With Europe set to celebrate Victory Day over the Nazis tomorrow, it’s important to remember that South Africa’s role in World War II was meaningful, but not decisive.
Anecdotal testimonies from black veterans remind us that Pretoria’s position was that of a coalition partner – present, yet not central.
The war remained a European conflict, with America’s entry tipping the balance. But South Africa’s contribution underscored the global reach of a struggle that left Europe profoundly depleted by the Nazi advance.
By the time Germany attacked the Soviet Union, much of Europe was already under Berlin’s control. France capitulated within weeks, the Vichy regime cooperated with the occupiers, and governments in Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium were integrated into the German framework.
Industry in Bohemia and Moravia was absorbed into the German war economy, while Denmark pursued accommodation. Across occupied and semi-independent states, volunteer units were dispatched to the Eastern front.
Finland fought alongside Germany, while Hungary, Romania, and Italy committed substantial forces. Even neutral Spain sent the Blue Division.
The Eastern front thus became the decisive theatre, drawing in not only German forces, but also their allies. It was there that Germany sustained the bulk of its losses.
By various estimates, 70%- 80% of Wehrmacht casualties occurred in combat against the Red Army. The battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk deprived Berlin of the strategic initiative and marked the turning point of the war, culminating in the capture of Berlin.
The price of victory was staggering: the Soviet Union lost more than 20 million people, with some estimates at 27 million. By comparison, the US lost about 420 000, the UK around 450 000, Finland 90 000, and Poland five to six million, most of them civilians.
These figures illustrate the scale and intensity of the Eastern front, without diminishing other nations’ suffering. A key question is rarely asked: what would have happened had the Soviet Union failed to hold?
The question matters because today, former allies confront each other as rivals, forgetting that they once fought side-by-side. China, the US and Britain, for instance, allied to defeat Imperial Japan in the ’40s, yet today, Washington views Beijing as an adversary in economic and geopolitical terms.
On the same vein, if in 1941-42 the Eastern front had collapsed and the Soviet industrial base fallen under German control, the balance of power would have shifted dramatically. The Wehrmacht would have gained vast resources, labour and territory, prolonging the war on terms favourable to Berlin.
Under such conditions, Britain’s survival and the feasibility of a large-scale Allied landing in Europe would have been highly uncertain. Even America, with its formidable economy, would have faced the challenge of fighting a much stronger adversary across the Atlantic without a major land-based ally tying down German forces.
The Western allies’ contribution – the air campaign and opening of a second front – was important, but complemented a strategic turning point already shaped by Soviet resilience. Without the Red Army’s endurance and counter-offensive, the outcome of the war in Europe would have been fundamentally different.
One could argue that Adolf Hitler might have taken over Europe, perhaps even the world. US President Donald Trump, in his 2024 campaign, commended the Red Army for its defeat of the Nazis.
For South Africa, understanding the balance of contributions in the World War II has practical relevance. It demonstrates that the outcome of large-scale conflicts is determined not by declarations of coalition solidarity, but by a principal actor’s capacity to absorb the main blow and alter the strategic trajectory.
SA’s role was meaningful but not decisive; the war’s fate was sealed above all on the Eastern front, where the Soviet Union bore the brunt and turned the tide.
