• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most Important Allied Member of WWII

Most Important Allied Member of WWII

  • Total voters
    75
This answer might surprise some of my compatriots but without a doubt the United States was the most important allied member.

One of the largest reasons for this, was because their industrial output was the only of the major powers not to be attacked.

The USA as with World War I brough the 3 M's with it.

Men

Money

Morale

Highly important in both conflicts and particularly their industrial output which was shipped to both the USSR and the UK helped keep things churning.
 
TurtleDude said:
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..
Click to expand...

This. Our ability to churn out war materials like it was nobody's business, combined with our relative safety from the enemy geography-wise, had the biggest impact.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Or Greece.
Click to expand...

Actually Greece is a pretty good pick. They wouldn't knock off the U.S., but their contribution is incredibly under-appreciated. It's quite possible we would have lost the USSR without them.
 
cpwill said:
Actually Greece is a pretty good pick. They wouldn't knock off the U.S., but their contribution is incredibly under-appreciated. It's quite possible we would have lost the USSR without them.
Click to expand...

Too true.



Everyone knows a Panzer can't beat a Phalanx!
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Or Greece.
Click to expand...

The Greeks don't get the respect they deserve. My late grandfather was an artillery captain with the AEA in France 1917-1918. He earned several major decorations by both the US and the French. After the war, he became quite the student of military history, especially WWI and then WWII. He had a study full of books about the two wars and several photographs and paintings on the wall. One had a black and white picture of several men on a mountain pass lining up an old French 75 on a German tank down below-another tank was disabled. The caption noted that while the artillery the greeks had was old, they were good shots and ferocious mountain fighters who racked up heavy casualties upon the Germans and their bulgarian and italian allies
 
If the British sued for peace after Dunkirk, and especially if the Wehrmacht had successfully invaded Britain, there would have been a complete German victory in Europe. It's possible that the Royal Navy fleet could have fallen into German hands in the event of a British capitulation and could then have been used against the U.S Navy. It's very unlikely that the U.S would have been able to launch an amphibious invasion of continental Europe without Britain as a staging point.

Instead of being tied down in North Africa, hundreds of thousands of additional Axis troops could have been deployed to Russia in 1941, most likely resulting in a Soviet defeat. Hitler was also forced to delay Operation Barbarossa because the presence of British troops in Greece threatened Germany's southeastern flank. Hitler had intended to launch the invasion of the Soviet Union months before June of 1941, but the Greek campaign forced him to postpone it. This meant, of course, that the Wehrmacht was forced to face the brutal Soviet winter.

British scientists were also crucial in the development of the atomic bomb and in breaking German codes. This is often ignored by those who think the U.S won the war single-handed. It's also wishful thinking that the U.S could have brought Germany to its knees with long-ranch bombing. Without the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe would have been significantly stronger and able to fend off American bombers.
 
Graffias said:
If the British sued for peace after Dunkirk, and especially if the Wehrmacht had successfully invaded Britain, there would have been a complete German victory in Europe. It's possible that the Royal Navy fleet could have fallen into German hands in the event of a British capitulation and could then have been used against the U.S Navy. It's very unlikely that the U.S would have been able to launch an amphibious invasion of continental Europe without Britain as a staging point.

Instead of being tied down in North Africa, hundreds of thousands of additional Axis troops could have been deployed to Russia in 1941, most likely resulting in a Soviet defeat. Hitler was also forced to delay Operation Barbarossa because the presence of British troops in Greece threatened Germany's southeastern flank. Hitler had intended to launch the invasion of the Soviet Union months before June of 1941, but the Greek campaign forced him to postpone it. This meant, of course, that the Wehrmacht was forced to face the brutal Soviet winter.

British scientists were also crucial in the development of the atomic bomb and in breaking German codes. This is often ignored by those who think the U.S won the war single-handed. It's also wishful thinking that the U.S could have brought Germany to its knees with long-ranch bombing. Without the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe would have been significantly stronger and able to fend off American bombers.
Click to expand...

In other words, Hitler moved too broad too fast.
 
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...
---------------
Tough to vote for Russia since they were allied with Germany--non-aggression pact, simultaneous invasion of Poland-- even though, as you correctly point out, Hitler turned on them.
The UK stood strong, but US entry meant Hitler was doomed.
 
The UK. They were positioned in every corner of the globe to fight all Axis members from the start and had incredible imperial manpower from Canada to India. If they're not there the Eurasian continent is dominated by the Axis in no time, with a supply of resources from Moscow to Mecca that would bring the Americas to their knees later (economically if not militarily) in the century.

You can't take out any component really. Without the Soviets the UK gets occupied, the above happens and the US can't liberate Europe. Without the US there's no industrial capacity to support the British Empire earl on, the Japanese help make the USSR collapse all the quicker and there's no coup de grace of an atom bomb.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Nope. It was either Canada or Romania.
Click to expand...

Romania was part of the axis for 4/5years and then it was on the side of the communists win summer of 1944.

My vote goes to UK.

Also, since when were the soviets part of the allies? They were their own independent nation wanting as much of Europe as possible. Their alliance with the allied forces was a matter of convenience. Needless to say, they were the only real winners in WW2 since they got the most out of it... at the expense of themselves and everyone else... and also sadly, at the misfortune of all those who fell under their power.
 
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

how diana ?
 
This seems a rather silly idea for a poll. Clearly, Hitler was defeated because of the alliance of forces that eventually out-produced him, out-fought him, and out-thought him. No single country was able to defeat the Axis alone and none did. History doesn't work like an Academy Award selection panel. All the Allies were important: Britain for refusing to surrender and providing a bulwark for the US and Soviets to build from once they decided to get on board; the Soviet Union for the inconceivable magnitude of their sacrifice; the US for its unstoppable military might and industrial capacity. Take any one of the three out of the equation and the war would have been lost.

So, I haven't voted.
 
Medusa said:
how diana ?
Click to expand...

Because she confuses the Warsaw pact with the Soviet Union. Also whoever said the U.S was alone in fighting both Japan and Germany is forgetting Britain. Lastly the Soviet Union was responsible for 2 thirds of German causalities so by definition....
 
Red_Dave said:
Because she confuses the Warsaw pact with the Soviet Union. Also whoever said the U.S was alone in fighting both Japan and Germany is forgetting Britain. Lastly the Soviet Union was responsible for 2 thirds of German causalities so by definition....
Click to expand...

l had guessed it.
 
Another thing I just noticed. England wasn't one of the Allies, the United Kingdom was. England ≠ UK.
 
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know this isn't really the OP, and others have tried to tell you already, but you are completely wrong. The USSR existed prior to WWII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom