What Country Was most importaint to winning WWII

[chancellor_dan]

Britain - no arguement. We hung on whilst the useless french capitulated.

 

[nonconformist]

I wouldn't call the French useless, unless I was ignorant. The French Poilus sustained heavy casualties. On a tactical side, the French blundered. However, they fought hard so the English could escape from Dunkerque. Then they fought in the Battle of Britain. And took part on commando raids. And landed on D-Day. And assasinated, held up and otherwise irritated Germans usingn the resistance. Remeber that France is on a land border to Germany, while Britain would need to cross a hundred or so (?) miles over the Channel.

 

[chancellor_dan]

And many collaborated with the Nazis. And conviently declared themselves heroes and resisters only once the German war effort was on the wane....still, atleast they resisted....many of their countrymen joined the Waffen SS. France got what she deserved after betraying the Czechs which she allied with such was her anti-german feeling...even though she had been a driving force in crippling Germany in Versailles in 1919.

 

[Verbose]

Yes, wouldn't it have been preferable, from a traditional British perspective, if France, the old arch-enemy, had joined up with the Germans from the word "Go"? Then at least the French position in WWII would have made some kind of sense to them.

 

[nonconformist]

And many collaborated with the Nazis. And conviently declared themselves heroes and resisters only once the German war effort was on the wane....still, atleast they resisted....many of their countrymen joined the Waffen SS. France got what she deserved after betraying the Czechs which she allied with such was her anti-german feeling...even though she had been a driving force in crippling Germany in Versailles in 1919.

Like none of that applied to Britain. Collaborators were found everywhere; France, Holland, Germany, Belium, even Britain.
Conviniantly declared themselves resistants? Maybe. But there was one way to find out. Every member of the resistance (So I believe) was issued with an ID card from the FFI that ensured cooperation from the liberators and public. I know. I have a preserved example with my Grandfather's name on it at home.
Betraying the Czechs? Don't tell me you don't belive Britain had no part in that . Chamberlain was as much, if not more, a part of the appeasement.
Waffen SS. Yep, Division Charlemagne. Sort of like the British Waffen divison the Legion of St. George later renamed the Britische Freikorps.
I really don't see how all of this pertains to France being useless.

 

[privatehudson]

Hmmm

I side mostly with nonconformist here in that the French were victims of bad geography and bad tactics in WWII. We had geography on our side, but I imagine if it hadn't been for the channel, we'd have capitulated and been in your words CD useless. Our performance in 1940 was hardly much better after all

I think on comparing the Charlemenge SS to the Legion of St George: The legion probably had no more than 30 members at any one time and no British officers, most of it's members were also rear-echelon troops. However it's probable that this figure would have been higher had the UK been overrun also. The French SS, like many non-germans in the German forces served for many reasons, some were nazis, others were anti-communists. Either way it is quite unfair to label the race usless and collaborators based on these small numbers of troops.

It's true that France sold the Czechs down the river, especially as she had a series of treaties with her at the time, but it's also true that the British were right alongside agreeing with it every step of the way. As for mass colaboration, you have to be realistic about these things. Many in France had to simply "collaborate" just to survive the war, even if that was just not being in the resistance or selling goods and working for the germans. Realisation of who ran the country then and doing what you had to in order to survive is not IMO collaboration.

 

[nonconformist]

Okay, comparing Charlemane to the Legion of St. George was slightly far fetched, but it was just an example to show how even the British "collaborated".

 

[chancellor_dan]

Verbose - No, most preferable would be an Anglo-German alliance against the French.
Regarding our part in the Czech crisis...We tried to appease Hitler yes, but it was the French, not the British who promised to protect the Czechs from German aggression...Britain told France that we would not support her in a war with Germany over the Czechs, and cowardly France sacrificed an ally in the Czechs because she couldnt rely on help from across the channel. The nation we vowed to protect was Poland. 1st September 1939 ...the rest, as they say, is history...

 

[privatehudson]

The Czech issue is an interesting one, however, though the French were acting appalingly, the British were acting no better. By refusing to back the French on the issue we colluded in the act of betrayal. It's unfair to blame the French solely for it because of that.

I also don't quite see what's so preferable about allying with the Nazis against the French

 

[chancellor_dan]

Why should we have backed the French? I recently produced a dissertation of British foreign policy during the 1930's and though i was critical of appeasement, Chamberlain was true in refering to the czechs as 'a far away country of which we no little'. You're ,issing the point in the sense that we didnt have the protection pact with the czechs, the french did. Also, why were we 'betraying' the french by not standing by them? In Britain during this time there was a lot of sympathy for Germany, a feeling that Hitler's grievances were just. Many people felt we shouldnt allow ourselves to be dictated by French policy.

 

[SunkenCiv]

In your opinion what country do you think is the most importaint country to the cause of WWII.

Germany. Hitler didn't have any grasp of strategy or tactics. But seriously, I agree with those who say all three played a role. The British held off the German grab for the oil supply. Had the Germans wrapped that up successfully, over time the British navy would have ceased to operate. As it was, Hitler didn't think of things, only dates, as being the objective. "Finish job A by such and such a date, or face the consequences."

The USSR (and its climate) ate up the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht, and for the first few years of that Heinz Guderian was reading the newspaper at home because Hitler didn't like him. But it took four years. Japan was engaged in a huge land war in China (had been for nearly ten years) and didn't need another enemy to fight. The USSR pulled 70 divisions out of the east after Molotov (I think it was) assured Stalin that Japan would abide by the pre-Soviet treaty it had with Russia. So the USSR was able to throw 70 new divisions against Operation Barbarrosa in very short order. Every truck and train rolled west fully loaded and returned (eventually) nearly empty.

The USSR kept insisting on having US Lend-Lease extended to itself, and eventually that took place. The USSR got a bunch of P38s out of that deal, along with various other provisions, ammo, arms, planes. And the USSR copied or built a lot of weapons systems, and of course poured out millions of lives. It's surprising in a way that the Germans were able to maintain such a long front against such a huge numerical superiority in such a terrible climate. Very high output machine guns were one of the ways they were able to do that.

The US was the arsenal, and of course sent 16 million into service (over 400,000 died; the USSR lost perhaps fifty times that many). The naval war against Japan covered (theoretically) half the world's surface and brought about the end of the Japanese occupation of China.

The convoy ships to keep Britain supplied were cranked out so quickly that Hitler reportedly remarked that the war was lost because they couldn't sink them fast enough (Hitler remarked that the war was lost a number of times). Chrysler built 30,000 tanks. The US built the amphibious landing vessels for D-day and 10s of 1000s of planes.

And now I'd have to add China to the list, since China's war with Japan went on a lot longer than did WWII and tied up large numbers of troops. Japan's naval tactics were a little dopey, regardless of the fact that the Japanese had no idea their codes had been broken.

Japan brought the US into the war in earnest with its Dec 7 attack, after a long series of embargos (scrap & oil) by FDR over Japanese conduct in the Far East. Dec 7 probably was the one day that had the most crucial importance in the entire war. Over time the European war would have wound down, probably to a negotiated armistice, because Britain didn't have the will or the means to reenter the land war against Germany. Germany's war of attrition in the east would have been even more costly to the USSR (the ratio of losses was perhaps 10:1 in favor of Germany) and would not have been sustainable. Elsewhere in Europe, Germany fought only low-grade guerrila wars until the invasion of Italy.

 

[happy_Alex]

, I agree with those who say all three played a role.

Yes but the question is which country played the greatest role in winning. Britain obviously. Firstly, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the USSR was allied to Germany until operation Barbarossa, supplying oil and rubber to Germany, without which the campaign in the West would have been uterly impossible. So USSRs contribution was to extend the conflict quite substantially.

Secondly, had the UK not held out, Americas industrial might, as you correctly pointed out, would not have matched that of a mobilised and combined war economy of Russia and Europe under German domination. Added to this German war technology was in advance of the US (and don't even think of mentioning the A' bomb as Britian supplied all of the original research to the Americans which made it s building possible, on the promise that they would share the results, a promise they later went back on). In any case, why do we assume that America would have joined? Japan and then Hitler declared war, not the other way around. Do we have to assume that America would not have preferred peace with Germany? That they would not have is complete historical revisionism!


Thirdly, the political determination that Britain bought turned the fight against Facism into a global crusade, and the example set led many Americans into sympathy for the Allied cause. After the fall of France Britain and the Empire stood virtually alone. By the end of the war every remaining nation had joined the fight. (I think) Even Brazil sent 4000 troops to fight in Italy.

Once appeasment ended, we got stuck in. Shame the French didn't or we could have ended it sooner.

It's Britain and you all know it.

Get over it.

 

[happy_Alex]

May have been a patriot, or blind to what was really going on. A lot of German scientists worked for the Americans and Russians after the war so it may have been a money thing or they just loved doing their job.

What? blind? to building flybombs? to concentration camp slave labour? Why can't some one be clever and evil. Intelligence is not about morality.

 

[nonconformist]

When someone thinks they are doing something right, they become blind to the truth.

 

[happy_Alex]

hey, define 'right' and 'truth' ...

 

[SunkenCiv]

Yes but the question is which country played the greatest role in winning.

In that case, Germany.

Britain was able to resist because of US aid and Hitler's indifference to a cross-channel invasion. Britain was content letting Germany use itself up in the USSR, another foolish error by Hitler, while opposing Germany's navy, and on land only in north Africa.

Had Hitler bided his time, there would have been no future for an independent Britain, because as you mentioned, Hitler had an oil supply. Germany would have had time to build a massive navy and fully mobilize. Oops.

 

[rilnator]

What? blind? to building flybombs? to concentration camp slave labour? Why can't some one be clever and evil. Intelligence is not about morality.

I don't think the use of the V1 and V2s was a war crime. Although they were launched indiscriminately at London it's was no worse than what the German cities got.

 

[happy_Alex]

In that case, Germany.

Britain was able to resist because of US aid and Hitler's indifference to a cross-channel invasion.
Had Hitler bided his time, there would have been no future for an independent QUOTE]

Oops shmoops.

You can't state Germany as a a country in important to winning the war for obvious reasons.

Hitler wasen't indifferent to a cross chanel invasion. He was actually very keen on it. He only appeared indifferent after the attempt failed. "well we were never really serious about it anyway" kind of attitude.

In any case, were talking about which country was the most important factor: not what would have happened if any country had to fight the war themselves.

 

[chancellor_dan]

Actually, Hitler hoped Britain would exit the war in 1940 after France's cowardly surrender, thus Operation Sealion wouldnt have to take place and all Germany's efforts concentrated in the East. Even if an invasion did take place, i dont see how there would have been no place for an independent Britain....the Germans would have withdrawn in time.

 

[nonconformist]

hey, define 'right' and 'truth' ...

If you think murdering prisoners or civilians is right, because you have been thoroughly indoctrinated, you become blind to the fact that it is criminal.