English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have to do a History project on this topic. Please recommend any site with related information. Thanks!!

2007-01-17 23:27:50 · 9 answers · asked by Anu 2 in Arts & Humanities History

Please recommend any books or websites you know relating to the question!!

2007-01-20 23:47:01 · update #1

9 answers

Both contributed to the defeat of Hitlerite Germany. The fate of the second world war, however, rested on the outcome of Operation Barbarossa. Consider the following (deaths from both sides):

EASTERN FRONT:
Stalingrad: 1.8 million
Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
Smolensk 1941: 500,000
Kiev 1941: 400,000
Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
Belarus 1941: 370,000
2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
Caucasus 1942: 260,000
Kursk: 230,000
Lower Dnieper: 170,000
Kongsberg: 170,000
Rostov: 150,000
Budapest: 130,000
and others with less killed

Whereas on the Western Front
Battle of France 180,000
Normandy: 132,000
El Alamein: 70,000
Battle of the Bulge: 38,000

2007-01-18 07:50:36 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1 0

can't recommend any sites,but personally i believe the soviet union was more responsible, 9 out of every 10 german soldiers who died in second world war, died fighting the soviets. In the history of mankind the war between the ussr and germany was the most brutal. There was very little mercy shown from either side, because germany were defeated they failed to have a voice and because the ussr were communist they did not like to brag about the war on a international level because they did not want to be associated with weakness and possible defeat. (They renamed the city of Stalingrad because it would always be a reminder of how close they came to defeat). What i mean is that this war will never get the publicity it has deserved. In 1941 germany was a feared nation invading the ussr was a mistake. The enormity of the country and it's climate played their part in destroying this unstoppable army.

2007-01-18 14:56:34 · answer #2 · answered by catalyist 3 · 0 0

It was without a doubt the Soviet Union, by pinning down his army and resources Hitler left the Western Flank dangerously exposed. Also by invading the Soviet Union before defeating the British he allowed the British to regroup and allow the Americans to build up a large number of troops and supplies in the UK. I would have to say that had Hitler defeated Britian in 1940 that the Soviet Union would have fallen in 1941-2. So by Britian defeating the Luftwaffe in 1940 it forced Hitler to scrap his invasion plans of England and mistaknly turn his attention on the Soviet Union, and was forced to fight a war on two fronts, which is something Hitler never envisioned. It has to be remembered though that without the Royal Navy controlling the Atlantic convoys and supplies pouring into the UK and destroying Hitler's u-boats by cracking the Enigma code and the American Land-Lease program Hitler would have defeated the Soviet Union easily, as a defeated Britian would have given the Americans no oppurtunity to help launch D-Day in 1944 as Hitler would have concentrated ALL his forces on his invasion in 1941.

2007-01-18 10:05:43 · answer #3 · answered by phillip_bournemouth 2 · 0 0

It was really a combination of the USA, USSR and the UK. If England would have fallen before the US entered the war, there would have been no staging area for the invasion of France. If the USA weren't in the war, England and the USSR wouldn't have enough supplies. If the USSR didn't hold down the Eastern front, those troops would have been in France.

2007-01-25 12:05:09 · answer #4 · answered by Cuthbert J. Twillie 3 · 0 0

Personal Opinion is Russia, or as you say the Soviet Union. Hitler made the mistake of invading Russia. Russia fought back. Had Hitler not turned on Russia, then the U.S. would have been trying to fight Germany AND Russia. Also when the invasion failed and Hitler committed suicide the new leader of Germany told the German soldiers to SURRENDER TO THE U.S. They didn't want to face Russian soldiers.

2007-01-18 08:49:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Though the US sent a lot of logistical support, especially trucks and communications equipment and supplies, to the USSR, they were almost self-sufficient. The bombing by US 8th Air Force and UK Bomber Command had an impact, but not a decisive one. At no point did the Red Army fight against less than 70% of the Wehrmacht, and they ground down the Germans, so I'd give them the nod, and the combined UK/Commonwealth/US forces a fairly close second place.

2007-01-18 08:19:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

USA. If it weren't for the Lend-Lease Act and the USA providing Britian with so many armaments, the British probably would not have lasted long. Plus, the USA was instrumental with the British in establishing a 3rd front for the war - in the air - with the strategic bombing campaign.

2007-01-18 08:01:33 · answer #7 · answered by DGS 6 · 1 0

Some suspect that it was actually Britain's MI6! The theory goes that MI6 secretly fed urges for peace talks between Britain and Germany, hence causing the incident involving Rudolph Hess. By making Hitler think that Britain could be conquered through diplomacy and not war, he turned his armies onto Russia, hence cutting his forces.
While Russia was definitely a power against European Axis powers, America really helped Australia in their fight against the Japanese.

2007-01-18 07:35:50 · answer #8 · answered by Mercenary Poet 2 · 0 1

usa

2007-01-25 16:21:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers