【Vox 20140616】是谁打败了希特勒：美国？苏联？

灰仔

【中文标题】70年的努力，成功地使人民相信是美国而非前苏联打败了希特
【原文标题】The successful 70-year campaign to convince people the USA and not the USSR beat Hitler
【登载媒体】Vox
【原文作者】Dylan Matthews
【原文链接】http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not
【正文】

In 1945, most French people thought that the Soviet Union deserved the most credit for Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II — even though the Soviets didn't play much of a role in France's liberation, relative to the US and Britain. By 1995 and 2004, however, the French had changed their minds, and were crediting the US as the biggest contributor to victory in Europe:
在1945年，大多数法国人认为苏联是（盟军）在二战中打败希特勒的主要力量，尽管与美国和英国相比，苏联人没有为法国解放做出多少贡献。到了1995年和2004年间，法国人改变了他们的想法，法国人认为，在欧洲美国是二战胜利的主要因素：

The French blogger Olivier Berruyer put together the above chart using survey data from the French Institute of Public Opinion.
法国人Olivier Berruyer利用法国公共舆论研究中心的调查数据将以上的图表汇总起来，

Assessing the "biggest contributor to victory" in a rigorous way is exceptionally difficult. They tend to devolve into comparisons of counterfactuals, and the truth is that nobody has any strong idea how the war would have turned out absent US involvement, or if the German-Soviet non-aggression pact had held, etc. But the case is pretty strong that the Soviet Union's successful resistance of Nazi invasion and subsequent reclamation of Eastern Europe was the most important of many crucial factors in defeating Germany. As historian Richard Overy explains in his book Why the Allies Won:
用一种严密的方式就“二战胜利最重要的贡献者”做出评估的困难是史无前例的。他们倾向于转向一种反事实的对比，结果，真相就是没有人能够想象如果美国没有参战结果会如何，或者是，如果德国和苏联的互补侵犯条约没有被违反会如何，等等。但是，事实是，苏联成功地抵抗住了纳粹的进攻，并且随之收复了东欧，是所有打败德国原因中最重要的一个。正如历史学家Richard Overy在他的书《为什么盟国会胜利》中解释的：

If the defeat of the German army was the central strategic task, the main theatre for it was the conflict on the eastern front. The German army was first weakened there, and then driven back, before the main weight of Allied ground and air forces was brought to bear in 1944. Over four hundred German and Soviet divisions fought along a front of more than 1,000 miles. Soviet forces destroyed or disabled an estimated 607 Axis divisions between 1941 and 1945. The scale and geographical extent of the eastern front dwarfed all earlier warfare. Losses on both sides far exceeded losses anywhere else in the military contest. The war in the east was fought with a ferocity almost unknown on the western fronts. The battles at Stalingrad and Kursk, which broke the back of the German army, drew from the soldiers of both sides the last ounces of physical and moral energy.
如果说德军的战败是中心战略目的，那么这场战争的“主战场”在于东欧前线。在盟军的陆军和空军在1944年加入战斗之前，德军在东欧首次被重创，并撤退回德国。超过四百个师的德军和苏联军队在长达1000英里的占线上激斗。苏联军队摧毁或者瓦解了估计有607个轴心国的部队。这场在东欧的战争的激烈程度西欧前线几乎一无所知。在斯大林格列和库尔斯克的战役切断了德军的后方补给线，消耗了双方战士在体力上和道德上的最后一点力量。

Of course, aerial warfare was also crucial, and there the US and UK played a larger role. And both countries supported the Soviet Union's ground fight through the Lend-Lease program. Britain's fight in Africa also deserves some credit; while the losses incurred by Germans there were nowhere near as large as those suffered on the Eastern Front, the second battle in El Alamein, Egypt was hugely important in preventing the Nazis from seizing much of the Middle East. That the Soviet contribution was the most important by no means suggests that the American and British contributions were insignificant or inessential.
当然，空中战斗也是很重要的，在空中美国和英国扮演了更重要的角色。通过《租借合约》，英国和美国都给予苏联的陆军支持。在非洲英国的空军也十分重要；但是，在德国的所有失败中，没有哪一个与在东欧的失败能够相提并论，在埃及阿拉曼的第二战场对于阻止德国再次占领中东至关重要。在那里，与苏联的重要贡献相比，美国和英国的贡献并不是那么地关键和必不可少。

Another possible way to compare would be to look at how many German soldiers were killed by the Soviets as opposed to the US or UK. But that's a bit of a difficult comparison to make. As Michael Charles explains, the Soviets killed more Germans than the US or UK, but the US and UK captured more, so some of the Soviets' edge is probably attributable to the Red Army just being more brutal than the American or British Armies. Then again, a lot of those captured troops came at the end of the war, when it was more or less random which army German units wound up surrendering to, and didn't really reflect the relative effectiveness of the Allied armies. Overall, Charles' analysis suggests that the Soviets took more German troops out of commission than the other Allies did, but the numbers are necessarily rough.
另一个方法是，比较苏联、美国、英国歼灭德军的人数。这种比较有些困难。正如Michael Charles解释的，苏联歼灭了比美国和英国多的德军，但是美国和英国俘获的更多，所以苏联的优势可能在于，与美国和英国相比苏联更加残忍。但是，在这些战俘中，有许多是在二战结束时，或多或少随机向盟军投降的，这和哪一国的盟军更起作用没有多大关系。大体上看，Charles的分析揭示了，苏联制服了比其它盟国更多的德军，但在数量上不确切。

If you're looking at the human toll of the war, the Soviets clearly incurred the heaviest losses. Tony Judt's Postwar cites estimates suggesting there were 8.6 million Soviet military deaths and over 16 million civilian deaths in World War II. The US lost 418,500 military and civilians in all theaters of the war — still a staggering figure, but not on the same scale as Soviet losses. Of course, it's possible — and highly preferable! — to contribute significantly to the war effort without losing many lives in the process, so casualty figures aren't necessarily a good measure of countries' relative contributions. But it's worth reflecting on just how massive the sacrifice the Soviet people made was.
如果从战争导致的人力损失方面看，苏联毫无疑问地承受了最大的损失。Tony Judt 在战后语录中估计，大概有八百六十万苏联军战死，超过一百六十万平民在二战中死亡。美国在所有战场损失了418,500名士兵和平民，这虽然是一个巨大的数字，但是与苏联损失的程度无法相比。当然，如果可能，在尽量少牺牲的情况下为战争做出更大的贡献是最可取的，所以伤亡人数数据并不是一个衡量哪个国家贡献最大的合适标准。但是，伤亡数据还是可以显示出苏联人民为了二战胜利做出的巨大牺牲。

两怀

是希特勒自己打败自己的，两面作战，反犹反共，没有占领英国，是希特勒失败的原因，

吕枫叶

正义的战争

thisisme

没有单独一方能打败德国。

如果一定要排名，日本应该排第一。事实上是日本令到德国被打败的。如果日本不把美国拖下水，德国不会被打败。如果美国不向苏联提供物资援助，德国还会占上风。

灰仔

这个争论背后的话语转变也很有意思，为什么苏联对二战的贡献渐渐被欧洲人遗忘呢？而美国对二战的贡献却逐渐被夸大？ 不晓得在东亚有没有相似的研究。。。

重启网格

美国就是从峨眉山下来摘桃子的。

他跟日本做钢铁石油生意，果然是犹太人控制的国家。

下个月

楼主辛苦了

ft1255576

其实我不会告诉你是意呆利战胜了德国！

liuyanjingshun

一战二战都有病，死那么多人，地盘还是那些地盘。
有那么多战士，集中起来，瓜分世界，把非洲中东印度和南亚可以全部扫平。
费不了多大功夫。