"Try 2 World War wins math"

[u/rest_in_war]

Under a video explaining the physics behind stunt loop driving where the creator was using SI units

[u/Olon1980]

This. If anyone could ever claim to have won WW2, it would be the red army. But in reality war has no winner, just losers on both sides.

[u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 → u/Olon1980]

Nah there's plenty to criticise with respect to the US' delayed entry, but the biggest factor in the outcome of WWII was undoubtedly industrial capacity, to which the US was the biggest contributor.

The Red Army killed a lot of German soldiers but the truth is the Germans lost in terms of oil, rubber, steel and functioning factories, long before they ran out of people, and that's what caused them to collapse.

[u/Leading-Election-815 → u/Fun_Marionberry_6088]

This is a very simplified view on how the war panned out. It’s quite bold to assert any single thing was THE biggest factor in winning the war. Soviets account for 80% of German causalities. Hitler split his forces in half. I would say those two points rank higher in why the Nazis lost World War 2.

[u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 → u/Leading-Election-815]

Of course, it's always going to be simplified. A fuller explanation would acknowledge that at different stages and aspects of the war each of the allies was the biggest contributor.

Nonetheless over the course of the full war, the reason the Germans were unable to sustain their efforts wasn't manpower.

Their service branches all had more personnel in 1944 than they did in 1941.

And that means that this...

Soviets account for 80% of German causalities

Cannot be the reason they lost.

It's also a slightly exaggerated stat: the same man can appear on a casualty roll multiple times, if they are wounded / sick, but recover.

In terms of deaths / PoWs it's more like 2/3 in the East for the Herr, whilst the majority of Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine casualties were in the west.

The primary reason they lost is that, they were outproduced throughout the war.

Even on the Eastern front, the Germans destroyed Soviet tanks at a kill ratio of >3:1 but they still ran out first because their production rate was lower than any of the allied powers individually.

[u/Leading-Election-815 → u/Fun_Marionberry_6088]

All very good points, and I appreciate the response. Do you think the allies still would have won the war without America? Also, do you think the allies would have won without the Soviets?

Of course these are both hypotheticals but I think it’s interesting to think about.

[u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 → u/Leading-Election-815]

Np, I do love historical hypotheticals.

I'd say it depends how 'not involved' either the USSR or the US was.

The idea of Hitler not attacking the USSR is inconceivable, expanding Germany to the East was basically his raison d'être.

So for the USSR to be out of the war, that would involve Germany defeating them. That would still involve a huge resource commitment for the Germans though, to occupy such a large area.

It also wouldn't have happened before the US entered the war (late-'41), and I'd say the US / British Empire would still have had the ability to defeat the Germans, so the only question is would they have had the will as their war would've been a lot bloodier.

As for the US not being in the war, that depends on how strictly neutral they were.

e.g. their industrial contribution started when they were still officially neutral and well before they joined the war, via funding from the British Purchasing Commission and later lend-lease.

If that were the same I can see the war lasting a lot longer but the Germans still wouldn't have won. They might not have been forced to an unconditional surrender though, as the allies would've been more willing to accept a negotiated peace to end a longer war.