England, Soviet Union, who was more powerful,potent,forceful,and tenacious

[SeaWolf_48]

This is a posting to poll we band of brothers , of which I believe are some of the most knowledgeable men about WW2 that I have ever had the pleasure to correspond with.

Which of Nazi Germany's opponents lead her to it's final demise (who contributed the most). The Soviet Union with it's huge army, or England/America with their large Navies, Air Forces, and Logistics. Which of the Allies took more of Germany's resources (soldiers, workforce, industry, and logistics).

According to some postings of Konstantin, he has said that The USSR took on 3/4 of the German Army and therefore took the brunt of the German wrath. I contend that, although neither Russia or England/America could have defeated Germany alone, the Western Allies destroyed the German Air Force, Navy, and Industry thus causing Germany too fall.

Which one was the major contributor to the Fall of the Third Reich? I will defend my position later.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Major contributor? ... Soviet Union.

[Comrade Trapp]

I agree......Soviet Union

Comrade Trapp

[Piumarcobaleno]

With the surrender of England in 1940, Germany would probably have eaten Urrs in the sequent years, and without suffering the bombings on the western front, probably she would have defeated Urrs. Not to speak about the (probably) missing Lend Leases once Uk\Usa were out of the war.

[Leopard]

I usually get a lot of chest-beating, flag-waving responses when I have written about this subject before, but...

At some point during WWII someone had to stand and fight the German army. No strategic retreats, or fighting withdrawls. The Red army did face the German army and defeated it. Zhukov deserves credit for taking an army heavy on manpower, light in training and experienced officers, and making it into a legendary war machine. Despite the 1937-39 purge by Stalin, which removed roughly 85-90% of the upper level officers.

Other than the USA military from 1943 or 1944 forward, this was probably the strongest military force ever assembled. And the war began near their border, eliminating many of the logistical problems of transporting an army overseas.

Were they unbeatable? Certainly not, but capturing Moscow would not have resulted in a quick victory for Germany. The German premise of "kick the door in and the whole rotton structure would collapse" applied more to themselves than to Russia.

Thankfully, we never had to see an all-out war between these 2 superpowers.

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

No brainer.

I was just finishing up Rick Atkinson's excellent An Army at Dawn (about the Allies' North African Campaign.... a fantastic and objective appraisal about that theatre; I can't recommend it enough).

He cites a report from Gen. George C. Marshall who pointed out that, as of 1943, the Soviet forces accounted for about 93% of all German casualties, despite the Allies' bombing campaigns and all other Allied military expeditions. Marshall (as well as FDR) made it a priority to show the Soviets that the United States "meant business" and was dedicated to ripping as big a chunk out of the German war machine soon as possible. Marshall was an honest leader and pointed out in the clearest of terms that -- were the USSR to fail in its crusade against the "enemy of mankind" -- Germany would be unstoppable.

Duh.

Unfortunately, the last 50-60 years of Cold War rhetoric has done its best to obscure that simple fact. Sometimes I feel that -- on this forum as well as many others -- it's practically treason to point that out. Nevertheless, it's the truth.

But so what? The U.S.A., Britain, Canada and countless other nations did enter the war against the greatest "enemy of mankind" the world has ever seen, and they did play a gallant and important part. But the Soviets did too, and every serious student of WWII needs to come to grips with that.

Here's a point I've been wanting to make since I finished Atkinson's Army At Dawn. If you get a chance to read this marvelous account of the North African campaign -- a historical work that delivers to the reader a sense of "being there" both at the lofty heights of Eisenhower as well as down on the ground with Pvt. John Smith -- you'll note somewhat sardonically that the Allied campaign was riddled with such embarassing blunders that it's difficult for the American reader to come to grips with it. It's like reading about a newbie wargamer trying to play CMBB, rushing tanks in suicidal cavalry charges, throwing infantry away like confetti... and then repeating it dozens and dozens of times. Logistically? The Americans and their British counterparts were completely and utterly outclassed by the Germans in every conceivable way. And yet the former outnumbered the latter by over three-to-one (and later, even more) in men and materiél.

So if you're one of those folks who like to say that the Soviets won by pure numbers and had the tactical savvy of a five year old on Ridalin... well... remember, it cuts both ways.

And yet.....

I found that the Allies were still heroic; that the campaign in North Africa, while literally bursting with the most ludicrous military blunders in history, was still was a truly heroic crusade. Men pulled together. Leaders pulled together.

And it happened.

The enemy of mankind was driven back by a force so disorganized and motley in character that we should all thank our lucky stars that reason prevailed and that the Allies finally began learning from their mistakes.

Did the Soviets make mistakes? Hell yes, they did. Huge mistakes, especially at the outset of Barbarossa and, yes, even when they had the numbers to finally drive the "Hun" back where he came from. Yet they, too, were tremendously heroic and deserving of praise. And yes, the trucks, metals, supplies and canned "Spam" we sent them were important.... but it doesn't hold a candle to the lone Russian soldier who still had to pull the trigger. They did their job well and -- as terrible as it may be to our own fragile egos -- so did the Soviet leadership.

The truth is the truth. I, for one, continue to hope that the truth hasn't become "anti-American" just yet. At times, from the tone of these forums, I oft think that it has. Let us all hope that I'm wrong, for never has a man wanted to be more wrong in his life.

[Liam]

Well, I have often brought it up in other forums with WW2 talk. The Russians were the brawn and that's a fact. Though Definitely without Britian holding it's shores in 1940 and allowing for a dagger in the Theird Reich's back it wouldn't have been possible for Russia to have such an easy victory after Stalingrad.

Russians lost 15-35 million? We lost what not more than a few hundred thousand with all of our Allies? The Western Allies may have pushed a Million plus casaulties, MAYBE including the Pacific...Doubtful in Europe though...

Also Russian frontier was aflame and the war really hit home for them. It shocks me a people under such a Evil Regime as Stalin fought so hard, I suppos Hitler was that much more evil in comparison

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

Originally posted by Liam:

It shocks me a people under such a Evil Regime as Stalin fought so hard,....

Mayhaps it wasn't as evil as it is reported to be; after all, prior to the war, Soviet media often referred to FDR as a capitalist warmonger who wanted nothing more in life than to seize every kopek out of everyone's pocket and then enslave all working men. The comments -- almost daily in the ten years prior to WWII -- would lead you to believe that every white American still had African slaves underfoot, serving their every whim. And this was downright kind in comparison to the stuff they said about Churchill. Winston was a stone-cold killer who would stop at nothing to wring every working man's neck.

Were they correct?

Ummm...obviously not. But it did serve their interests, eh? You bet it did.

Mayhap our own characterization of alternative economic systems serves our own interests. I mean,... what if?

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Liam:

It shocks me a people under such a Evil Regime as Stalin fought so hard, I suppos Hitler was that much more evil in comparison

From what I have heard that was an Axis mistake. If Germany had not plundered, raped and murdered russians then the people of Russia might have welcomed Germans as saviors. A civil war might have started with communists against democrats. Stalin barely got away, thanks to turning it to "defend your homes gainst the invaders". Many Russians surely wanted the Stalin empire of terror to collapse. The russian communists have killed more ppl than the nazis did.

[ May 06, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

The Soviet Union of course.

I don't have the exact figures on hand, but think of this.

June 6, 1944: 3.1 Million German Soldiers were fighting on the Eastern Front. What would have happened to D-Day if they weren't?

Of course it was the Allies that won the war.

Such things as the air campaign against Germany's oil refineries did have an effect on the Eastern Front and of course drew off the Luftwaffe for the defense of the Reich.

Fear of a second front forced Hitler to maintain excellent units in the west, that could have made it harder for the USSR to crush the wehrmacht so totally.

Those are two major points and there are many more.

Allied victory in WWII was a combination of the USA, USSR and Britian. Each played an important role and all deserve to be remembered with honour.

[SeaWolf_48]

I've been doing analysis about German statics during WW2, and your going to be surprised. Will complete posting tomarrow.

[disorder]

seawolf--

Which of Nazi Germany's opponents lead her to it's final demise (who contributed the most).

who contributed the most?

russia- contributed the most dead from any country

u.s.- contributed the most money and equipment

poland-- however contributed the most of everything territory...people...resources...everything gone. and this has to definitely offset the previous statement regarding russia.

russians sit back and talk of the great contributions to ww2, and granted they were great , but they seem on the other hand, unable to talk of their part in starting ww2.

russians would have been very happy campers to split poland with the germans, send it's inhabitants to the far north, and call it quits.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 1939

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

"the russian hatred of the west resulted in

Both the Soviets and the Nazis believed the pact would deter any intervention from the west coming to the aide of Poland, leaving Poland to be carved up between the aggressors. But the British signed a Mutual-Assistance pact with Poland on the 25th of August, the very same day that Hitler had planned to invade Poland. Hitler delayed his plans for invasion and reverted back to negotiating with Poland, with regard to access, in the hope of avoiding an all out confrontation with the powers in the west, again because of his armed forces not being battle ready to face Britain and France in a full scale conflict." this quote is from this web page poland invasion

suddenly the agreement is reniged upon by germany,(the backstabber is backstabbed) and after russia is invaded,we hear of the atrocities, of the millions killed, of an entire generation wasted and slain by the germans. the cries of martyrdom would be much easier to listen to IMHO, if we heard on the other hand comments regarding the greedy high-handedness by the russians that helped kick off ww2.

and while officially "at war" the west fumbles around waiting for mr. hitler to make another move. :eek: at the time when 5 produce trucks full of farmers coming from the west of europe into berlin could have ended the war, drivel about "2nd chances for peace" were being circulated by the french. and this at the time when they had more men under arms than germany!

again---

contributed the most combat dead--russia

contributed the most equipment and money-us

contributed absolutely everything-poland

[JerseyJohn]

I've found that the more I learn about the Second World War the less certain I am about things I once considered forgone conclusions.

First, I'm certain that Germany lost it's war by being bled white in the Soviet Union. Having said that, I have to also state Germany could just as easily have won it's war there. Going back to square one I think the most probable result ought to have been a deadlock with the revised border being very similar to that which was agreed upon at Brest-Litovsk in 1918!

That would have run from west of Lenningrad south, with the westernmost Soviet cities being Lenningrad, Smolensk, Voronezh and Rostov; Germany would have occupied all points west and Russia all points east. I think that line would have represented the most natural point if both sides had fought without the huge mutual disasters such as the Kiev Pocket and Stalingrad.

From there Germany, with it's pointlessly severe nazi methods, would have found it difficult to govern the conquered territories. If the war then dragged on in the West and Mediteranean, a resumption of hostilities taking the form of a Soviet invasion, after she'd made good her earlier losses, would have been a likelihood.

Meanwhile, in the West, I no longer feel as sure as I once did that Germany could ever have mounted a successful SeaLion. The best chance would have been while she was a peace with the USSR and before the U. S. had entered the war.

Ideally, I believe Germany stood a good chance of winning the Battle of the Atlantic if not also at war with the USSR. If Barbarossa hadn't taken place Germany would have possessed an abundance of oil and raw materials in trade with Russia. Assuming she could have sank enough British merchant shipping to prevent Britain from making good it's losses, Germany might then have been able to build a truly crushing advantage in Air stregnth. At that point, with the North Sea and Cornwall entrance to the English Channel off limits to the Royal Navy and German air superiotity attained over southern England, an invasion might well have been possible. Along the way Germany would have needed to develop suitable landing craft and landing tactics. No doubt they'd have also expanded the paratroop corps and incorporated massive drops behind the British beach defenses. I see this as happening around June of 1942 with both, the United States and the USSR, still neutral.

[ May 06, 2003, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Night]

The way I see it, If any of them hadn't have fought with Germany, Germany might have beaten the others. However, If Britain was not at war with Germany at the time it invaded the Soviet Union, and the US not entered shortly after, Germany would have beaten Russia Hands down. Everyone talks about how Russia made a glorious comeback and defeated the German's decisivly, and this is true, but consider just how close the German's were to winning... they were after all basicly at the gates of Moscow, Nearly caused Stalingrad to fall, conquered all but the last cities in western Russia, and decimated the Russin's for about 2 years straight. Had Germany not been locked in a struggle in the skies over Britian and later France/Germany, not to mention didn't need it's large force in France, Italy, etc. to try and fend off the Western Allies, Most of those forces would have been fighting in Russia, and def. would have made a difference.

On the same token, if Hitler had never invaded the Soviet Union, His force's very well could have overwhelmed Britian and possibly invaded in some time. The one thing that stick's out in my mind as a deciding factor is the large Royal Navy that would have protected the Home Isle to the death. Draw your own conculsion's, but all of them were needed to defeat Germany if you ask me.

[JerseyJohn]

In the thirties Hitler consistently told his generals he wouldn't consider entering a two front war. He often criticized the Kaiser for deliberately entering into one.

His intent in 1940 was to either defeat Britain outright or sign a negotiated peace with her so he could invade Russia withouth worrying about fighting at his rear.

When he invaded the USSR in 1941 he told his generals that Germany was not really fighting a two front war because England was not an offensive threat. At the time there was considerable truth to this.

Then the Mediteranean became a drain and, after the United States entered, it developed into a second front with the constant threat of a third front either in France or Norway. By June 1944, with the loss of half of Italy and the invasion of France, Germany was in effect dividing it's forces in three directions in addition to the constant drain on her resources caused by the air war.

I'd have to say it was this scattering of her army and air force that caused her defeat. If Russia could have been cleanly defeated in 1942 or even 1943, enabling Germany to turn everything West and to the Mediteranean it's difficult to see how Britain and the United States could have succeeded. Conversely, if Britain had sued for peace and the United States hadn't entered Russia's fate would have been sealed. It's almost like a bear being torn at from three directions by determined hunting dogs.

[Liam]

The Wermacht outclassed the Russian Military. Despite it's size and it's ability to reorganize so fast. Perhaps the Germans had so much success early on they became over confidant and didn't think Russia would be able to mount a counter in '41 Winter and Stalingrad throughout the next year. The Germans had pretty much run their fuel tanks dry like they had in France. You know how you get when you win soooooo much, you want to savour your victories awhile. Shouldn't have done that with Stalin...It was a bit of luck the Winter was harsh, a bit of luck that the German's turned south from Moscow which if nothing else was a center of leadership and transportation for USSR.

I think with a fall of Moscow, a longterm Siege of Leningrad throughout '42 finally falling to overwhelming bombardment and #s... Leaving the South to a slow and steady forward assualt rather than a stabbing easily flanked one would be key. I say that the War had to be decided in Moscow in 1941 before the harsh winter months hit. A bit of a chance after in the Next Summer Offensive...

The German's really couldn't afford to gamble anymore at this point. They'd make mistakes with preparation for Cold Weather and underestimating Russian resolve. They also gave the Russians with superior manpower the training they needed to launch such successful counteroffensives. Blitzkrieg was nolonger a new war in 1942-43... It was figured out by the Allies.

I still say Russia paid in full

The US contributed mainly because she kept the Japanese honest. The Brits contributed, by keeping Hitler out of their Industry...empire and ultimately by their own significant victories despite the loss of Tobruk. After BOP the Brits were pretty Saavy with their American friends they at least made the German's believe that strategic bombing was a real threat and and a 2nd front was also...

[Terry]

The question is an interesting one. My answer would be that all 3 of the primary allies were required equally to defeat Germany. In short, Britain provided the will, the USSR the men and the USA the mateirals.

If Britain had surrenderd or come to a non-aggression pact in 1940 it is difficult to see how the USSR would have resisted the intial onslaught and the US would have had no subsequent 'gateway' to Europe. An non- aggression pact is not as unlikely as it sounds. Churchill only became PM becuse of the opposition parties insistence that the Conservative party's first choice, Lord Halifax, was not suitable as it was believed he seriously considered a compromise with Hitler, who openly admired the British Empire and felt London should have been a natural ally against Bolshevism. Indeed, although the leading Tory statesman, Halifax was deliberatley omitted from the new goverment and instead posted as the GB ambassador to Washington. Britian's military achievements were small but it was the only country at war with Germany all the way from '39. It should be remebered that Germany declared war on the US not the other way round.

The US was absolutely vital, even from 1940, as the wars bankroller and supplier of materials. Although the US public was largely against intervemtion Rosevelt was clear from day 1 where his interests, and ultimately America's, lay. Lendlease, the occupation of Iceland, US Navy patrols on the seaboard were all critical to British survival in 1940 & 1941. Subsequently the USSR was heavily dependent on US supplies, and the US was given the primary responsibility of wearing down Japan. After EL Alamein the US was the chief partner in the Anglo-British alliance, as illustrated in Overlord.

The USSR paid for victory with life - approx 20-30m soldiers and civilains. From a military perspective it was indeed the Red Army that eventually crushed the majority of the German land forces. However, war is also about economic and morale factors and it would not have got by without its partners. Even after the 6th Army was crushed at Stalingrad, the USSR was desperate for a second front.

So I'd say it Churchill's will, Rosevelt's wallet and Stalin's soul that won the war for the allies. Take anyone of those out of the equation and there was a serious, almost likley, threat of a New Order in Europe.

[Liam]

One thing to give the British as well as full Service since '39 was their Empire... They paid in full for victory of Germany...Economically, and as a world power. what did stalin call them, in that A&E special, "Little Dog."

[SeaWolf_48]

This has been a fun exersize, picking the brains of so many devoted history buffs.

Terry's sumation that Germany's defeat was an allied coordinated effort is very insightful:

So I'd say it Churchill's will, Rosevelt's wallet and Stalin's soul that won the war for the allies. Take anyone of those out of the equation and there was a serious, almost likley, threat of a New Order in Europe.

Jersey John has made the point from the East coast:

I'd have to say it was this scattering of her army and air force that caused her defeat. He also has said: First, I'm certain that Germany lost it's war by being bled white in the Soviet Union.

Night has given us some light and is quoted here by saying:

Draw your own conculsion's, but all of them were needed to defeat Germany if you ask me.

Our well-kept friend Disorder is making the point that Poland is never considered when the subject is discussed:

contributed the most combat dead--russia

contributed the most equipment and money-us

contributed absolutely everything-poland

Noted friend, Komrade, and scholar Konstantin is quoted here by saying:

The Soviet Union of course

and later a very truly touching comment:

Allied victory in WWII was a combination of the USA, USSR and Britian. Each played an important role and all deserve to be remembered with honour.

Liam our destinguished Irish guest and speaker has so eloquently spoken:

The Russians were the brawn and that's a fact. Though Definitely without Britian holding it's shores in 1940 and allowing for a dagger in the Theird Reich's back it wouldn't have been possible for Russia to have such an easy victory after Stalingrad.

A little quote from Hol-zem-frum-floppen

And yes, the trucks, metals, supplies and canned "Spam" we sent them were important.... but it doesn't hold a candle to the lone Russian soldier who still had to pull the trigger. They did their job well and -- as terrible as it may be to our own fragile egos -- so did the Soviet leadership.

Shaka and Trapp have said:

Major contributor? ... Soviet Union. And, I agree......Soviet Union

Piumarobaleno "Mr Alphabet" says:

With the surrender of England in 1940, Germany would probably have eaten Urrs in the sequent years

Leopard is quoted here by saying:

At some point during WWII someone had to stand and fight the German army. No strategic retreats, or fighting withdrawls. The Red army did face the German army and defeated it.

Wow, great statements, with gusto and deep pathos.

For the most part we all feel that the Soviet Army took the brunt of the German sword, so let's look at the stat's.

After france's fall in June of 1940 England stood alone for one year against Germany with approximately 7.0 million Military men, and Italy with about 1.5 million, a total of 8.5 mil men. They fought the Axis in four main areas of conflict: 1) The Mediterranian 2) The North Atlantic 3) The Skies over Europe, and 4) Western Europe including Norway. Help did not come to them until Germany attacked Russia in June of '41, and later in December when Japan attacked the US and American became her best ally (giving England, food, arms, fuel, and men ,for free).

Germany after losing the Battle of Britian turned her intrest to Life-Space in Russia. She attack the USSR with 3.0 mil soldiers, and .5 mil allies. Germany had another 1.0 mil soldiers in the rest of Europe (Balkins, North Africa, France, Norway, Home Guard, and Occupied countries). She had another 1.5 mil men in uniform with the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine, plus the ever growing Anti-Aircraft Divisions. Most of the Luftwaffe was fighting against England until Barbarrosa, then 75% were sent to support the Eastern Front. As the Bombing campaign increased over Germany, by 1943 80% of the LW was protecting Western cities in Fusteng Europa (that was 1.0 men).

In the Atlantic Germany and Great Britian and later the US were fighting a gigantic battle for control of the sea's. Half a million Germans were imployed with the Navy. 1200 Submarines built, several surface ships (mostly all sunk at the end of the war), and Navel Reccon of the Atlantic Wall shoreline by small ships and airplanes.

Also in 1944 40% of German production was for Anti-Aircraft Guns. That was a huge strain on their economy, and obviously wasn't helping in Russia.

So as you can see England and the US were tying down 2.5 Million German Military in the four areas I mentioned above, while 3.2 Million Germans were in Russia. Of the 2.5 million men that OHW had to have in the West and Med Theaters, most of the said above military were specialized with special training and high-tech expensive equipment. Submarine crews were the cream of the german crop, Luftwaffe air crew for night fighters and day interceptors were the young and talented (all with perfect eye sight). The industry that supported the Navy, Air Force and Anti-Air Defence in Germany was taking a majority of it's defence economy (some military writers like H. A. Jacobson estimate that the Western Allies were tying up 70% of German products of military industry to used against them).

Here my point, although we all agree that Russia was a meatgrinder, chewing up large numbers of young germans, at the same time the western allies were holding down 2.5 million Germans and 1.5 million Italians, that's 4.0 million combatants, more than the Eastern front. Also the majority of Germany's military economic output was going toward the west and not the east. This is not to mention the horrific bombing that Germany recieved from Allied Strategic Bombers crippling hugh resources,industry and civilians; and the huge resources involved in scientific research and espionage used primarilly against the Western Allies.

Summary: Germany turned east for an easier target after being defeated by British Air Forces and seeing that invading England was imposible because of The Royal Navy, the Western allies faced equal amounts of Axis Combatants, and Germany's biggest economy strained was caused by fighting the Air, Sea, and Land battles in the West (after Normandy Germany's attention was with france and not Russia, proved by the quality of Divisions used in both Theaters).

Okay, I done, finished, then who was more of an opponent? Pretty much equal in my estimation! For Germany, Russia took more blood, and in the West it took more Industrial Manpower. As Konstantin has said about the Big Three, "all deserve to be remembered with honor".

[ May 07, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[xwormwood]

Which of Nazi Germany's opponents lead her to it's final demise (who contributed the most). The Soviet Union with it's huge army, or England/America with their large Navies, Air Forces, and Logistics. Which of the Allies took more of Germany's resources (soldiers, workforce, industry, and logistics

Russia, without any doubt. Russia, RUSSIA and of course Hitler. Maybe you have to live in Germany or Russia for a while to understand this. The US needed the UK to fight Germany, and the UK needed the US to survive, but without Russia everything would have been lost. And for Germany everything was lost when Hitler decided to lead his armies without his generals ("this is easy work, i can do this stuff on my own, no need for generals, move aside!")

[Kuniworth]

FACTS;

Losses;

Soviet union 25 million + 14 million crippled

UK 300k

usa 366K

German losses;

6,25 million - 9 of 10 german soliders killed on the east front.

CONCLUSION/MAIN CONTRIBUTOR; Soviet union

[ May 07, 2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Not 25 million Soldiers, it was only 10 million.(lol)

And because of the waste of trading men for bullets it should have only been around 4.0 million.

[ May 07, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Liam]

Manpower isn't the only indicator! The French were notorious throughout history for raising large armies but they never got the English good did they? Fact ultimately they were defeated by the Prussian #s and the English leadership and superior training... I don't think you can give it all to one side but the figures speak for themselves, in loss of life!!! WHEN!!! England/US could've opened up a front in France earlier than '44 that Stalin was peed at the whole time over...

Total Losses in Thousands

Military Civilian Total % of population

Ukraine 2,500 5,500 8,000 19.1

Germany 4,500 2,000 6,500 9.1

Russia (RSFSR) * 1,781 4,000 5,781 (?) 2.9

Poland 123 4,877 5,000 19.6

Japan 2,000 350 2,350 3.4

Yugoslavia 300 1,400 1,700 10.6

France 250 350 600 1.5

Italy 400 100 500 1.1

Romania 300 200 500 3.7

Greece 100 350 450 6.2

Hungary 136 294 430 4.6

Great Britain 290 60 350 0.7

Czechoslovakia 46 294 340 3.0

Austria 270 104 374 5.6

USA 300 - 300 0.2

Holland 12 198 210 2.4

Finland 84 16 100 2.7

Belgium 13 75 88 1.1

Canada 42 - 42 0.4

* This estimate of Russian losses does not include citizens of ByeloRussia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,

Source: Ukraine During World War II 1938-1945, by V. Kusyk, Kyiv-Paris-New York-Toronto, 1992, p. 702. B. Urlanis Guerres et populations, Moscou 1975, p. 319-323; Das Dritte Reich (Muenchen 1985) Band 2. S. 404.

[xwormwood]

SeaWolf_48

Please forgive me when i stabb a little in your post

Help did not come to them until Germany attacked Russia in June of '41, and later in December when Japan attacked the US and American became her best ally (giving England, food, arms, fuel, and men ,for free

You forgot to mention that England already recieved massive help from the US months before Uncle Sam finaly entered the war in December 1941!

And i see a big difference in "tying down" troops and fighting against fanatic troops.

Submarine crews were the cream of the german crop

We are talking about 40000 men, and in 1944 the cream served surely not in Kriegsmarine anymore

This is not to mention the horrific bombing that Germany recieved from Allied Strategic Bombers crippling hugh resources,industry and civilians

bombing the civilians prolonged the war (look what happend when these evil maniacs "bombed" the US in 2001). I guess you should subtract this war effort from your "why the allies won the war"-list

after Normandy Germany's attention was with france and not Russia, proved by the quality of Divisions used in both Theaters

The best german armies were already buried or starving as POWs in Russia when the Allies finaly started D-Day.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Great summation and I enjoyed the way you quoted virtually everyone.

I knew the AA defenses tied up an average of 1,000,000 Germans in the later years but didn't realize such large numbers of other categories were tied up in the West. It's always good to learn something new.