Most Important Allied Member of WWII

SappinThePubs said:

It's difficult to say for sure which Allied nation played the most crucial role. The United States gave the most money and arms to other Allied countries so in terms of finances, we were the greatest Allied power. Also, there's a misconception that Russia was a great power at this time because quite frankly they weren't a great power militarily. The only thing that stopped the Germans from completely over running Russia was the vast territory they would have had to supply. It wasn't Russia's troops that stopped and occupied Hitler's troops per say, but on the contrary it was the Germans over shooting their own supply lines. Meanwhile, U.S. factories continued to churn out military supplies without any real threat of bombing from opposing countries.

In my opinion, it's hard to argue that the U.S. wasn't the greatest Allied power because I think it would've been the only country that had any chance of stopping Japan and Germany on it's own. Plus we had a "two-ocean navy" at the time. Meaning our navy's size and strength was larger and stronger than any other presence in both the Pacific and Atlantic

Click to expand...

Hello Sapppin.... Welcome to DP!

Bodhisattva said:

Well?

Click to expand...

The United States. Without the intercession of America it is a certainty that Europe would have fallen to the Soviet Union and Asia would have buckled under the boot of the Japanese Empire. For that reason the United States is the unquestioned critical power of the Second World War. Now if your question was who played the largest role in the defeat of the Third Reich it would probably be the USSR.

Proud South Korean said:

A little trivia, without Polish contributions, UK code-breaking would may not have existed.

Click to expand...

My great-uncle (grandfather's brother) had studied at the Poznań U in the same class as Henryk Zygalski.

Just bragging.

This "zero" for China made me think...

OK, I am a proud American citizen, but I am also a 50% Pole, 1/4 German, 1/8 Russian, 1/16 Swede and 1/16 Lithuanian - and an immigrant in first generation. It is only too natural that for me the WWII means the invasion of my ancestral land, the slaughterhouse of Eastern Europe in 1939-45, and the Holocaust in particular, first and foremost.

But for the USA, the war did not really start until Pearl Harbor, more than two years after Hitler and Stalin attacked and dismembered Poland...I would think that at least someone should what China and Korea were going through - and how much their resistance had slowed down the war machine of the Axis....

Sig said:

Actually, by 1945, we had the Bomb and could have defeated any nation on earth by 1947, including the Soviet Union and China at the same time.

Click to expand...

The U.S. had 13 low yield nuclear weapons in 1947. The combined destructive power of said weapons is dramatically less than the conventional damage suffered by Germany, the USSR or China during WW2.

Cyrylek said:

This "zero" for China made me think...

OK, I am a proud American citizen, but I am also a 50% Pole, 1/4 German, 1/8 Russian, 1/16 Swede and 1/16 Lithuanian - and an immigrant in first generation. It is only too natural that for me the WWII means the invasion of my ancestral land, the slaughterhouse of Eastern Europe in 1939-45, and the Holocaust in particular, first and foremost.

But for the USA, the war did not really start until Pearl Harbor, more than two years after Hitler and Stalin attacked and dismembered Poland...I would think that at least someone should what China and Korea were going through - and how much their resistance had slowed down the war machine of the Axis....

Click to expand...

The question wasn't to qualify each powers' contribution, it was to choose the most important. China, by most accounts, caved quickly and significantly. Sure they eventually got their act together and pieced together a decent resistance, but they hardly rank among the most important. It's like putting France on the list, important contributions by their resistance, but generally a non-factor.

rathi said:

The U.S. had 13 low yield nuclear weapons in 1947. The combined destructive power of said weapons is dramatically less than the conventional damage suffered by Germany, the USSR or China during WW2.

Click to expand...

The lack of US weapons was artificial and the result of reduced interest in pursuing a more aggressive production schedule following the capitulation of Japan and the interlude between the end of the war and the beginning of East-West tensions. This rapidly changed which is why you jump from thirteen to fifty between 1947 and 1948, and from 50 to 170 between 1948 and 1949. By the time the USSR detonated its first weapon the US had begun to amass a substantial nuclear arsenal and when combined with its latent production capability can be fairly said to have had nuclear primacy from 1945 to the early 1950's.

SBu said:

The question wasn't to qualify each powers' contribution, it was to choose the most important. China, by most accounts, caved quickly and significantly. Sure they eventually got their act together and pieced together a decent resistance, but they hardly rank among the most important. It's like putting France on the list, important contributions by their resistance, but generally a non-factor.

Click to expand...

If that is the metric than the USSR didn't matter either given their initial capitulations and disastrous early campaigns. China is highly relevant because of its ability to consume Japanese attention and manpower which would otherwise have been directed into SE Asia and India (which almost happened) or towards the Soviet Union. Instead of a rapid campaign the Japanese never managed to subdue the Chinese (in large part due to Allied assistance) and pinned Japans strategic vision in place.

Sherman123 said:

If that is the metric than the USSR didn't matter either given their initial capitulations and disastrous early campaigns. China is highly relevant because of its ability to consume Japanese attention and manpower which would otherwise have been directed into SE Asia and India (which almost happened) or towards the Soviet Union. Instead of a rapid campaign the Japanese never managed to subdue the Chinese (in large part due to Allied assistance) and pinned Japans strategic vision in place.

Click to expand...

I think you probably misread my post. I didn't say that anyone didn't matter, those are the words you alone used. I said the OP didn't ask us to qualify the actors' individual contributions, but to pick the most important actor. If you think China is the most important actor of WW2, have at it, but don't be surprised when people disagree with you. Same thing with Russia as it was primarily only relevant in one theatre of war and irrelevant largely at sea.

SBu said:

I think you probably misread my post. I didn't say that anyone didn't matter, those are the words you alone used. I said the OP didn't ask us to qualify the actors' individual contributions, but to pick the most important actor. If you think China is the most important actor of WW2, have at it, but don't be surprised when people disagree with you. Same thing with Russia as it was primarily only relevant in one theatre of war and irrelevant largely at sea.

Click to expand...

That one theater determined the entire war

Proud South Korean said:

That one theater determined the entire war

Click to expand...

With respect to Russia's contribution, I think the greatest actor responsible for ending the war was Germany itself in attacking it and opening up another front that arguably wouldn't have existed otherwise. Losing the most people doesn't necessarily equal most important actor.

SBu said:

The question wasn't to qualify each powers' contribution, it was to choose the most important. China, by most accounts, caved quickly and significantly. Sure they eventually got their act together and pieced together a decent resistance, but they hardly rank among the most important. It's like putting France on the list, important contributions by their resistance, but generally a non-factor.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I consider China pretty much of a non-factor, also. Probably even more so than France. The Allies had a goal of liberating France, and including them in planning, etc., but not so with China. Not to the same degree. We never invaded China to drive the Japanese out, for example. Had China not been unavoidably included "by association", we'd probably have never bothered to make a significant effort to liberate them.

Bodhisattva said:

Interesting read... thanks. Didn't know they rolled it in peas back in the day. Sounds good.

Click to expand...

They still do here - it's a little salty, but it's very lean and like having a pork chop with your breakfast. Very good winter comfort food on a cold, snowy morning.

Sherman123 said:

The lack of US weapons was artificial and the result of reduced interest in pursuing a more aggressive production schedule following the capitulation of Japan and the interlude between the end of the war and the beginning of East-West tensions. This rapidly changed which is why you jump from thirteen to fifty between 1947 and 1948, and from 50 to 170 between 1948 and 1949. By the time the USSR detonated its first weapon the US had begun to amass a substantial nuclear arsenal and when combined with its latent production capability can be fairly said to have had nuclear primacy from 1945 to the early 1950's.

Click to expand...

The USSR was responsible for roughly 6 million German deaths. Assuming you obtain 200,000 average deaths per nuclear detonation, you need 30 to match the destruction. The presence of jet interceptors means that some nuclear weapons will likely not get through, as well as possibly allowing the Germans to obtain a functional nuclear weapon themselves. That is definitely not achievable in 1945 whatsoever and probably not in 1946 either even with maximum nuclear production. The 25 million losses suffered by the USSR would require 125 weapons using the same calculation and they still won the war at that level of casualties.

rathi said:

The USSR was responsible for roughly 6 million German deaths. Assuming you obtain 200,000 average deaths per nuclear detonation, you need 30 to match the destruction. The presence of jet interceptors means that some nuclear weapons will likely not get through, as well as possibly allowing the Germans to obtain a functional nuclear weapon themselves. That is definitely not achievable in 1945 whatsoever and probably not in 1946 either even with maximum nuclear production. The 25 million losses suffered by the USSR would require 125 weapons using the same calculation and they still won the war at that level of casualties.

Click to expand...

If war was nothing more than a series of arithmetic problems it would be a much simpler affair. As it isn't your scenario doesn't add up.

If the United States had decided to embark upon a nuclear campaign against the Soviet Union and brought bombs up to wartime production levels there is no plausible path for the Soviet Union to survive, let alone triumph. How do you organize the defense of any location when the concentration of organized resistance exposes you to the sudden and complete destruction of that formation? How do you defend your cities when a single failure will result in the annihilation of that city? How do you maintain political control of a country that is being reduced to unprecedented ruin on a daily basis? A nuclear offensive would have leveled the same level of loss and destruction that the Soviet Union endured for the duration of the Second World War condensed into a span of several weeks. Millions would have died, armies would have dissolved, cities would have disappeared, and unchallenged allied armies would have crossed the irradiated wreckage to Eastern Europe and beyond if they so chose.

rathi said:

The USSR was responsible for roughly 6 million German deaths. Assuming you obtain 200,000 average deaths per nuclear detonation, you need 30 to match the destruction. The presence of jet interceptors means that some nuclear weapons will likely not get through, as well as possibly allowing the Germans to obtain a functional nuclear weapon themselves. That is definitely not achievable in 1945 whatsoever and probably not in 1946 either even with maximum nuclear production. The 25 million losses suffered by the USSR would require 125 weapons using the same calculation and they still won the war at that level of casualties.

Click to expand...

To add to what Sherman said... You are looking at raw numbers. The biggest factor with the A bomb was the level of fear. No one was safe. The fact that there were only 17 bombs was not common knowledge. And even if it were, 17 cities destroyed in a flash... 17 cities that get the "Dresden" treatment, but with only ONE bomb... The fear would have been incredible...

Proud South Korean said:

You're making a fallacy, pointing out important successes the Western Allies made while oversimplifying Soviet ones. As an example, I could say that the Soviets conquered half of Europe, accounted for 80% of German casualties not to mention Roumanian, Hungarian, and other Eastern European countries, and finally conquered Berlin, while all the Western allies did was throw bombs from the air, but it's obviously a fallacy.
Also, the Soviets were certainly not unarmed, badly trained, and incompetently led during the latter years of the war.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I am pointing out that the USA and Britain contributed more to various other things than the Russians... That doesn't mean they were more important, just more dynamic.