What country did the most to win world war 2?

Answer 1

We can't actually measure what country did the most, but in terms of effort, I would like to say that Germany did the most to try to win. Of course, each country involved seemed to make many sacrifices and spread propaganda saying that it works so hard to stop the other side, which is evil to them. However, it seems Germany had hardly any useful allies (Italy's Mussolini actually seemed like a hindrance rather than a help with his hunger for power, while Japan's Tojo didn't directly help with the European front and had its own agenda, and the Soviet Union's Stalin was a relunctant ally who later went to the other side anyway), and was surrounded on all of its sides by enemy (or close to enemy) states. Indeed, it conquered most of Europe even after it had gone through an economic depression and much loss after its failure in World War I. It seems amazing that at the beginning of World War II, Hitler didn't even put his country into total war mode; that is, he didn't force everything into wartime production. He thought that he shouldn't worry his German people too much, and that the war would be a piece of cake. Indeed, they seemed efficient in their fast blitzkrieg tactics and conquering of European lands. They even had time for other, less directly related goals, such as the Holocaust. However, it's Hitler's tactical errors--particularly those during and after the time of the Battle of Stalingrad--that made the Germans lose the war. The Allies eventually defeated them, and it seems that Germany's formidability made World War II a war to remember for Westerners.

Answer 2

Hmmm how to answer that question. Did the most to win? or had the greatest impact on winning?

Either way you slice it, France is the absolute bottom of the list.

You could say the Britain did the most, they were in the fight much longer and were dealt more severe blows, but they did not have enough by themselves to win. On the other hand America did the most in effect, without their involvment, Britain would have fallen eventually.
Germany did a number of things most notably invading Russia to hurt themselves, had Germany not invaded Russia (or Russia had not defeated them by burning their own cities), it is possible though not likely that they would have been able to repel an American invasion. Either way it defeinately hurt them.

But the single most, however small thing that proably had the greatest pound for pound impact on the outcome of the war was probably Japan.

Had they not bombed Pearl Harbor and drawn us into the war things would have undoubtedly been different.

Answer 3

Germany did the most, they took everyone on.

But if you mean the allies, the winners then Russia pretty much did it single handedly, the Germans were pushed back from stalingrad in 1942 right until the end. The Germans got as far as Stalingrad probably becasue many Russian Generals had been executed in a reorganisation of the Russian army. The Russian push back at the Germans was assisted by the British in the desert cutting off a big oil supply.

The combined forces that entered the war at the end pretty much did the mopping up of the weakest German forces in the west and was more interested in stopping Russia from taking Europe than fighting the Germans.

Though had England not held out during the battle of britain then we would probably be communist Europe.

Answer 4

Britain had already repulsed the German attacks on it by the time the USA got involved, but doubtless they had a lot to do with beating back the Germans out of mainland Europe. I still think though that had they not entered the Russians, whose front line against Germany was much bloodier, would have beaten the Germans eventually. The Germans were fighting a war on two fronts, they didn't have enough resources to fight the Russians and try to conquer Britain again. The Russians killed more Germans than anyone else.

That's the war in Europe though, the US had little to do with beating the Rommel and the Italians in Africa, and still not as much to do with attacking Italy.

I think it's hard to say who contributed more; in terms of numbers America; in terms of who fought the bloodiest battles, Russia; and in terms of effort, Great Britain. In the end they were all crucial partners in beating the Germans.

Answer 5

I'd say Germany, but they bit off more than they could chew too many times, taking on Russia ill-prepared for the cold, while also at war with Britain. Developing highly advanced aircraft with too much funding, that could have been spent on supplies for the troops on the Western front. Attacking Britain's airfields, almost destroying the RAF and then beginning a campaign against Britain's cities. If they took a more methodical route, they might have won.

Answer 6

Actually the US and Britian. The US provided a huge majority of the weapons, munitions, soldiers and supplys to the main allied countries after 1942. If it wasn't for the US providing the supplies and manpower, especially the supplies to the Soviets, the war would have lasted longer - same outcome - but would've lasted longer and possibly the Soviet Union would have fallen. Hitler had brilliant generals, but he lacked the manpower and the industry to win.

Answer 7

Without any doubt, the USA.

The Russian made a huge contribution in Europe, but the war in the Pacific was fought by the Americans and allies.

Answer 8

Germany

Answer 9

The United States declared war on Germany. Everyone who entered the war against Germany, became our ally.

Answer 10

The UK, Russia and the US.
They all gave Germany and the opposition hell. Considering Russia was considered weak in the earlier part of the century, they showed the world they weren't to be messed with. US helped with sheer brute force and the amount of troops. Uk helped with force and tactics. I think if one of these countries were not involved Germany and its allies would have won.