Who did the most to win WW1 and WW2

I say the British commonwealth.

 

I say this is a silly discussion. Your assertion also has many holes.

 

One of the shortest anecdotes ever. I love British humor.

 

The germans

 

WW1: French

WW2: Soviets

I know more about WW2 than WW1 though and that's just my opinion.

 

I would almost say the Soviets, except for the treachery they committed against the West with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

They certainly suffered the most and I understand is the main reason(the other is excess alcohol consumption and the depravities suffered under the Soviet system), their population is declining,

 

WW2 was the Soviets. They lost between 20 and 27 million dead (probably more towards the 27 million side), took on 2/3 of the Wehrmacht and SS and inflicted something like 80% of Germany's casualties.

 

I was referrng to WW11 not WW1, although the Russians suffered in both.

 

Since when does that determine who did the most fighting?

And since Germany is a Western nation.................

 

You win.
/10 char

 

That is not a joke

 

Not for the right reasons but germans did put an effort.

 

Meh, I'm sure the French and the Germans paid the highest price in ww1, and the soviets and the Germans pretty much decimated each other in ww2.

 

I suggest you look up the Maginot line in WWI which might cause you to change your view on the French doing most to win.

 

USSR by far.

 

I would say North America (Canada, USA) put out a good effort. Canada did a lot , and the French government recognized that in the war memorial.

 

My grandfathers father was in france ( 1. Weltkrieg ) but the france army wasn't very good.


Ny grandfather was in Russia. The russia army also wasn't good. But the germans thought the defeat russia until the winter begins but that was a fail. In winter thez had the wrong clothe ....

 

This question is a non-starter. How do you measure this? Who sent the most troops? Who spent the most money? Who had the most deaths? There is no real measure, is there.

Take my country, South Africa. We joined WWI against the Germans and with the Brits a mere decade after a losing a terrible war against the Brits in which the Germans aided us, leading to distrust and political uncertainty, and a mini civil war. Yet we sent a major part of our male population to fight, but due to our small population, this does not come close to the numbers a country like the USA would have sent.

And the same in WWII. Parliament voted by one vote to join the war leading to a lot of anger, and the rise of the National Party, which then defeated Field marshal Jan Smuts just after the war based on our participation in the war, directly leading to institutional Apartheid, and this is still harming my country. Again we send a large part of our population to participate, as well as a lot of our resources.

Does our contribution compare with that of Russia. Not in numbers and money, but in price we paid for it? Maybe. So I say again, this question is impossible to answer.

AH

 

How the British commonwealth fought in every theatre of the war, doing the most in north Africa and the middle east, Indochina and Burma, the Atlantic and India oceans, in WW2. WW1 Britain paid for the Russians weapons, stopped the German fleet and have over 4 million men in France more than the French had, plus there is the Ottoman empire. Britain did the most in WW1 by a long way and the 2nd most in WW2 after the USA, The USSR is over rated.

 

Unfortunately, they didn't recognise it on the battlefield.

 

I don't know how you determine 'who did the emost fighting? But the question should be:

Who suffered the most casualties on a per capita basis/ Anyone know the answer to that?

It's probably still the Russians, but that result is still tempered by Stalin's treachery against the West with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. And don't forget to count the thousands of allied servicemen drowned in the icy waters of the Baltic Sea by German U boats, whilst ferrying badly needed food and ammunition to the Soviets.

 

I'm sorry, having read history I know that the "West" allowed Hitler to do whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) he wanted up until Poland?

"What's that Herr Hitler? You want to invade another country? Ok, but no more after that, pretty please?"

 

In the final year of the war, Australia, while consisting of about 5% of Commonwealth forces, captured 25% of the land the commonwealth took, took 1/4 of the prisoners and captured 25% of weapons, etc taken. Go Australia!

 

The concept of who did the "most" is silly. You need to be more specific. However, I think you're crazy to downplay the USSR's contribution to WW2; that country did the lionshare of fighting and dying on the Eastern Front. Britain could never have fielded the massive mechanized armies and strategic depth that the Soviets used to overcome the Germans.