Which country contributed most to the Allied Victory?

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#1

Hello,

I got the idea for this thread while reading another thread “Who won World War II” on our glorious forum. While I absolutely agree that the war was won as a coalition, I believe different countries contributed differently for the victory. Let’s say France and England both are considered to be Allies, and yet we know that these nations had very different roles. There are of course specific reasons for it, which are of secondary importance for this discussion. It just illustrates that one can not just boldly say “we won together” and think that it explains all of it. One who wants to understand what really happened should try to examine the facts, hopefully putting aside prejudices and reservations.

Let me get to the actual topic of the thread. I think USSR was the greatest contributor to the Allies common victory. Maybe even USSR’s contribution was larger than contribution of all other Allies combined. Please note it does not mean that USSR would win alone without other western Allies, as it is often put in the forums.

The number of the Allied nations was different and was growing during the course of the war. The final number was 55 countries. And if USSR contributed at least half it would be considered the single most important factor, would not it? In reality the USSR contribution was larger IMHO. It can not be measured with reasonable degree of certainty, but lets try investigating a little.

Let’s bring different possible criteria by which one could judge:

[ol]
[li]Life losses. [/li]USSR lost largest number of lives by number and by percentage:
[ul]
[li]soldiers: 10.7 mil, which is 65% of all Allied military losses[/li][li]civilians: 23.2 mil, which 37.1% of all civilian deaths in WW2.[/li][/ul]The numbers are from Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties ) and may not be precise but for our discussion here they are good enough, IMHO.
.
[li]German divisions on the Russian front.[/li]


_____East front___West front___Other
1942:  179(79%)    38(17%)     9(4%)
1943:  187(73%)    50(20%)    19(7%)
1944:  165(60%)    86(31%)    23(9%)

It is clearly seen where is the lion share of the forces.
.
[li]German soldiers killed on the Russian front.[/li]Depending on a source, 75%-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front it follows that the efforts of the western allies accounted for only 20%-25%.
[/ol]

These are the 3 criteria I could think of. In all of them USSR is the leader by large margin.

The only remaining issue is lend-lease. This is IMHO the most difficult one. How big the impact of the lend-lease program had on USSR’s ability to wage the war? USSR received goods for app. 10 billion dollars out of total 50 billion provided (30 billions went to UK) by USA. According to my limited sources the USSR BNP during the war accumulated for app. 95 billion USD. Thus lend-lease help received by USSR accounted for app. 10,5% of it’s own capacity. The goods started coming seriously in from summer 1942 and could really be felt from 1943.

Needless to say it was very valuable help and saved many thousands of lives. Canned pork and Willis trucks are one of the memories of the people who went trough the war. It also saved many American and British lives too, if you know what I mean. Even if one could convert those 10,5% lend-lease help into 10,5% more German casualties on western front, it would still not tilt the weight.

Lend-lease probably deserves to have a separate thread. Any one volunteer to open it? :slight_smile:

These are my thoughts. Please comment and criticise.

#2

If a countries own actions are entirely responsible for its defeat should we give it credit for the victory of its enemies?

#3

I know where you are heading. :slight_smile: And my answer is “NO”.

There are so many reasons for this statement to be irrelevant for this particular discussion. For example:
[ul]
[li]If you are stupid and make mistakes all the time, then do not start a war. But if you do, then live with the consequences. My own mistakes do not necessary mean that my enemy is weak and incapable.[/li][li]Normally Hitler is blamed for all the German mistakes. And of course the survived Generals are the ones blaming everything on Hitler. But lets say he was stupid, then why should be much more stupid on the East and wise on the West. If he was equally stupid on both fronts, then there is no difference.[/li][li]I believe German mistakes were greatly matched by mistakes made by Soviet Army. Can we say they cancelled each other?[/li][li]Can we reverse the statement and say that all of the mistakes of RKKA should bee vied to it’s advantage?[/li][li]As a child, have you ever played football with other kids on the block? If one team suck at the game, since when it became an excuse for loosing the match? Ever heard the loosing team players complaining: “Your victory does not count, because everyone knows that we suck at football and loose ball all the time!” [/li][li]Do not go to olympics and shout: “Common, your victories don’t count, because you actually trained and prepared for the competition!”. Sound lame, does not it?[/li]
[/ul]

#4

The USSR was an ally of the reich and provided materials to aid in its war effort. The reich had enough enemies as it is and had nothing to gain by turning on one of its only friends.

#5

Well, USSR was not an ally to Germany, even though it was cooperating big time.
The reich had enough enemies, none of which were seriously doing anything against Germany (during the “phony war” and after the fall of France). The scale of the actions in Africa was miniscular and was not the prime goal for Germans (just think how many divisions they had in total and how many actually used in Africa and you will see).

But why are we talking about it in this thread?
It is absolutelly irrelevant in here!

#6

Right like the USA supplied oil and materials for the Japane till the Perl-Harbor ( i/e/ helped them to capture the China) :wink:
That’s true the soviet-german cooperation bring the profit for both sides: germans got the oil and materials, USSR got the war technologies and equipment for new plants.

#7

The USSR did inflict more casualties than the other nations and suffered heavier military casualties itself. You could say its contribution was the greatest.

#8

Well Egorka i have to say this is very close to the true.
The lion part infantry and tanks were lost by Germany in the EAST, there is no any doubts.
But we should not forget about fleet battels. The Britain had fought with German fleet in 1939-41and Later with USA they hotly sunked the U-boats. They crushed about 80% of germans NAVAL.
The airforce loses of Germany in the East and in the West i think roughly the equal.

As for your thread question “Which country contributed most to the Allies Victory” - i think this is rather rhetorical question. Everyone could find its own answer - in which he would sure to be the true.

Cheers.

#9

I think you may be underestimating the effect of lend-lease by viewing it in purely cash terms. One of the major benefits it had for the Soviet Union was that they could use lend-lease to plug gaps in their industrial capacity, or to supplant inefficient parts of their own production. Rather a good essay on the subject can be found here: http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm2.showMessage?topicID=82.topic

The interesting conclusion there is that by the end of 1942 - i.e. before lend-lease really got into it’s stride, and in the teeth of the fiercest German defences around Norway - the effect on the Soviet economy was to increase the size of the army by 1.8 million men. Later in the war this effect will have become even more pronounced.
The question this raises of course is how many of these men were “contributed” by the Soviets, and how many by the US? It isn’t really a question that has an answer, and one of the reasons I think that trying to come up with such answers is counterproductive. Coalition warfare doesn’t work like that.

#10

I still think that if a countries own actions destroy its chances of victory it should get some credit for its own downfall. Nobody has managed to explain how attacking one’s allies is productive.

#11

Thank you very much! :slight_smile: That is all I wanted to here.
Long live the friendship between all Cojimars and Egorkas in the World! Together we can make this World a better place.

#12

[QUOTE=Chevan;]Well Egorka i have to say this is very close to the true.
The lion part infantry and tanks were lost by Germany in the EAST, there is no any doubts.
But we should not forget about fleet battels. The Britain had fought with German fleet in 1939-41and Later with USA they hotly sunked the U-boats. They crushed about 80% of germans NAVAL.
The airforce loses of Germany in the East and in the West i think roughly the equal.

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

Chevan,

Of course most of the German naval and roughly half of aircraft losses were due to Western Allies. No dispute about it. Again I do not think that USSR would have survived if UK and Germany, for example, made a deal in 1940. This would have ment that whole Europe would crush in to the USSR (Though even without UK it almost the might of whole Europe combined). So I do not think we would win alone, hence the Victory is our common Victory, not just ours or theirs. I am just trying to find the escense of what happened.

You know perfectly your self that both sides deminished the effort of the other side. But since the Western Allies contribution was 1/3 or less their history “corrections” were worse in nature. But again both sides were not completely honest on this topic during last 60 years.

Regarding the German naval losses I think that its destruction was important in the sence that it prevented Englands fall, but it had lesser impact on the actuall defeat of the Germany on land. Unlike UK, Germany did not have to keep connection to it’s colonies by sea routes and therefore could not be blockaded by the navy forces IF they had defeated USSR. With all the soviet resources Germany would not have carred about the sea blocade. Therfore IMHO the destruction of the German Navy was less important, compared to the destruction of it’s land forces.

As for your thread question “Which country contributed most to the Allies Victory” - i think this is rather rhetorical question. Everyone could find its own answer - in which he would sure to be the true.

I am actually disagree on this one. Rethorical or not depends on the margine. I am not saying it is a strate forward topic, but with the split 70%/30% it is very obvious to me. And remember that 70% is only one country, where is 30% is many countries. Even if it WAS 60/40 it would be rather obvious.

By the way, think what would others say if the ratio was not in USSR’s favor! Chevan, you and me should be able to imagine it very well.

It is not about sitting with a ruler and arguing who has a longer one (if you know what I mean). In fact I beleive that the enormous effort that my coutry’s people made was not it’s free choise. It was responce to the dramatic situation that was building arround. My country abviously did not want this burdon and would avoid the war if could (think of Molotov-Ribentrop Pact). But with all it’s problems and imperfections the 2/3 thirds of the victory was created. And that is what I want to be acknowledged.

Long live the friendship between all people in the world! :slight_smile:

#13

Egorka i have no principal objection at your point.
Moreover i excellent understand you.
I just don’t wish that our UK/US friends will consider this thread as extoling the USSR . So i feel duty to mention about their importaint contribution to the Victory.

Well i think this is rigght. The Britain led the defence war in Atlantic for its surviving. It was more importaint for the UK than for the Germany.

I am actually disagree on this one. Rethorical or not depends on the margine. I am not saying it is a strate forward topic, but with the split 70%/30% it is very obvious to me. And remember that 70% is only one country, where is 30% is many countries. Even if it WAS 60/40 it would be rather obvious.

For me it all OK mate.

By the way, think what would others say if the ratio was not in USSR’s favor! Chevan, you and me should be able to imagine it very well.

No problem mate we all know that the ratio was in USSR’s favore.

It is not about sitting with a ruler and arguing who has a longer one (if you know what I mean).

:slight_smile: :wink:

In fact I beleive that the enormous effort that my coutry’s people made was not it’s free choise. It was responce to the dramatic situation that was building arround. My country abviously did not want this burdon and would avoid the war if could (think of Molotov-Ribentrop Pact). But with all it’s problems and imperfections the 2/3 thirds of the victory was created. And that is what I want to be acknowledged.

Yea the USSR faced the whole fascist Europe in 1941. And this was absolutly dramatic situation when after quick downfall of France there were not power in continent who could stope the Germany. In fact the overal war power of Poland, France and Britain was equal or more that the German’s in the 1939. They could stop them. Why they did not?
Most of another states prefered to coloborate with Gemany or be the neitral. The dramatism of situation on my mind was that when we coudl destroy the Nazism in the begining in 1938 the Western Europe prefered to ignore the threat of Hitler. They naive dreamed about “pacification” of Germany. That’s really funny. The open politic of henocide of some ethnic groups were the state policy of Nazy Germany. And there were no doubts that they will not stop.

Cheers.

#14

Well your source assert

Given that Soviet military doctrine was to mass available forces at the point of attack for their “deep operations”, it quite likely that the 1.8 million man reduction (or higher if I did a more detailed less conservative analysis) would have eliminated the ability for the Red Army to conduct any offensive operations in 1942. It is therefore quite likely that the encirclement of Stalingrad or the attempted offensive, Operation Mars, would not have been possible.

I haven’t to agree pdf. The article is just specular calculation, very interesting thou
Look to the one obvious thing.
As it wrote the Edward Reilly Stettinius in his book:“Lend-Lease: Weapon For Victory”
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/usa/stettinius/
The total Lend-lise figur was in dollars
since 11 march 1941 to 21 aug of 1945 - 46 billion dollars
Britain received the materials, wearpon - 30,2 Billion (or 65%)
USSR - 9.8 billion dollars(or 21%)
France - 1.4 billion. 3%
China - 631 million
…
So claiming the total contribution for the Red Army by Lend-lise as equal to 1.8 soldiers this is wrong IMO.
Becouse in this way of thinking we could to conclude that the Britain shoudl obtain the lend-lise help is equal the 6 mln army.( or the 4 million of soldiers + 1000 of transport ships for the landing operation).
This Britan armade could easy crashed the Germans in the France without US troops. But as we know its didn’t happend;)
So i will not too trust the simular point to transform the lend-lise directly to the quantity of soldiers. This is not good way IMO.
Nevertheless thanks pdf for the link.

Cheers.

#15

I just don’t wish that our UK/US friends will consider this thread as extoling the USSR.

Absolutely! It was not my goal to elevate my country above others.
And I understood your intentions.

#16

pdf27,

I will read the article tonight, looking forward. My comments later.

I looked in cash terms becasue it is one of the ways to access the situation. Not the best one, for sure. But this method used very often becasue money, as you know, is the universal equivalent of goods and services. It is considered to be one of the great inventions in the history of human civilization, because it allowed to trade without actually phisically moving ships and other items previously used to enable trade. Just imagine putting a ship in your pocket! :mrgreen:

So money is just one of the ways.

I surely agree that lend lease was used to “plug gaps”. I guess that USSR primarely asked for what it could not produce itself.

I do not think that I underestimate the lend-lease help. If you take 10% I mention and say that without help Soviet losses would be 10% higher (a rough estimation, but it is OK in here), then we could say it saved almost 1 milion lives. That is very big impact! And I am aware of it!

#17

[QUOTE=pdf27;]I think you may be underestimating the effect of lend-lease by viewing it in purely cash terms. One of the major benefits it had for the Soviet Union was that they could use lend-lease to plug gaps in their industrial capacity, or to supplant inefficient parts of their own production. Rather a good essay on the subject can be found here: http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm2.showMessage?topicID=82.topic

The interesting conclusion there is that by the end of 1942 - i.e. before lend-lease really got into it’s stride, and in the teeth of the fiercest German defences around Norway - the effect on the Soviet economy was to increase the size of the army by 1.8 million men. Later in the war this effect will have become even more pronounced.
The question this raises of course is how many of these men were “contributed” by the Soviets, and how many by the US? It isn’t really a question that has an answer, and one of the reasons I think that trying to come up with such answers is counterproductive. Coalition warfare doesn’t work like that.[/QUOTE]

Hi!

I have read the article. Interesting. Yet, I agree with Chevan, that it is too speculative… Here are my points.

First. I am not sure, but I think the author counted the lost (sunnk shipment - 27% of total) Lend-lease help and added it to the calculation. If it is so, then it is wrong. The lost shipment had no impact on the USSR. Of course if you one wants to see for how much USA provided help, then it is absolutely relevant.

Second. The article states USSR GNP including net imports. I quote: Net imports is the economic nomenclature for what became Lend Lease, the majority of which was from America. Note that Lend Lease represented a full 5% of the economy for the year 1942. This is wrong! It’s becasue not all the goods we got from USA were part of Lend-Lease, as it is erroneously stated in the article. I can not remember right now how much, but part of the goods was purchased for cool cash.

Third. As I understood the logic is this. USA gives A amount of goods, which USSR would take B number of people to produce.
Then take these people out of economy and move them into Army, so that he Red Army size increased by B number of soldiers.

The article clames that B = 1.8 million people. But this is not enough. You also have to arm those people, right? The article claims that Soviet economy was already stressed to the limit, and “that the indigenous Soviet Economy could only support the requirements of a 9.5 million man armed forces”.

But this means that 1.8 million extra soldiers would have to be armed and equiped only with the goods from Lend-Lease received in 1942! As I understand it was not possible to do. Hense the extra 1.8 million must have been equiped by both Soviet made and Lend-Lease arms. This means that the Soviet economy had still potential to support part of those one freed from economy by Lend-Lease.

N.B: Number of mobilised people in USSR from my sources:
First half 1942 - app. 3.6 million;
Second half 1942 - app. 1.5 million.

I am not so good at this one… but I hope you get my idea…

#18

This is a poor question. Who can say who contributed the most? If the US had not entered the war, but had continued to supply materiel above and beyond anything other particapating nations could have, would they have made the greatest contribution? Does a soldier who sacirifices his/her life on the battlefield make a greater or lesser contribution than the general that planned, won and survived the battle. The loss of an individual soldier’s life is a great contribution. Where and how does one begin to measure contribution. Does one merely measure the tangible, or does one include the intangible? This is not a good way of demonstrating or explaining the role of individual nations during WW2. The question has no answer. To try to reconcile one nation’s contribution against another’s, or others, is foolhardy.

#19

I have to agree with Bravo. This is wrong way to compare the materials supplies and lives of of perished soldiers

#20

Of course! Absolutely!

But do you, 32Bravo and Chevan, think that the queation “Which country contributed most to the Allied Victory?” implies comparisson of material goods and lifes? Not in my opinion. That is actually my point: it is always easier to make canned pork and trucks and send to others to fight. Though I agree that this help can have great impact and save many lifes. Which in it’s turn means that it is moraly low to deminish and deny the impact of the help received.

And I think that the most significant contribution the Western Allies made was when they fought and died…

God bless the souls of the fallen!