Who Was The MVP (Nation) of WW2

Who do you think was the most valuable, most effective player in the victory of WW2?

For myself, while disagreeing with their philosophy, have always admired the German military's unbelievable successes, especially when compared to the awesome competition it faced. I have also been an admirer of Japan, whose military forces managed to conquer a sixth of the total landmass of the world. These are astounding feats, especially given their time-frame. It also factors in to who was the MVP of the allied nations.

Without a doubt, the vote is split between the US, the SU, and the Brits. The Brit's is controversial, but one can't underestimate the value of defensive warfare as an effective method of erosion- intended or not- and their subsequent skirmishes at sea and around the colonies.

Given all you know of WW2, who do you think was MVP?

 

Australia

Showed how to defeat the Germans in North Africa at Tobruk.

First to throw a Japanese amphibious landing back into the sea at Milne Bay.

Not bad for a country which only had 7 million people.

 

Canada.

Because Canada is awesome.

The country had 9 million people and 600,000 in the armed forces, and the 4th or 6th largest navy in the world at the time.

Or something like that.

 

US. While the Russians bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe, and would have eventually defeated Germany with or without our help, US production capability took years off the war. In the Pacific, it was all about the US.

 

I'd have to say the Soviet Union because of what they did to Germany, which was the way to win the War, because beating Japan was just that, beating Japan. But beating Germany was also beating Japan. And the Soviets did a fine job of throwing bodies to the grinder and making the Germans do the same thing, which was liked by the US and the UK. I believe the US would naturally be second in balloting for MVP rights given what they contributed to the overall War Effort.

 

How is 'beating Germany also beating Japan'?

 

Switzerland, because they conducted a non-interventionist foreign policy even when they had ever incentive in the world not to - they showed that the liberal state can survive even the worst evils.

The rest of the story is just war. War is common

 

I agree with you about the Germans and Japanese, they did very well. Germany had some of the greatest generals in history. I would say they were about the same overall, they were fighting in different parts of the world, so it's quite hard to compare them.

On the allied side I would say in the smaller threatres like Indo-China or North Africa the British Commonwealth did the most, but the main threatres the Pacific and Eastern Front where most of the damage was done the US and the Soviet Union did the most. In terms of western Europe and the Atlantic I would say the British Commonwealth and the US did about the same taking into account the British Commonwealth was fighting longer. Overall I would say the US did the most to win the war, but it couldn't have done so without the Soviets or Commonwealth.

 

They had the 4th largest navy in the world. But so did Italy at the start of the war, so it's not really anything to shout about.

 

I count Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa as the British Commonwealth. Really India did more than people think in North Africa and Burma, they also lose more than 3,000,000 people, so I would say they did more than Australia or New Zealand, about as much as Canada.

 

Too obvious to disquss.

 

NO! The Soviets only had to do one thing fight a land and air war against the European Axis powers. You nearly lost! I didn't see any Soviet troops pilots in the battle of Britain or in North Africa unless they were helping the Germans.

 

Your objection is obviously too stupid and ignorant to discuss either. GB was sooooo unimportant during WW2. You didn't do anything meaningful to defeat Germans and Japs. Heck Aussies did more on the Pacific theater. Who cares about Battle of Britain. It was Soviet troops to took Berlin. It was Soviet flag over Reichstag.

 

Australia was part of the British Commonwealth, they were only in the war because of Britain, they count as Britain. Who cares about the Battle of Britain, well the world cares. Maybe if the Soviets hadn't been supporting the Germans and taking half of Poland it wouldn't have happened. If the British Commonwealth and free Europeans hadn't have drawn the battle of Britain and the British Isles had been take, the Soviet Union is defeated.

I have a great deal of respect from the Soviet forces in WW2 and what they went through to defeat the Axis on the eastern front, I just don't see how anyone can say the British Commonwealth, the US or Soviet Union did the most, they were all vital to the allied victory and without all three the war would not have been won.

 

Australia does not count as Britain. Australia was an independent country waging its own war. In fact, Australia went against the wishes of the UK during the war and basically told Churchill go go (*)(*)(*)(*) himself.

 

I could not agree with you more. Everybody played an important part no matter how large or small in winning the war.

To continue the NFL parlance. I would offer the following.

Soviet Union. The grinding offensive line that will drive a 100 yards down the field simply by over powering you

USA - The silky wide receiver who although doubled teamed still has speed and skill to catch the ball thrown by a quarter back willing to take the risk.

United Kingdom - Stoic in offense and defense. But outstanding in trick plays and bootleg actions

Australia - the punt returner who's stats in a game may not show any real influence, but occasionally capable of finessing the ball a 100 yards for a touch down.

Canada - Never displays any special attribute but never lets the team down. Give them an objective and they are like a starving dog with a bone

India - The true quiet achiever. There stats never reveal the true influence they have in a game but everyone agrees they'd rather be playing with them than against them

New Zealand - Classic clutch play specialist. Not big in numbers but eveyone remembers the plays they were in

 

Try adding USA to look more impressive.

Who told you that? If you studied "Battle of Britain was greatest ww2 event!!!1111" in school it doesn't mean everybody else think the same way.

Maybe If the Brits hadn't been supporting the Germans and letting them to occupy Chechoslovakia.....

Returning what was rightfully ours, please!

Who told you that again? Germany and her allies in Europe lost about 9 millions military dead during WW2. How much you were "drawing"?

Me too.

It doesn't take much time to open "Wikipedia. WW2 casualties" to find out who was most important.
Respecting your nation history is one thing but rewriting history to make yourself look more impressive is totally wrong, digusting and funny at the same time.
So less stupid claimes to avoid me trolling you, please!

 

So why on earth would Australia go to war with German? Because it was part of the British Commonwealth at the time a dominion of the UK. I don't know why you are so against the idea that Australia as part of the British Commonwealth played a key role in WW2.

 

Why would I add the US it wasn't part of the British Commonwealth.

I can say the same about the Battle of Moscow or Leningrad.

Well that's rather different we were trying to stop war, the Soviet Union was gaining from it. Trying to take out smaller countries, like Finland and getting defeated.

So Poland is part of the Soviet Union or Russia? In that case the UK should have taken back Ireland to get the western ports.

The difference is in the Battle of Britain the Germans outnumbered the defending force 2-1, if the Germans had that against the Soviets they would have won, the Soviets wouldn't have drawn they would have lost.

So wars are won by how many of your people the enemy kills? In that case China lost about the same number of people as the Soviet Union. Then you could also look at which country lost the greatest percentage of it's population, in that case Poland lost the most. I am not writing to make my country look more impressive, I am pointing out that the British Commonwealth played a vital part in the allied victory. My claim is none of the 3 major powers in WW2 did more than the other to win the war, how is that stupid or favouring my country?

 

First of all- using the football analogy again- Japan and Germany are excluded because they lost.

There is an argument to be made for either the U.S. or the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly the Soviet Union did the heavy lifting in Europe- they took on more of the European Axis than all of the rest of the Allies combined.

But- the United States was the dominent force in defeating Japan- AND the largest allied force after the Soviet Union in Europe.

Personally I am not certain why we need to be comparing the sizes of each nations dicks 50 years after the war happened.

 

And Australia was an indipendent country.

Sure you can.

Trying to make war happen between USSR ang Germany and finish the survivour later.

If we had an opportunity, why wouldn't we?

That was kinda victory. You know if "A" country accepts "B" country demands it is called "B" won, not the opposite.

It wasn't. Western Ukraine and Western Belarussia was.

Wasn't you doing that all time before 20th century?

And it was Air combat only. They have never landed ------> doesn't counts.

So how many planes exactly they lost over that epic-battle-that-was-most-important? There were about 100 000 destroyed German aircraft during WW2 btw.

By how many enemy divisions you have destroyed. USSR #1 at this one. Deal with that.

How many japanese divisions they've slaughter?

Same question. And Poland as military force stopped existing kinda 15 september 1939, when their government left their country.

U certanly do.

Not sure if "vital" part is true. USSR was vital. US of was vital on Pacific front. GB? No.

Your claim is stupid then.

 

Listen if I was trying to make the UK look impressive I would be making threat after threat about John Churchill, the Seven Years war, Nelson and WW1, but am a doing that no. Infact my threats are mainly about how small and not very powerful the current UK military is and how it needs to be improved, or about the poor perforance of the Royal Navy in WW1 compared to the Napoleonic wars.

My claim is not stupid, it is based on the British Commonwealth troops fighting everywhere in the war including the eastern front. Again without the British Commonwealth and Free Europeans drawing the battle of Britain and stopping the Germans from invading the Soviet union would have been defeated.

Well it's not really case, China did the most fighting against Japanese land forces and the British Commonwealth did the most to win the Battle of the Atlantic, they were vital theatres in the war.

I have no idea how many Japanese were killed in the second Sino-Japanese war.

I see your point about numbers of divisions killed. I should have stuck the losses as the RN navy lost a rather disgraceful number of ships in WW2.

The Germans lost 1,887 aircraft in the battle of Britain.

What do you mean air combat doesn't count.

The UK let the south bit of Ireland become independent in 1922.

Finland won the winter war, get over it. Hahaha.

No Australia was a dominion.

 

Yeah, you gust spoiling forum with "my dream Navy" aka "we are so cool that there is no trouble for us to build 5 supercarriers. happens allday evryday".

It is. Valuable? Yes. Equal? Totally no.

Yeah, USSR and USA destroyed about 100 000 German aircrafts, so there is no way for USSR to deal with that 1,887 aircraft. True story.

They were fighting each other mostly. Kinda civil war inspired by Japs.

Vital for who?

Then what we are talking about?

Thats cool, thanks for that. Seriously. Thank you for your tribute. But saying that it was somehow nearly as important as Kursk 1943 or Moscow 1941 or Stalingrad 1942-1943 or even Normandy 1944 with serious face is kinda stupid.

WW2 outcome was totally solved by ground forces. Those times advancing without air superiority as common.

"Hahaha" surely convinced me.So Germany won WW2 and France kicked British butt in Waterloo. True sory again.

"Dominions were autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty"
So the same story as British King/Queen is a "head of the state", which has no power or wish to rule in fact.

 

can't see giving an mvp award to an army that raped and pillaged it way thru germany. And they only got half of berlin.

 

Well, no doubt the Soviets played a major part in the defeat of the Third Reich...
however, there is a caveat...

The Reich committed about 50% of the Luftwaffe...their Air Force...to the Eastern Front, at the peak of fighting.
Once the allies began their bombing campaign, literally over Deutschland...the Reich pulled back the Luftwaffe from the Eastern front to about a 20% and re-committed to defending German skies...

The allies, or more specifically the British and American, played a larger role in decimating the Luftwaffe, and gaining air superiority, than did the Soviets. The American bomber wings in the 8th Air Force alone suffered heavy casualties during daylight bombing campaigns against the re-committed Luftwaffe. As many experts will tell you, WW2 was won by air power...and it was the British and American air power which took on and defeated the Luftwaffe to a greater extent than the Soviets.