Russia, USA and UK in WW2?

Question

Having just done a discussion on WW2 and the part the allies played, one person pointed out the contribution the Russians made - they quoted the numbers on each side and it appears the Russians gave many, many more lives than the western allies.However, some people have suggested that this credits the Soviets as the main protaganists, the main victors.
I hypothesis that the poor equiptment, training, conditions and organisation caused these deaths, and as Russia has such a huge populations, these men were fodder to the machine guns, until they got a bit better equipt. USA and UK on the other hand, were never invaded, and therefore used our superior resources to strategically strike. This I believe means that although Russia got to Berlin faster, the bombing by the UK and USA meant it was a reasonably easier route. So I still believe you can accredate the spoils equally probably weighted in favour of the UK and USA.

I hav debated this point in depth with my partner as she has the opposite view - she is Russian and learned Soviet history, as opposed to my UK history, which are sometimes very different.

Answer 1

I agree with your assessment, however, the Red Army would've reached Berlin just the same, with or without the western allies. The numbers were simply overwhelming.... consider deaths on 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

Not even on the same scale....do the math....

Answer 2

YOu can tell both your biases, and here is my US bias, if not for the US, the UK would have collapsed, and Churchill knew it, and desperatly need the US involvement, that being said, they where not equal in there strengths, the US was far superior, and could have done it alone, the UK involvement in the defeat, not holding there own as in the bttle of britian, but actually invading and pushing into the german heartland, would never had happened without the US. As to the Soviets (Russia ceased to exst in the early 1920s, it was now the Soviet Union) deserves more credit than given in defeating the Germans, Germany and USSR where close military bedfellows, in that all through the 1930s they studied together, and it wa the soviets who inspired and made the germans understand the importance of tanks and aircraft, which they accepted and bi passed the soviets in quality and quantitiy, the two where great allies, lead by two of the most egotistical and manical dictaors, who when Hitler betrayed the SOviets by Invading, seemed to be rolling easily into the Soviet heartland, until, The Soviets, regrouped, re tooled, and started hitting back, and roolled back the germans very easily by 1944, Yes the SOviets where at first out developed in equipment and whereniave in thinking Hitler was there ally, this cuased them to stagger from the initaila invasion, but once they got there footing, there superior numbers, and excellent t-34 tanks drove the muraders back to there own capital. the Soviets did waste alot of soldiers, that is true, but they had little choice, it was aall a delaying action until they where better prepared, and hitler fell for it and kept reaching further East, until his lines where so stretched, and supplies lines grinded to a meer trickle, then payback blows started and did not enduntil the fall of Berlin, which in fact was taken by both sides at the same time, Yes the soviet where first in the city, but tht was not what made the Germans surrender, it wa that they where completly surrounded, on all sides and had no where to go, thanks to all forces in Germany at the time. The soviets where the main motivators in ending the war, they pushed harder and faaster, and never let up, as the Us and UK did in the winter of 44, and the whole bulge incident happened, the soviets gave the germans no time to regroup, so yes they should get more of the credit, and they could have done it with out the US and visa versa, but much shorter time for the soviets at more losses, fightingstyles where different tht is all, same goal would be reached in the end.

Answer 3

Your hypothesis is partly correct in that the purges that were conducted by Stalin through the Russian army pre WWII resulted in the loss of all of it's best officers and commanders. That, combined with the drubbing the Russians had recived at the hands of the Finns prior to the German invasion didn't help matters either.
With France doing it's usual rolling over and waving the white flag and we Brits unable to mount an invasion of mainland Europe for quite some time after the Battle of Britain, the obvious choice for Hitler was to turn east. As you've said these poorly trained, badly led and under equipped Russian soldiers were no match for the nazi blitzkrieg to begin with. Also the high death toll relates to the fact that the nazis rarely took Russian prisoners preferring to shoot them instead and when they did take prisoners the conditions that these men were subjected to caused thousands to perish.
When the tide turned at Stalingrad and the Russian output of arms and better soldiering exceeded that of Germany, the retreating German soldiers followed a scorched earth policy which usually involved the summary execution of any Russian civillians, adding to the enormous death toll.
The big "winners" from WWII are the two non European countries, the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R. Without the sacrifices made by many of the Russian people it would have taken longer to finally defeat Hitler and a greater death toll for the western allies.

Answer 4

There is more to victory than simply winning battles. What kind of position you are in after the war is arguably more important that actually winning the war itself! (One of the primary criticisms of the U.S's second Iraq war is that it is creating more terrorists and leaving the U.S in a worse condition than before, so the U.S should just cut its losses and withdrawl.)

In this regard, the Soviet Union was a startling success. Not only were the Soviet Union's aggressions against Poland and Scandinavia virtually forgotten, but Russia was simply 'given' direct command over half of Europe. Sure they set up satellite nations, but these were simply an administrative ploy, and directly answerable to Moscow. While Britain and America were returning autonomy to the countries that they liberated, The USSR consolidated their reign over the countries they took, as if the allies had forgotten that Stalin was once Hitler's partner in crime. Stalin was merely more intelligent than Hitler in that he knew that there was no point in risking total war when the west could be much more easily duped diplomatically, as Hitler had been doing to great success prior to the outbreak of WWII.

In his memoirs, Churchill lamented on how easily Stalin manipulated Roosevelt, though even Churchill was guilty of the conciliatory attitude that let Stalin literally get away with murder.

Bringing down the Nazis was a group effort. The USSR without the Western front and U.S aid would have crumbled. And without the Russian front, it is unlikely that America could have done anything to save Britain or the rest of Europe. But in the aftermath of war, the Soviets were the clear diplomatic victor.

Answer 5

Russia's higher number of deaths doesn't make them the prime contributor to Germany's defeat. After all, Poland lost many times more lives than the US did as well. However, when you consider that between 75% and 80% of German casualties were inflicted by the Soviet Union, that makes a pretty strong case. The Soviet contribution was less that the Russians claim, but it was far greater than most in the West claim.

Answer 6

I'm not really sure what your question is as it appears you've simply stated your hypothesis of how each of the three countries performed during WW2.

Mother Russia was invaded and paid a terrible price in casualties. The huge population, the physical size of the country, the excellence of her military commanders, the weather, and the will to not be defeated of her people were primary reasons for the failure of the Nazi's to conquer her.

The U.K.'s air superiority, the excellence of the political leadership, the dedication of the people coupled with the incredible manufacturing capability of the U.S providing war materials, soldiers, and commanders stalled then reversed Nazi advances in eastern Europe.

To my way of thinking the war could have very easily had a different outcome if either the eastern or western fronts in Europe had not existed. We owe mutual thanks for the final victory.

The question of who did more, or "won" the war is moot.

Answer 7

hey dude i believe that there was an air bombing in London in WW2 which was repulsed .
U.S Pearl harbor was attacked which led to the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
The Russians(the RED ARMY) were badly equipped but fought with great courage
I Believe the Soviet Union suffered the most

Answer 8

NATO, u . s . of usa and allies win, yet at great value to lives and fiscal device. The xfactor: financial device. why did Germany lose ww2? why did usa of usa win international conflict 2? the financial element. usa replaced into able to maintain its conflict features, on a similar time as Germany and Japan weren't. the ecu and u . s . of usa mixed could greater effective than double China's and Russia's financial device. regardless of China's financial strengthen and appreciably greater protection stress, interior the long-term it does no longer practice sufficient against the financial ought to and resourcefulness of the west. yet another xfactor is nuclear weapons. the possibility of mutual annihilation has prevented their use in circumstances previous. in spite of the shown fact that, there are decrease grade nuclear weapons, inclusive of nuclear torpedoes and artillery, that could properly be used in this conflict. to no longer point out organic and organic and chemical weapons. Many, a lot of human beings could die in this concern. possibly even thousands and thousands. i think of interior the top, you may could define"win". with the aid of fact even interior the form of a NATO "win", the international financial device could be annihilated.

Answer 9

The USA entered the war relatively late - Russia had already been invaded, hadn't it? The bomb ended the war, and Russia didn't drop it.