Which nation contributed the most to the defeat of the Axis powers during World War II?

Posted by: GreatPatrioticWar

The Axis powers included Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Hungary, Manchukuo, Siam, Vichy France, and other minor nations and puppet states.

Vote
27 Total Votes
1

United States of America

13 votes
4 comments
2

Soviet Union

12 votes
2 comments
3

British Commonwealth

1 vote
1 comment
4

China

1 vote
0 comments

Nationalists and Communists.

5

France

0 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2015-10-13T19:55:07.8685384Z
It was far from the Soviet Union, they were nearly wiped out during the war. Oh just look at my comment.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-13T21:13:27.2873101Z
Roughly 80% of Germany's casualties were on the eastern front. In terms of inflicting casualties on the Axis, the USSR was #1.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-13T21:13:44.7317245Z
Roughly 80% of Germany's casualties were on the eastern front. In terms of inflicting casualties on the Axis, the USSR was number 1.
Anonymous says2015-10-13T21:15:21.2639057Z
We are not talking about casualties @GreatPatrioticWar we are talking about overall performance and throual victory's throughout the war.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-13T21:25:16.2314923Z
"Which nation contributed the most to the defeat of the Axis powers during World War II?" This poll is asking which country contributed more to defeating the countries that made up the Axis alliance, not about who performed the best during the war. Obviously America's kill death ratio was much more impressive than that of the USSR's. However this does not change the fact that the USSR was up against the bulk of the Nazi military machine. Roughly 80% of German casualties during WWII were on the eastern front. The other 20% can be divided between Britain, France, Poland, the United States, and other smaller nations that fought Germany. Considering the fact that America only started fighting the Germans in 1942 (in Africa), it would not be surprising if 10% of German casualties were inflicted by the Americans.
Anonymous says2015-10-13T21:35:08.1651265Z
And this was a large mistake by the Germans. They should have focused 65% of their forces in the west and 35% in the east against the Russians, it was clear that the Russians were going to be finished off and the Germans began to get cocky so to say and focused their troops on the Russians. They did not expect however an all out assault on the coast of France by the allies. Did you not read my comment?
Anonymous says2015-10-13T21:38:03.3252949Z
Once again it is not asking for the casualties it is asking for contributions which America, and what was left of England and France had committed all their resources tremendously for. The USSR had a larger population anyhow therefore a larger military allowing them to thin their lines desperately to prevent the Nazi invasion, this causing their mass casualties.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-13T21:54:11.9479219Z
The Germans were heavily outnumbered by the Russians on the eastern front and as a result could deploy a smaller number of troops against the Western Allies. By the time D-Day happened it was clear Germany would almost certainly be unable to win the war. At best, they could hope for a negotiated peace. It is a huge mistake to say that the Russians were going to be finished off. During April, 1944, this is what the eastern front looked like: https://www.google.com/search?q=ww2+eastern+front+1944&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIsaGo_rTAyAIVCOdjCh3higkb#imgrc=99Uckps7v6rO1M%3A As you can see, the vast majority of the land Germany had conquered in 1941 had been lost. The Soviet's were on the offensive and the Germans were struggling to hold on to Belarus and the Baltic States. This map shows the eastern front in April, 1944. D-Day happened in June of that year. Another mistake you make is when you say that the Germans did not expect an assault on France. They were expecting it, its just that the Germans did not know which part of France and Germany lacked the manpower to defend the entire French coast due to the enormous number of troops they had to keep in the east. The Wehrmacht had 58 divisions in the west, of which only 11 were deployed against the D-Day landings. At the same time, however, the Germans deployed 228 divisions in the east (against the Russians). Thus, the Germans had almost four times as many troops facing the Soviets (as they did in France). And they had less than one-20th of that number in Normandy. That alone is an indication of where their priorities lay.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-13T21:56:02.0392390Z
Without the Russian's holding all those German troops in the east, there simply would have been no D-Day.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-13T21:56:14.1049834Z
Without Russia holding down all those German troops in the east there simply would have been no D-Day.
UtherPenguin says2015-10-13T23:31:33.2241246Z
I think Hitler's own incompetence won the allies the war.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-14T04:18:51.0723917Z
That is a fallacy since mistakes were made by all sides.
58539672 says2015-10-14T04:26:13.8089057Z
The USSR really didn't contribute much to the defeat of Italy and Japan. They only really fought the Germans. If the poll was, "who contributed the most to defeating Nazi Germany" then the USSR would win hands down. But this poll is talking about the entire Axis, for which the US was the only one to have major troop engagements against all of them (Italy, Japan, Germany).
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-14T08:09:57.6942184Z
Italy suffered around 80,000 casualties on the eastern front. Japan suffered 700,000 casualties during the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and an additional 100,000 during the 1930s border wars between the two countries. The USSR contributed greatly to the defeat of all the Axis, not just Germany.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-14T13:10:49.3796272Z
Wonder how many Japs the USSR helped dispatch, since they were such Axis killers.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-14T13:11:11.4228511Z
Wonder how many Japs the USSR helped dispatch, since they were such Axis killers.
58539672 says2015-10-14T16:17:24.4201123Z
@GreatPatrioticWar Casualties is not an accurate way of measuring contribution. The Japanese Navy, the very source of Japans strength, was defeated by the US Navy. The Italian peninsula was taken by the US and UK. Russia contributed little in the overall defeat of these two nations.
58539672 says2015-10-14T16:35:57.9318781Z
Even with Germany, the US contributed greatly toward the defeat of the Nazi. Most of Germany was occupied by the Western Allied forces, All the territory in Africa was retaken by the west, France was liberated, most of the strategic bombing raids that destroyed a vast majority of the German War Machine and destroyed several German cities were carried out by US and British Air forces, and the German air force, the Luftwaffe and the German Navy were both taken out by the US and UK counterparts. Russia killed more soldiers, but the west destroyed more of Germany's ability to wage war.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-14T22:53:01.8408012Z
OK. First off, Italy was a weak partner in the Axis alliance. Besides the fact that they were not anywhere near as industrialized as Russia, Britain, the US, or Germany, they only suffered defeats during the Second World War. By 'only defeats,' I mean they tried to invade Greece and were defeated. The Italians would have lost Albania to a country one third their size had it not been for German intervention in the area. Now Germany defeated Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, and a few other smaller nations all in just over a year. So what I am getting at, is that Italy was not anywhere near as great a threat as Germany was. Therefore the fact that Russia did not participate in the invasion of Italy (note: the only reason this invasion succeeded was because millions of Germans were tied down in the east), does not mean very much. Now, on to Japan. Many Americans mistakenly believe that America almost single-handedly defeated Japan during WWII. How is this wrong? Well for a start, China had already been fighting Japan for four years before America entered the war and already inflicted hundreds of thousands of casualties upon the Japanese army. Wikipedia says that according to Japanese estimates, the Japanese army suffered roughly 500,000 dead soldiers (these are Japanese statistics and therefore the real number could be higher) during the war fighting China and another 1.4 million injured. Now considering the fact that around 2 million Japanese soldiers died during WWII, you will find that these numbered are not insignificant. On top of this, hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers were fighting the British in Burma. The USSR's contribution to the war against Japan is largely unknown. Most western schools say that it was the two atomic bombs that caused Japan to surrender and that the Soviet Union had nothing to do with it. The majority of Americans don't even know that the Soviet Union ever fought Japan during WWII. Well for a start, during the 1930's, Japan had a series of conflicts with the USSR near Manchuria, during which, Japan suffered roughly 100,000 casualties. In comparison, during the famous battle of Guadalcanal, Japan suffered 30,000 casualties fighting the Americans. In 1939, the USSR and Japan agreed to a neutrality pact putting an end to the fighting. However the USSR left hundreds of thousands of troops in the far east forcing Japan to do the same. These soldiers could have been used elsewhere, such as to fight the Americans. When the USSR invaded Manchuria, North Korea, Inner Mongolia, and South Sakhalin, they inflicted 700,000 casualties upon the Kwantang Army. In addition to this, the Red Army defeated the Japanese puppet state in Manchukuo and captured the last area from which Japan could produce supplies to continue its war against the allies. After the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Japan saw that it had no way of continuing the war and that surrender was the only option. The Atomic Bombs were important, but a dictatorship that was not concerned with whether its people lived or died, could have continued the war if they had somewhere to get resources. In short, Americans were key in the Pacific and the Russians were the most important in Europe. America destroyed the Japanese navy and as a result were the most important country in defeating Japan. The USSR contributed as much to the European theater as America did to the Pacific Theater. However Germany and its European allies were a much greater threat than Japan and due to the fact that the USSR was always up against many more enemy soldiers than the Americans were, the Soviet contribution to defeating the Axis powers was greater, if only slightly.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-15T00:28:26.0945093Z
Sorry, that was a bit long.
58539672 says2015-10-15T04:04:52.6294296Z
@GreatPatrioticWar You seem to believe that the Germans were the main axis force and everyone else was just a minor player. Despite the fact that the Japanese Empire was 2.8 million square miles with a population of 100 million people while Nazi Germany only had 244,000 square miles and 69 million people at their heights. The German army was also 3 million strong at its height during operation Barbarossa while the Japanese army was 5.5 million strong at the end of the war. And the German navy had nothing to brag about while the Japanese Navy at its height was the 3rd largest in the world. And saying, "Italy was weak" does not negate the fact that they were an Axis member. So with the question, "Who contributed the most at defeating the axis", Italy still counts. Im am also well aware of the USSR's involvement in the Pacific theater and how their declaration of war on Japan helped speed up their surrender. But all they did was speed it up. Some form of surrender was inevitable after the defeat of the Japanese navy ( a fact that many Japanese officials brought up throughout the war). Even after the war, the Prime Minister of Japan was asked which was a bigger threat, the atomic bombs or the Russian invasion. He said the bombs because the Russians were invading a far off colony, away from the Japanese mainland. The US was destroying entire cities on Japanese soil. That made them the much larger threat.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-15T17:10:15.8436464Z
These numbers don't sound right considering the fact that the Nazis conquered most of Europe and a huge chunk of the USSR. Vichy France and North Africa were basically under German control too. At its height, there is no way that the Japanese empire could have been bigger than that of Germany. 244,000 to 2.8 million square miles. Please look over your sources again. The land it conquered in the Soviet Union alone was close to or greater in size than the Japanese empire at its height. But for the sake of argument, lets say that you were correct and "2.8 million square miles with a population of 100 million people while Nazi Germany only had 244,000 square miles and 69 million people at their heights," it simply wouldn't matter. The USSR was much bigger than Germany and had a much bigger population but would most likely have lost to a country a fraction of its size (Germany) without help from the Western Allies. "The German army was also 3 million strong at its height during operation Barbarossa" is probably incorrect. The statistics on how many Germans invaded Russia vary from 3 million to 5 million (excluding hundreds of thousands of Romanians, Hungarians, etc.) depending on which sources or historians you listen to. Western documentaries will give you a number of three million but won't tell you that there were hundreds of thousands of troops from all over Europe preparing to invade the USSR. Even France and Spain sent divisions to the eastern front. Even Finland launched its own separate offensive against the Soviet Union. About four million Axis troops invaded the USSR. And lets not forget the fact that as the Nazis suffered more and more casualties, they were forced to send even more men to fight the Red Army. Romania and Hungary for example, were defeated primarily by the USSR, the US and Britain had nothing to do with that. However I don't count these two countries or Italy as much considering the fact that they were unable to do anything much without the Germans to back them up. In my opinion, it is impossible to prove which country played the most important role in defeating the Axis during WWII. However I maintain that the USSR was up against much more than the United States and as a result did more to win the war.
58539672 says2015-10-16T03:00:02.7645386Z
@GreatPatrioticWar Nazi Germany- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany , Empire of Japan- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan . The bar on the side of each page has all basic information about the nations including Capital, Government, Language, Religion, Area, and Population. It is a very common occurrence for the West to overestimate how big Europe is. Much of this has to do with the Mercator map, which stretches the northern hemisphere of any map, making them look much larger in comparison to real life (the map that has Greenland and Africa about the same size, despite Africa being larger than Russia, China, India, and the US combined). As for soldiers, the Germans had 142 infantry divisions, 17 panzer divisions and 4,000 tanks, totaling in around 3 million total soldiers along with 200,000 allies during Operation Barbarossa. This is the actual military registration numbers during the time period and was the largest single force that the Nazi's ever produced. Heavy Casualties on the eastern front would require reinforcements to be moved east, but Germany never got close to the 3 million man army they had before the operation. http://spartacus-educational.com/2WWgermanA.htm. Also the idea that Germany was an invincible (or at least the strongest) fighting machine was propaganda created by the Germans. In fact, Germany never successfully toke a modern day (for the time) fortified position. Poland and France were both relatively weak and unfortified positions and many of their other victories were won through treachery, espionage, and superior numbers. The first time they meet a really fortified zone was when they reached Moscow, and look how that ended. Germany was far from the great adversary that History often credits them. They never had an army bigger than Russia, never had a Navy larger than the UK, and never had an Air force as large as the US.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-16T03:50:57.5840840Z
For Germany it has a 1939 estimate. For Japan it has a 1942 estimate, huge chunks of which are probably water and trade lanes captured by Japan, not land. I don't think I need to say any more there. As for the statistics on Operation Barbarossa, you seem to completely forget that as Germany's casualties in the east mounted, the Wehrmacht was forced to send more men to the eastern front and as a result the 3 million total you provide are inaccurate and exclude the hundreds of thousands of troops provided by axis minors. The Germans did not invade Russia with everything. They still had divisions recovering from previous invasions in France. Also, forced conscription was introduced into the German army as the war began to turn against Germany. You can find more accurate statistics to German losses in the east here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties Your assessment of Germany's military might is an underestimate. For a start, German generals were developing the blitzkrieg tactics while the French and British were still thinking about how best to adapt WWI strategies to a war with Germany. The speed with which the Germans conquered Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Low Countries, and France astounded the world. Actually, the German army never suffered a single defeat until the battle of Moscow in late 1941/1942 and not only did the German Wehrmacht believe themselves invincible, the rest of the world did too. When the Germans invaded Russia, the rest of the world and even Stalin himself believed that it would be only a matter of time before the country was defeated. However the tide was turned at Moscow for the first time when the Russians proved that a German blitzkrieg could be stopped and thus shattering the invincibility of the Wehrmacht. However the Germans conquered Europe and reached Moscow not because they were weak, but because their army had some of the best generals, German Panzer columns were the most effective armored formation in the world, and the German Luftwaffe knew how to support a blitzkrieg. You talked about how the Germans were unable to defeat any modern defenses of the time. This was not the case. They defeated the Maginot line, the Stalin line, and were only stopped at Moscow due to the Russian winter. Without the Russian winter and mud the Germans would probably have captured Moscow in 1941/1942. However Hitler made mistakes on all fronts allowing the allies to fight on. Speaking of the German navy being no match for the British, the Germans did not invest in aircraft carriers, they just used submarines. One torpedo can sink an aircraft carrier. And if you wish to further compare German and Japanese statistics, you can look here: http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/wartime-production.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ The source will show how Germany produced twice the aircraft the Japanese did and nine times as many tanks as the Japanese did. Not to mention that Japanese tanks were among the worst in the world while the German Tiger II was the best tank of the war.
58539672 says2015-10-16T05:41:45.8850352Z
@GreatPatrioticWar It was a 1939 estimate because that was when the Greater German controlled territory was at its height. Everything else was occupied by a German ally, mainly all those other nations listed above. Japans territory wasn't that large because of waterways or anything. It was simply that much larger. Indonesia alone was 735,000 square miles, as large as modern day Mexico. The army numbers of 3 million was the largest that Nazi Germany ever got AT ONE TIME. If you want to know how large their army was throughout the whole war, it was around 12 million. When they invaded Russia with the forces I listed earlier, they had a 3 million man force (plus 200,000 allies). As casualties mounted, more reinforcements were sent to the theater to replace them. Despite these reinforcements, the Germans couldn't keep up with the casualties, so their army never got above the 3 million originally sent, despite the fact that over 3 million have fought in the theater. Japan had a total of 5.5 million at the end of the war, which is incredible when you realize that that is after all their casualties have been factored in. Your description of how Nazi Germany conquered its neighbors does not disprove my point about them (as my link describes). Nazi Germany won many of its earlier battles by have traitors among the enemy ranks, attacking strategically weak opponents, and using superior forces until the fought the Russian who had a modern day well fortified position. Also, I said "Modern day" fortifications. The Maginot line was in sever disrepair and was no longer strategically placed (being that it was designed for WW1) and the Stalin line was abandoned and unmanned when the Germans invaded, with much of its guns sent to the Molotov Line which was unfinished when the Germans invaded. When the Nazi neared Moscow, it was turned into a giant fort, one that despite its hasty construction, proved difficult for the Germans to penetrate. Once the Russians counter attacked, Moscow and the surrounding area was given enough time to build modern day fortifications.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-16T06:26:42.8852932Z
The Nazi empire was at its height in 1939? You clearly need to look over a map. This is Europe in 1942: https://www.google.com/search?q=germany+1942&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAkQ_AUoA2oVChMItYWatqjGyAIVT0SICh35Tw9X&biw=1920&bih=979#imgrc=vy2KjICYE7ynhM%3A You appear to have ignored my statistics on superior German tanks and aircraft production completely (2:1 in aircraft and 9:1 in tanks). Also, I don't understand your obsession with the amount of land a country controls. I mean if you add up the territories of all the countries Germany was fighting when it invaded France in 1940, you will find that Germany was what, 10x smaller? 15x smaller? I'm not even sure myself but that sounds about right. Canada, Australia, India, French and British Africa, were pretty big territories. But within a month of the German invasion of France, all of the French colonies in Africa and South East Asia were no more than German puppet states. The size of a country doesn't matter if that country has all the necessary resources to wage war. I mean when Japan invaded China in 1937, they had a population 1/8th the size of China and a land mass 50 times smaller than China. Would you not expect a easy quick victory for China? Yet Japan gained land in China until the very end of the war due to their superior military machine. As to why Germany won its battles against other countries. Well, it was not because the opponents it fought were "weak" but because the Germans used their newly developed Blitzkrieg tactics to destroy opposing armies. France was considered to have the best army in Europe during this time period. Yet despite having superior numbers and the defensive advantage, they were destroyed by a German blitzkrieg. During the invasion of France, Germany only suffered 163,000 casualties while defeating two million or so allied troops. And speaking of weak, America had the 13th largest army in the world in 1939. Even tiny Romania's army was larger. So France and Poland were in no way weak opponents, its just that the German war machine had been too much for them. And for your information, the Maginot line was the strongest fortification in the world at the time. France planned to fight a defensive war when WWII broke out in 1939 and therefore reinforced the Maginot line heavily. As for the Stalin line, this line was where the Soviet high command hoped to halt the German advance. Yet the Nazis simply focused on a couple main points and broke through there. After that they were able to easily encircle the rest of the Soviet troops and break through. Now obviously the Stalin line was nothing compared to the Maginot line, yet it was a series of defenses that should have made the Germans at least slow their advance. However the Wehrmacht sliced through it like bread through butter. The reason the Wehrmacht failed in Russia had nothing to do with 'lines.' It had to do with the Wehrmacht fighting battles it was not prepared for. Such examples were the battle of Moscow where they were forced to fight in a cold winter and the battle of Stalingrad, where the Nazis had to fight a house to house, street to street, floor to floor, room to room type battle. To conclude, the Nazis had 3,800,000 troops during Operation Barbarossa according to the source I believe you were using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa. Despite the fact that much of what the Axis powers in Europe controlled belonged to Italy and other minor countries, these countries all relied on Germany and Germany more or less directed the course of the war in Europe. I maintain that the Soviet contribution to the European Theater was about as great as the American contribution to the Pacific Theater and equal to the Soviet contribution in the Pacific. Yet, since the Soviets were up against much more than the US ever was, and they were facing a much more powerful opponent, I believe that the USSR played the most important role in winning the war for the allies.
Anonymous says2015-10-18T17:07:56.6409033Z
The Russians should have been destroyed by the Nazis should they have concentrated their forces.
GreatPatrioticWar says2015-10-18T17:42:57.2798335Z
I don't know. Maybe the Nazis would not have done so well had Stalin not purged his best generals before the war had begun.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.