Question:
Did the Soviet Union contribute far more to defeating Nazi Germany than America?
2014-12-06 01:24:53 UTC
I read somewhere that America and Britain faced a far smaller number of German divisions compared to the Soviets.

Just guessing from memory but it said the Soviets faced at its peak over 200 German divisions in the East, whereas the Americans and Brits faced at most about 30 divisions in the West.

And yes, I understand that American and British bombers were decimating factories and oil facilities inside Germany itself which had a massive effect.

But based purely on enemy strength fought on land, it was clearly the Soviets who won the European theater of WW2.

What do you think? Is the information I referenced at the beginning accurate?
Ten answers:
wichitaor1
2014-12-06 21:49:09 UTC
The facts are not quite that simple.



True, the Soviets faced more German and Axis troops than were present on the Western Front. But such "facts" often ignore the number of German divisions fighting Western Allied forces in Italy and the Mediterranean. Many of the "Soviets defeated Germany alone" neglect to notice the huge amount of supplies from United States and England to bolstered the Red Army. One prominent historian wrote that the key to the Red Army defeating Nazi Germany was not the T-34 tank or the Sturmovik attack plane, but the American built Studebaker trucks that kept the Red Army moving.



PS. Please do not forget that the Soviet Union did not enter the war against Japan until after the first atomic bomb was used.
Tim D
2014-12-06 03:28:45 UTC
The USSR certainly contributed more to defeating the reich than the US. In May-June 1944 the allies faced 59 divisions in France and another 11 or so in Italy, but even after D-Day the Germans deployed about 60% of their forces on the eastern front. Roughly 70% of all German troops lost in WWII fell or were captured fighting the soviets.

The western allies did heavily bomb the reich but this had relatively little effect on the German war effort. Even after more than a year of heavy bombing, Nazi war output peaked in July 1944. Even after massive bombing of the German railway system the reich was able to assemble big forces for the battle of the bulge. Type XXI U-boat production was slowed but not stopped, and the Germans produced many V-rockets and jets late in the war.

Another point is that the US had British allies in the west whereas there was no major power directly assisting the soviets in the east. But the soviets still exacted a much higher toll.
Louie O
2014-12-06 11:53:30 UTC
Yes, but America and Britain weren't invaded by Nazi armies either. And if not for America and Britain, and others, the Soviet Union would of faced a lot more Nazi divisions.



But the Soviets also contributed to the advancement of WW2 and the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazis. If Stalin wouldn't of made a deal with Hitler in 1939, and backed the Allies instead, Hitler would of been reluctant to invade Poland and even start WW2.
Gone fishin'
2014-12-06 07:40:43 UTC
No, the USSR was supplied with weapons by the U.S. and wouldn't have been able to hold on against the Nazis without it. The U.S. manufactured more war gods than every other country in the war combined and that more than anything else is what defeated the Nazis. The truth is the Soviets had it much easier on June 6, 1944 when they launched an invasion from the east, if their invasion had been unsuccessful they had plenty of land to fall back on, the rest of the Allies had only the English Channel behind them. You have to remember that Hitler was far less concerned about countries in Eastern Europe being freed as he was France, the simple reality is countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia weren't much of a factor and the Germans offered far less resistance trying to hold them as they did in trying to hold France. Hitler also knew that if it ever came down to it he probably could have made a deal with Stalin since Stalin had been his ally at first.
Anthony S
2014-12-06 09:22:52 UTC
I would say yes they did. If you go by the number of lives they lost and the number of German Divisions they defeated versus the Western Allies, its not even close.



Of all countries the US likes to take credit for winning the war but it was a joint effort.



Ask yourself this question: would the Western Allies have taken as much losses as the Soviets, or would they just retreat/surrender?
Dylan
2014-12-06 01:30:00 UTC
Yes it is pretty accurate, the allied forces were fighting against smaller german forces than the soviet union. Hitler aimed to conquer the soviet union but they quickly ran out of food. Tge germans needed to fight the hard Russian winter and the Soviet unionbthat are specialised to figgt ib the snow. But on the other side the americans were busy with Japan but still the allied forces were fughting less german forc3s than tge soviet union and made slower progress to take over Berlin and kill hitler.
?
2014-12-06 07:16:05 UTC
In terms of men lost; America combined with Britain lag far behind the Soviet Union.



The Soviet Union may not have effectively used their men...but they offered them up to the meat grinder in unlimited numbers. Commanders were often given the choice of attack and succeed or be placed 'up against the nearest wall'!
2014-12-06 05:17:17 UTC
Yes in fact the US Military could have stayed Home and the Same result would have happened except No D Day the second front would have happened in 1943 from Italy



Stalin wanted the second front from 1942 but Eisenhower prolonged ww2 to punish the Germans he said so in a letter to his wife
?
2014-12-06 04:57:43 UTC
The Russians were engaged in what I would call a holding action. They didn't defeat the Germans but kept them occupied until the other allied nations were able to grab a foothold.
Who
2014-12-07 13:04:16 UTC
yes



(and for all the bombing carried out on germany - they finished the war with more planes+more thanks than they started with

It was lack of fuel that caused the problems- and the vast majority of that fuel came from the east

When the sources were overun by the russians they were left with synthetic fuel as their only supply, and that was nowhere near enough to fight a war

It was lack of fuel that caused them to lose the battle of the bulge

With enough fuel they could have reached antwerp and cut off the north armies from the south before the planes could come to the rescue)


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...