Who defeated Germany?

[Anaxogoras]

I'm bringing this topic over from the general forum:  Who deserves the most credit for defeating Germany in WWII?  The Western Allies, i.e. USA and UK, or the USSR?  We're all pretty familiar with the arguments and counterarguments, so this should be interesting.

Arguments in favor of the USSR:

• 80% of the Wehrmacht was deployed in the East.
• German aircraft production peaked in '44 underneath allied bombing
• More German military died fighting Russia than the allies.

Arguments in favor of the Western Allies:

• Destroyed more of the Luftwaffe than the VVS
• Disrupted German military production and supply with strategic bombing
• Gave large quantities of raw materials and military hardware to the USSR, and therefore partly responsible for its success.

The larger question is whether the USSR could have repelled Germany without the help of the USA and UK.  As an armchair historian, I tend to think the USSR could have prevailed without western help because of its unflinching ally, the Russian winter, not to mention all that Germany (Hitler) did to defeat itself with strategic blunders like the Fall advance of '42.  However, I know a lot of you are experts in this stuff, and would love to hear your view.

[Chalenge]

Im pretty sure the majority of credit ges to Germany. The leadership of Adolf Hitler failed Germany and was more destructive to the nation then anything Russia or the Allies overall ever did. Why do you look at Russia as separate from the other Allies?

[Mickey1992]

It's funny you ask this.  One of my coworkers spent a week in Ft. Lauderdale last month and spent a night hanging out with 2 late 20-something women from Russia.  The topic of "who beat Germany" was brought up by one of the women.

[Anaxogoras]

It's funny you ask this.  One of my coworkers spent a week in Ft. Lauderdale last month and spent a night hanging out with 2 late 20-something women from Russia.  The topic of "who beat Germany" was brought up by one of the women.

My understanding is that Russian textbooks are firmly of the opinion that the USSR deserves the lion's share of the credit for defeating Germany (no surprise there), but part of their argument is that the USA and UK were reluctant to help and desired to see Russia defeated before they attacked Germany.

Im pretty sure the majority of credit ges to Germany. The leadership of Adolf Hitler failed Germany and was more destructive to the nation then anything Russia or the Allies overall ever did. Why do you look at Russia as separate from the other Allies?

Mostly because of their vastly different post-war strategic aims.  One liberated Europe, and the other did the opposite, but that's for another thread.

[FiLtH]

   The Russians certainly paid the price, but I think geography had alot to do with it. People always forget the battle of the Atlantic. Plus at that time Russia had mainly 1 enemy, not sure where Italians fit into the Russian scheme, but the western powers had 3 enemy. It was a slugfest in the east for sure, but I cant all the credit to Russia.

[CptTrips]

Which deserves more credit for getting a car down the road?

The engine or the transmission?

Wab

[Fulmar]

Which deserves more credit for getting a car down the road?

The engine or the transmission?

Wab

Exxon

[Yenny]

Arguments in favor of the USSR:

• 80% of the Wehrmacht was deployed in the East.
• German aircraft production peaked in '44 underneath allied bombing
• More German military died fighting Russia than the allies.

[/list]

The larger question is whether the USSR could have repelled Germany without the help of the USA and UK.  As an armchair historian, I tend to think the USSR could have prevailed without western help because of its unflinching ally, the Russian winter, not to mention all that Germany (Hitler) did to defeat itself with strategic blunders like the Fall advance of '42.  However, I know a lot of you are experts in this stuff, and would love to hear your view.

But at what cost to the USSR hehe

[Nilsen]

All factors and sides came together to defeat nazi Germany including the nazis themselves. Even Germans who were not nazis helped. Basicly none of the parties involved pulled in favor of nazi Germany even if it may have been the intent.

What i find intersting is all the lesser known factors that played a bigger part in the war effort than they are given credit for basicly because they are not common in history lessons.

There are ofcourse a few nations that doesnt need mentioning that tried to work for both just to save themselves.

[Furball]

Clint Eastwood and Oddball.

[RipChord929]

No one can deny that the Soviets carried a
heavy burden during the preinvasion days..
Many of their massive deathlists were filled
by the stupidity of "the boss" himself... Hell,
"the boss" was thinking about giving up in
the summer of 42.. Hitler should have taken
the deal!!!

Be reminded that although some say 80% of
the WM was in the east, (80%???) It was a
large proportion to be sure... But during the
spring of 44 many elite WM and W/SS units were
sitting in France, waiting for the invasion..
That their own intel said was coming SOON..

The LAH, DasReich, Hohenstoufen, Frundsberg,
HJ, Pnzr Lehr, and many others, were fattening
themselves up on cheeze and wine... And cheeky
hairy legged french chicks...While the
Ruskies were rampaging thru the Don bend, Crimea...
Driving into the baltic states, encircling masses of
german/axis  troops in Hitlers so called fortress cities..
The Germans had taken more ground than they could
hold, especially since they wasted the cream of the
crop at Kursk...

After that, they didn't have enough population left
to maintain all their conquests... And so began the
slide into defeat..

Ya can't say that those elite units sitting in france
didn't make the Soviets job easier.. They and their
brother units were the dam against the Soviet flood
on many occasions..
When they were removed from that theater, the Red
Army overwhelmed the elite units left, NORD, Polizie,
Totenkopf, etc.. Which after kursk were never the same!!

If the allies had not waged the bomber war, and
german production had not been retarded or delayed,
Soviet production would not have outstripped them
so quickly... Hmm, what would the prod #'s be without
the the bombing? What would have happened if the
Germans had been able to give the Soviets their
uninterrupted and undivided attention?

Many Stalinist ideas still exist in Russia, and their national
paranoia in virtually bred into them... Like part of their
cultural heredity... So ya have to keep that in mind as well!!!

WWII history is full of SOOOO many "what if's?" that it can
boggle the mind.. Just sitting here thinking about it, takes me
off on so many tangents, that its hard to keep it all in mind...

It would be really interesting to see a graph that displayed
unit deployments vs the war timeline...

Interesting question.. I'm sure it will get many great replies..

<S>RC

[FLOTSOM]

If three guys with additional help beat up one guy in a bar fight, is there really someone that deserves the individual credit for beating him up?

the fact of the matter is really simple, Germany suffered under the rule of egotistical incompetance. They defeated themselves by violating every major rule of inteligent war (if war can ever really be intelligent). fought on two fronts, left an enemy strong hold at his velnerable point, over stretched his supply lines, didnt supply the army with winter clothes before entering russia, built over complicated weapons that could not be mass produced when fighting a war of attrition ect ect ect.

no one or even two of the allies could have beaten germany on their own, it took all three plus others not counted on the primary list as well as multiple undergrounds and traitors.

i guess just be happy that it happened.


FLOTSOM

[lasersailor184]

Difficult question. 

It's very easy to say that had America not been in the war, the allies would have lost. 

Russia was extremely close to utter defeat, literally measured out in feet.  While it would be damn near impossible to quantify what the effect of lend lease and all the materials we gave to the USSR, with the Soviets having their backs 100 feet away from losing the war, they would have lost without the US.


However, would the US have won without the USSR?  Probably not.  However judging what would have happened is extreme conjecture.

[eskimo2]

It was too intertwined of a team effort to single out and credit one country.  As stated above, the Battle of the Atlantic, Hitler's ego, the Russian scorched earth policy, the defeat of the LW, strategic bombing of the Third Reich, the Russian winter, Bletchley Park, the relentless US Liberty Ships, the resistance, the success of Normandy...  Man, it's just too involved.

If Germany hadn't taken on Britain and Russia at the same time, and Hitler had taken the advice of his Generals I think it's possible that with enough time the Nazis could have overtaken all of Russia.  But that just wasn't how the Nazis and Mr. H. rolled. 

[Ack-Ack]

Would it be reasonable to say that the Soviet army played the majority role in breaking the Wehrmacht?


ack-ack