Which country do you think contributed the most to ending World War 2?

... The UK? How...

Germany.

British Commonwealth included Canada, India, Australia, many parts of Africa and other parts of the world. Definitely an option.

Their crowning achievement was not getting annihilated for five years. If the UK was not an island nation Churchill's "empire" would have been toast. India had a minimal impact on the war, only fighting in the Burmese theatre which would eventually have no significant impact on the war. Australia and Canada were only useful due to the manpower that they provided. The British Empire was the most feeble of the Great Three by such an enormous proportion that Churchill had lost all diplomatic influence by the end of the war.

Churchhill was the one who fought back against Germany. If it was up to Chamberlain, he would have gave up to Germany.

(No disrespect to any British or French veterans, but U.K and France were pretty much useless, and were on the brink of surrender. Thanks the the efforts of Canada and America, The Western Front was well fought over. Hitler's biggest mistake was invading the Soviet Union, and thanks to the Russian winter, and sheer force of the Soviets, the Eastern Front was won.

Half of India supported the Nazis.

I'm not belittling Churchill's efforts, I'm just stating that militarily the Brits were very weak in contrast to their allies.

Let's see. Britain defeated Germany during the battle of Britain (destroying many German planes in the process), destroyed most of the German and Italian navies, destroyed the Italians and held off Rommel in Africa and contributed more to that front than America who came in much later, Yugoslavia had a pro British revolution and Britain sent troops to help Greece as a result postponing Barbarossa for a crucial two weeks. Militarily in the European theater, Britain contributed as much to the war as America did, although the USSR was #1 of course. Britain's role should not be underestimated.

Sorry, but America didn't defeat Japan by themselves.

58539672 said "We fought all three of the axis powers at the same time on completely different sides of the planet, defeated one of them by ourselves, and turned the tide of the western European theater. If we didnt get involved, western Europe would have fallen and the USSR would have fought the full might of the German army, not half of it. Oh, and the Japanese would have been unopposed." Oh man... Is this what the world is coming to? Is... This... What people think? Hold me... I'm scared. No, but seriously, let's itemize this, shall we? 1- There were more than three Axis powers. 2- Not all of them were on completely different sides of the planet. 3- You say that we fought them all at the same time, and while this is true, remember that the blue and red parts of this map were on our side. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/WXOZBjrXvW4/TYayAPNgNcI/AAAAAAAABHM/Zv7SkCo7b4A/s1600/ww2-axis-allies-july-1943-map.jpg It almost seems as though you're implying that we bore the brunt of it, even though we came in *years* after the war started. 4- We didn't defeat one by ourselves. 5- We did not single-handedly turn the tide of the European theater. 6- Western Europe would have fallen? I guess Hitler won the Battle of Britain then eh? No, he didn't. He tried his hardest to take Britain and failed. What makes you think he could have done it later on with fewer resources? 7- The Japanese would not have been unopposed. The British Empire and the Chinese, among others, had been fighting them for years before we even entered the war. I'm not saying that the U.S. didn't play a crucial part in the Second World War. It clearly did. But you, sir, are *drastically* overestimating its contribution.

Looks like the link I posted isn't working. Try this one. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Ww2_allied_axis_1942_jun.png

Silly me, I should mention some things. Brazil should be blue at this time in the war, and Allies that had been defeated are shown as part of the Axis as well. Also, don't forget significant resistance movements such as France, Indochina, etc.

Pericles, the sass is burning my eyes!

But honestly, I mean no disrespect to Britain. But when you look at the bigger picture, their role in defeating Hitler was minimal in contrast to the US or the Soviet Union. Their role was staying alive long enough for the other allies to finish the job, which they achieved admirably mind you. However it cannot be argued that their efforts were the most prominent in defeating Hitler's Reich.

Britain contributed at least as much militarily as America in Europe. There's no arguing against that.

Why isn't China on this list? China was divided during this time but as a whole they contributed much more than France.

America did much more did Britain. Who helped secure a big victory in the Battle for the Bulge? Nearly 40 k American GI's were killed by the Whermact, but the price paid was a key victory that would help the Allies.

Sorry, but the British victories in Africa in 1940 over the Italy were much more important since by 1944 there was already no doubt that Germany would lose the war.

@Atheist-Independent Firstly, I'm talking about the entire Empire. Secondly, it wasn't minimal at all. In the western European theater, the British contributed more than anyone else, with the U.S. coming in at an admittedly close second. The British also played the largest role in Africa, with the U.S. again coming in second. The U.S. played the largest role in Italy and the Pacific Islands. Russia played the largest role in the eastern European theater. China played the largest role in the east Asian theater, with the British Empire coming in second. I can see many arguments to be made for Russia having played the largest role, and, indeed, in my vote I said that I thought the Empire's lead over them was "infinitesimal," but I don't see how the U.S. can be realistically argued to have played a larger role than Britain. For the first part of the war, their role was sending other people things. For the next part, it was supporting the British in Africa, engaging in naval battles with the Japanese, and taking out Italy, which was the most incompetent nation involved in the war. Only in the last 2-3 years did they actually start fighting the Germans and taking significant portions of Japanese territory. Furthermore, Britain's role wasn't just "staying alive." They contributed more on the western front and Africa than anyone, and then there's the rest of the Empire (a quarter of the world) that was fighting the Axis on every other front. Then, British intelligence played a larger role than any other intelligence agency in the world. I mean, if you want to go with the faulty "they stayed alive and killed a lot of Germans in the process before moving in for the kill with the support of the U.S." argument, you could equally apply that to Russia. @tajshar2k "America did much more did Britain. Who helped secure a big victory in the Battle for the Bulge? Nearly 40 k American GI's were killed by the Whermact, but the price paid was a key victory that would help the Allies." Okay, first, it's "Battle OF the Bulge." Second, it seems as though you think that the Battle of the Bulge was the most important thing to happen in World War Two. It was not. It was important, but not THAT important. Plus, while the Americans bore the brunt of the attack, they were not the only Allied nation involved.

How about Germany? Seems like they hit the suicide switch by invading everything they could see at one time.