treated badly by both sides, and don't help themselves.
If they want support from the West, do us a favour and stop killing people and hijacking planes and having suicide bombers. if you don't want the Wests help then do whatever you can to get the support of the Arab states, ie don't try to take over Jordan, don't cause the Lebanese people to hate you etc.........
i know its far more complicated than that, and they have my sympathy for the suffering, but the Palestinians became a pain to the Arabs, to Israel and to the Western democracies....how many enemies do they want........???

and the 1948 war ?? the Arabs declared it...and we all know what was planned for Israel and the Jews if they'd won it. "to the victor the spoils", "sow the wind and reap the whirlwind" spring to mind.....

but why can't the Palestinians have the West bank ?? why did Israel settle almost 1 million people there?? how are these people going to be moved now ?? couldn't Israel have let them have the whole West bank as a Palestinian state?? that would seem reasonable.....

Unregistered · 04-22-2002

The Germans had a strong war industry where as France was not equipped for war, it was more equipped for being a normal civilized country. The Germans jumped on the bandwagon and took over the country, they marched through Belgium.

More Russians died in WWII than any other, and various Russian leaders have claimed that if it wasn't for the technology supplied to them by the US, than they would have lost. Indeed they didn't loose and after a massive battle Stalin was able to finally mobilize this army and steamroll over everything in his path. Had it not been for the USA and Britian developing the atomic bomb than Russian could have marched over all of Europe and infact destroyed all the Americans and British on the Western Front.

Also, had it not been that Japan bombed the US, than they might never have supplied the Western Front at all. Much of WWII saw the Russians and Germans doing all the fighting. France was taken over very quickly.